Aquileo | What's Wrong with the Worldtag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2022://32022-11-25T19:12:13ZDispatches from the 10th CrusadeMovable Type 3.34Aquileo | How Many Will Be Saved? (Updated 4-3-2022)tag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2022://3.31912022-03-28T00:24:36Z2022-11-25T19:12:13ZWe have had little traffic here of late. This post is meant to get some commentary and useful debate. There have been any number of discussions online about whether the Bible tells us ALL will be saved, or tells us...Tony M.Here, and there, just for starters.) I don’t intent to repeat those discussions, because I think the issues have been beaten to death. Here, I am going to start with an assumption that not all are saved, i.e. that some are (or will be) damned to Hell for eternity. This assumption (for this discussion) is not up for debate here. That there are a great many supports for it in Scripture, in the Fathers and Doctors, and in official Church teaching, is worthwhile but not of conclusive effect for this post. The question I am introducing here is separate: HOW MANY will be damned? ]]> Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.” (Mt 7-13). But there are other quotes that suggest something less confidence in the conclusion that most will be damned. For instance,
Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. (Mt 5-26).
Which can be taken with the idea that once you HAVE paid back the last penny, you will be released from the punishment…i.e. that it will end. In spite of the latter verses that one might point to, the predominant view in the Church’s history is that many will be damned, and that “many” likely means “most” seems to be the common opinion. In the view of people who hold this, the second quote above can be “explained” by a reading that does not credit that it really means “everyone (or nearly everyone) will eventually pay off the whole debt”. Just for one example of such an explanation: a true penitential suffering that “works” to pay off the debt due to sin would have to be suffered with remorse and contrition, but the people in Hell have no remorse and contrition. Therefore, they cannot even begin to pay off the debt, and so their punishment (rightly) goes on and on without cease. There are, in Catholic literature, a wide range of stories of saints who were given visions of Hell, in which they (seemingly) observed that Hell was stuffed to the gills, with ever more pouring in, in a huge torrent. These are called “private revelation” which are not approved by the Church and are not required to be credited as true revelations by God. I have never heard of a private revelation in which a saint saw an opposed view of Hell, one virtually unpopulated. It seems that among the many teachers of old that announced the view that many or most would end up in Hell, apparently there were some teachers who either said, or at least gave the appearance of teaching also that they relished the fact that most would be damned, and that salvation would be reserved for the few, the elect, the proud… Well, maybe not the last adjective, "proud". I had a question, from an apostate Catholic who seemed to have had such teacher in his youth: Would you be disappointed if nearly all people end up saved? My response was simple: not disappointed at all, but pleasantly surprised better describes it. I would welcome it, but I don’t expect it. Yet I see room in the Gospel passages for a pretty large range as possible. For instance, just as the citation from Mt. 5 can be “explained away” from the conclusion that all or most will be saved, the citation from Mt. 7 can be explained away from the conclusion that most will be damned. For instance, one might point out that To be on the road to perdition is not the same as ending up at perdition. You can be a great sinner and still go to Heaven: it only takes turning around and heading in the other direction AT THE END to escape Hell – if done truly. The “Good Thief” on Jesus’s right hand at the Crucifixion shows us that. How much time you spend headed towards Hell does not determine, all by itself, whether you end up there. And so even if 95% of all people spend 95% of their whole lives in grave sin and headed to Hell, it would be possible for 90% of them to repent of their sinful lives and be saved. Also, “many” can be taken in absolute terms, rather than a percentage: If 1 million are damned, that is “many”. But if the total number of humans who have existed so far is 20 billion, that is a very small percentage. But my intuition tells me that this is a forlorn hope, mere wishful thinking, for 2 reasons. First: because people get set in their ways. By living a life of habitual, knowing rejection of God, the sinner makes it harder and harder to even conceive of making the opposite choice, much less be open to the idea, much less actually do it. As the decades pass, people get more, not less, set in their choices. It would take an extraordinary grace by God to punch through that shell of habitual rejection of Him, and we should not EXPECT that to be the norm. The second is this: the apparent meaning and purpose of Jesus’ several comments like “many there are who go in thereat” is to ramp up our apprehension of the danger. But this would be nearly pointless if the danger is itself minimal because God arranges for nearly all to be saved at the end after all. He would be guilty of exaggeration, at the least, by those several warnings: scaremongering, which is an accusation I have heard more than once from atheists referring to teachers who impress their students with the "many are damned" position. I think Jesus meant us to take his warnings at face value because they are true in that prima facie sense. A third reason to add would be that in inspecting my own motives and actions, I can see that it would be relatively easy to take the soft, easy way "of the world" and stop resisting temptations to sin. I have to assume that MANY are subject to similar temptations, and at least from exterior observation (so far as they can tell us, which is inconclusive) it is also true that MANY don't make all that much noticeable effort to resist. That is, "many are on the road to perdition" does seem to be empirically probable. I don't have to think that I can JUDGE any individual neighbor to think that the overall evidence indicates a probability of certain conclusions, in the aggregate. But I try to not be over-trusting of such intuitions. I would rather rely on solid, definitive grounds if I can get them, or if not just admit that my view is an opinion and open to correction. So, I offer this as a venue to take up the issue and go at it with hammer and tongs. Let’s get some debate going. ]]>
Aquileo | The day life changedtag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31902021-09-10T21:23:49Z2021-09-10T21:32:47ZI could make what follows an excuse for my not posting on here at W4 more frequently, but that would be somewhat dishonest, since I was already posting far more on Facebook and pushing hard on my Youtube channel and...Lydia McGrewhttp://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Facebook and pushing hard on my Youtube channel and NT studies books even prior to April 14, the day when Everything Changed. Nonetheless, what happened on April 14 and thereafter is *one* of the reasons. For about five months now I have not posted this publicly, but I have finally decided to do so, and it is only a partial coincidence that I'm doing so right after the attempted Biden mandate. (As a matter of fact, I posted it on Facebook just *before* that.) My W4 colleagues have known all along, and I appreciate their discretion in keeping it to themselves until I chose to mention it. So, just in case someone reads W4 but not Facebook, here, worded virtually identically, is what I just put up the other day:]]> After nearly five months, during which I have posted about this matter with the privacy setting on “friends only,” I’ve decided to make some personal information public: I had an extreme reaction to one dose of the Covid vaccine (Pfizer), which I received on April 14, and this has badly harmed my health. I was completely healthy prior to the shot and regularly walked 4 miles a day or more. As of now I appear to have an unnamed, mysterious disorder (probably autoimmune) which causes nerve inflammation and does not, in my case at least, respond to steroids. This condition is causing chronic, often severe pain and greatly reducing my activities. Symptoms like an allergic reaction began within about 12 hours of the shot (along with expected side effects like fatigue). I developed intermittent nerve pain within the next few days. Symptoms worsened to include major pain, nerve tingling and buzzing, and other problems over the following 3-4 weeks. So far no effective treatment has been found for me. It is unknown whether I will remain permanently where I am now, get better, or get worse. There is no clear trajectory of improvement. I recorded all of my symptoms independently for months until just a little while ago and was astonished at that point to get in touch with many other people in support groups who are separately reporting similar neurological reactions with variations. This has a grim fascination for me as an epistemologist. My symptoms are many and vary unpredictably. One major practical effect is that I cannot sit in a chair or even a partially reclined seat for more than a short time without significant pain. I need to change position often, recline almost flat, or stand for a lot of the day. I still try to walk at least one mile each day (sometimes in bits and pieces and usually slowly) when possible. I am still hoping and planning to speak at the ETS in November (at an invitation-only session on Johannine studies), though the trip is going to be difficult, and I won't be there for the whole conference. I am still doing interviews and weekly videos. I try to time these at less-bad times of day and accommodate my problems in various ways. I am not doing really long-form interviews (more than an hour long); I have a preference for pre-recorded interviews so that I can take breaks; even that can be negotiated if the session isn’t too long. I’m trying to write a new, popular book on evidence for the reliability of the Gospels. During all of this Tim has been a rock and a hero, and the Lord continues faithful. I'm learning a lot about taking one day at a time, especially since every day is so different and unpredictable. Prayers are appreciated—for recovery of course, that I at least won’t get worse, and that whatever happens the Lord will sustain my trust in Him. I’m finding it hard to accept that this may mean lifelong pain and disability, beginning so unexpectedly in the midst of ministry and writing. Of course I’m still praying for recovery. I’ll leave it at that. My FB “friends” have known about this and have been praying faithfully for some time. As time goes on with no resolution, a time has come when I think it needs to be acknowledged more publicly. Aquileo | What We Have Learnedtag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31892021-08-31T04:31:25Z2021-08-31T04:37:49ZThe 18 month period since COVID became a world-wide scourge has, for good or ill, taught us a few things that we might not have realized so well before. This is an attempt to run through a few of them....Tony M.1. Don’t Trust the Scientists. (A) Science is important, and it represents one of the most critical fields of human understanding and endeavor. When science is done well, it results in enormous benefits to the human race. But scientists are not “science”. They are human beings, and like humans everywhere, they have an extremely wide range of motivations and of skill. Many scientists are fantastic in their chosen field, but not so great out of it. Some scientists are only mediocre. Some scientists are trustworthy in conveying the results of their expertise, but some are not. And some are trustworthy in some matters, but not in all. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean their statements are trustworthy. ]]> limits of their own expertise, and are wont to express ideas at the edges of – or outside – those limits as if they were “science” when they are really opinions about the ramifications of the science they DO have, projected into the realm of possible but not necessary downstream thinking that can be built on science and theory, science and hypothesis, science and myth, science and religion (which includes secularism, the most common religion of scientists), science and politics, etc. Importantly, a great many scientists, because they are trained specialists who spend a great deal of time in a narrow focus, are highly UNTRAINED in considering the metaphysical and philosophical underpinnings of general science, as well as the ethical underpinnings of sound politics, and therefore make large mistakes when they attempt to interact with those underpinnings or other fields of endeavor. Politics is not science and is not amenable to the same rigorous modeling. (B) While it is extremely valuable to have the science to help us, we must never forget that the term “science” does not describe a concrete, existing entity that we happen to LOCATE sometimes. It is a process that involves, inevitably, steps backward as well as steps forward; theories that get overturned by new experience; mistaken expression (by scientists) and mistaken description (by journalists and popularizers); and sometimes outright fraud by criminal scientists. A famous opening address to med students said: “50% of what we teach you over the next five years will be wrong, or inaccurate. Sadly, we don’t know which 50%” We are sometimes in a state of relative rest with respect to specific, narrow conclusions that are well tested and well understood, but we are always scientifically in a state of unrest and movement with respect to a great many other results that need further work, either to confirm (experimentally, something the soft sciences have had major headaches doing), or to understand properly (i.e. get a theory that coordinates new results with old material). And scientists are not always reliable in telling us which is which, they often lose sight, in the hurly-burly of the process, that onlookers might think “scientist S said ‘X’ means that X is true science” – which isn’t the case. Which means we cannot simply rely on scientists, unquestioningly. The rule, then, might be stated: Question the Scientists. The other side of the coin is on us: don’t expect immediate answers to all questions. Give them space to say “we don’t know, we are working on it.” Learn to live with that. “Don’t know” isn’t code for “If you ask the same question in a different way, THEN we will have an answer you will like.” Stop thinking “Science” has all the answers: Science is a young child and is still learning, and isn’t even being trained to answer some things. 2. Without Vigilance, Government Powers Only Grow. There is born in the heart of every intermediate and high official in every system a tendency to believe that “I know better than the hoi polloi what is good for them.” In many, many details, this is actually TRUE, which is precisely why that official has the authority to act on behalf of society: he is acting because many, many details need the guiding hand of a single policy, and someone must decide those details. Whether the details are those of speed limit standards that go into deciding whether some roads get set to 45 mph or 55 mph, or whether the upper boundary for a “safe” amount of a contaminant in drinking water is to be set at 5 PPM or 20 PPM, officials make the calls and (normally, at least) they do so on the basis of information and learning that is more skilled or more detailed than that of the broad level of “the people”. But the tendency to believe this “I know better” has no limits inside itself. There is nothing within the knowledge of chemistry that tells an official when he should STOP applying his knowledge to regulate the behavior of others. Chemistry doesn’t have that limit. Instead it must come from some other source. And generally, that source is either philosophical, political (i.e. a political viewpoint) or religious (including humility), or a combination of them. And here is one half of the problem: both of our major parties are prone to the temptation to expand rules voraciously, but one party has it naturally and by its genetic code, the Dems. For the Dems it is either formally part of their world view (for the progressives and marxists) or informally so (for nearly all others) that in the long run humans can be made to be right by the right programme of rules. Republicans fall prey to the temptation often as well, but the disproportionate tendencies can be seen statistically, in the degrees of invasive government behavior by state governments across the US (sample size, 50). The more invasive ones are those in the control of Democrats. The other half of the problem is that crises (of any kind) increase the opportunity of government to seize more control of daily life. The pandemic was one such crisis. And many governors seized the day to take over new areas of human choice, using the pandemic as mere pretext for furthering other purposes: Banning church services on standards not applied to other physically similar activities, merely because officials aren’t religious and think of religion as fundamentally non-essential, was one such. In general, governments are, at one and the same time, UNAVOIDABLY involved in making decisions that affect people in the concrete conditions of being able to arrange (relatively) satisfying lifestyle patterns, and UNABLE to make all choices for everyone as to what specific pathways will be the ones that satisfy them in particular, as it has not the competence or jurisdiction. The government cannot tell me what career will be most satisfying to me, or which person I should take as spouse to make me happy. There are infinitely many decisions of this sort the government cannot decide, and has no business deciding. The solution, of course, is for government to 1. make general policy determinations conformed with the common good which is general to all men; 2. make more fine-tuned determinations that are (as much as possible) neutral between lesser goods that are morally equal and morally tenable for its people; and 3. to maintain a stable system in which people can successfully make their own arrangements to satisfy their own peculiar, individual needs and goals – i.e. obtain / produce private goods - without generally expecting government to furnish these in detail. That is, built in to the meaning of good government is a certain degree of stability of the system and broad patterns so that people can make rational long-term choices to fine-tune within the broad patterns. And government making interim “for the crisis” decisions that take over otherwise normally individual choices, and then KEEP ON controlling those decisions after the crisis has been met, is clearly contrary to that meaning of “good government”. Like the Michigan governor assuming she can just choose to keep extending the emergency as long as she wants. Given the universal temptation on officials to make rules because they “know better”, vigilance is required even more than usual during crises, to make sure they do not bite off more than we can swallow. 3. The Law of Unintended Consequences is Hard to Dodge This one might also be titled “So, you think you know what you’re doing, do you? Let me show you otherwise.” When you change existing rules that affect large swathes of ordinary individual decisions in what are normally free and personally independent areas of choice, you necessarily damage a whole layer of the fabric of civic life. This necessarily leads to whole boatloads of downstream choices and follow-on effects – among which are included all those choices made by (relatively) rational people trying to UNDO the immediate negative effects on them of these new restrictions. In some sense, this is almost the same as (or at least significantly overlaps with) people merely DEFYING the new rule, but in a lot of cases it represents people trying to figure out (new) ways of obeying the letter of the law without allowing that law to have the simple, first-order negative impacts it otherwise would. But that they will react this way is a predictable outcome of making such a new rule. Hence rule-skirting and otherwise adjusting should have been factored into the analysis of how well the new rule would achieve its purpose. And yet it rarely was. And the fact THAT many others will try an infinite variety of make-shift attempts to fill in this new gap in life while following even the spirit of that new law – an infinite variety that can be guessed at but NOT easily predicted in detail: the much-ballyhooed diversity of people and minds essentially GUARANTEED that it would be extremely difficult to model out the ways in which people would react to sweeping new constraints on normal activities, and the ways these reactions would interfere with both normal governmental goals and with the specific crisis-generated goals. The whole point of custom is that it formulates the “the normal”, it smooths off rough edges, it forms patterns which can be predicted, and upsetting those (large, socially pervasive) norms is NOT readily predictable in downstream effects. This should provide a very strong motivation to not make changes beyond those that are absolutely necessary, so as to mitigate the range of new unpredictable effects. But that’s not what actually happened. In plenty of places, officials were quite willing to initiate all sorts of changes more or less on the off-chance that they might do some good in mitigating the COVID dangers. I saw this as early as mid-March 2020: state governments were clearly operating as if nobody had EVER tried to “war-game” a crisis like this to see “hmm, what kinds of new problems pop out of the woodwork if we go with option A…” This failure to have ever been trained in the difficulties of multi-dimensional crisis management was manifest. They had no clue what secondary and tertiary effects were going to appear. One of the good things such training would have instilled (if it was any good, at least) is a bit of humility about what we can control or even anticipate by making large-scale changes to complex systems. Humility was in short supply. 4. Don’t Think of Risk as On / Off In complex matters, there is no such thing as “the risk-free option”. All paths involve risk, the problem is balancing risks appropriately. Yes, you can guarantee, by Method 1, that no further people will get COVID. Unfortunately, Method 1 involves everyone staying within their home every moment of the day for the next 72 days, and they all die. The nuclear option. Oops. In the IT department at my work, they have this ever-present worry of allowing internal data being compromised by hackers. But they finally also accepted a worry of making it so difficult to access internal data that even internal users cannot do their work. They have had to adapt to a mindset of accepting a certain degree of risk of undesirable access in order to allow work to be done. Their charge, now, is not simply “make it impossible for hackers to get in” but to minimize risk of hackers compromising data to the extent as is compatible with productivity,” which is a balancing act that constantly fluctuates in the particulars. Governors and their health officials allowed themselves to fall into a mentality that looked at risk from COVID, and especially risk of death from COVID as the one risk issue driving decision-making. But risk from one thing accompanies risk from cascade effects of that one thing, and risk from actions taken, and cascade effects from THOSE as well, AND risk from omission and inaction on OTHER things. Shutting down “non-essential” medical care (including personnel that would never have been used to handle COVID care even if the numbers had sky-rocketed, such as dental hygienists) means that all sorts of ordinary medical care was deferred – in many cases for over 6 months, some even longer. This is no great burden to many people in most of their medical needs, but some people died from this deferral. There is always a small but real percentage of people whose life-threatening condition first shows up in routine screenings, my own father was one. Then there are all the people who committed suicide in part due to the isolation of COVID restrictive measures. And all the mental health problems that careened out of control for the last 18 months. Not to mention all the harmful effects of putting people out of work who depended on work not just for INCOME (that pesky little unimportant feature of life), but for personal satisfaction, validation, and emotional well-being. And … 10,000 other risks that were not considered. The point is that many officials were far, far over-focused on just ONE ASPECT of risks, and ignored lots of other risks that were also vitally important. And they were under-reflective of counter-risks, i.e. new risks that arise due to acting in specific ways on the risks you have considered. Lack of experience and training for how to handle the temptation toward the tunnel vision of hyper-focus on just one problem or risk showed itself all over the place. 5. The First Thing To Do Is: Kill All the Media The level of damaged info produced by the media in the last 18 months has so greatly exceeded the level of sound information that one begins to wonder whether we should retract the First Amendment protection of the press, (not of individuals in their own name), and maybe even reverse it. I have effectively stopped even trying to get information from news outlets, it’s so bad. It’s difficult enough trying to get information from the actual root sources themselves, but I can no longer count the number of times a reported “fact”, when I researched its bona fides, turned out to be either (a) flat wrong, or (b) so degraded in validity as to amount to nothing better than propaganda. I don’t actually have a real solution here, since I don’t think we can or should kill all the media people. Ignoring the media and going to root sources is a stop-gap measure, since nobody can spend enough hours in the day looking up for themselves ALL of the information they need in root sources that are reliable. We need middle-men to mediate that delivery, but the media has proven itself incapable of doing it. Is this a temporary thing, or has the gangrene become so systemic that the only solution is to kill it off and start over from scratch? ]]> Aquileo | Reception Theory, Binding Law, and Traditionis Custodestag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31882021-08-02T01:37:20Z2021-08-09T17:15:40ZBecause Pope Francis’s motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (TC) is highly restrictive and harsh, quite a number of traditional Catholics would like nothing better than a reason to view it as non-binding law. Surprisingly, quite a number of bishops are, at...Tony M.motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (TC) is highly restrictive and harsh, quite a number of traditional Catholics would like nothing better than a reason to view it as non-binding law. Surprisingly, quite a number of bishops are, at least initially, viewing it with considerable misgiving and some are making noises in the direction of “implementing” it without the full force of law. One attempt to drain TC of any binding force is to employ against it “reception” theory. This theory of law says that in order for a law to be true law – in order for it to be morally binding on its subjects – it has to be “received” by them first. That is, they have to treat it as valid law which binds them. Here is an explanation of this theory, in a nutshell:
The canonical doctrine of reception originated in the statement of Gratian after canon 3 in Distinction IV of his Decretum (circa 1140). He cited Isidore of Seville and Augustine on the establishment of laws, and then wrote: Laws are instituted when they are promulgated and they are confirmed when they are approved by the practices of those who use them. Just as the contrary practices of the users have abrogated some laws today, so the (conforming) practices of the users confirm laws.
I understand the strong inclination to embrace “reception” theory for law, in this case. I really do. But we saw it used 10,000 times by liberals and revolutionaries against perfectly good law, and it was always a bad theory in their mouths. I hesitate to reverse and say it’s a good theory when others use it against a bad law. However, I think there is something a little like “reception theory” that is – perhaps – a valid position about church law, and I want to lay it out. (And in the alternative, there are other ways of understanding the constraints of law, as options to take against TC being binding, that might work instead of reception theory.) ]]> in 4 articles, the 4 elements that tell us what “law” really is: 1. An ordinance of reason; 2. By the authority who has care of the community; 3. For the common good; 4. And promulgated. In laying these out, he shows the causes of law, under the 4 KINDS of cause: the matter, the form, the agent, and the final cause (the end or purpose). Here, the “form” is the ordinance of reason – the ratio that comprises an intelligible kind of action combined with a rational basis which undergirds the command; the “matter” is its promulgation in a public announcement; the agent is the one in authority; and the final cause, the end or purpose, is the common good. He is speaking at the highest level of generality about law here; as such, this applies to eternal law, divine law, human law, and ecclesiastical law. Later he clarifies that a bad law (he says, an “unjust” law) is no law – i.e. that it is not morally binding.
If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Proverbs 8:15: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good—and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver—and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws. On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above—either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory—or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him—or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Matthew 5:40-41: "If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two." Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, "we ought to obey God rather than man."
So he makes it clear that law fails to be binding when it fails to BE law, by failing in one or more of the 4 causes of law. It is easy to misunderstand what Thomas really means when he gets into laws that fail because of not being for the common good. It is necessary to be careful here, because he does not mean that if a law is not ACTUALLY going to help toward the common good, it is no law. Law is “for” the common good in this sense: the common good is the purpose the legislator has in giving the law. This is a difficult point, and I want to be clear, here, if I can. St. Thomas explains that the whole reason there needs to be positive law (including laws made by humans) AT ALL is that when you have many agents with free will, and (a) they are intended to achieve a united purpose, and (b) they do not all see equally and clearly all pieces of HOW to achieve that united purpose, then if each agent acted on his own judgment to try to achieve the common good as best he could see by himself, the common good COULD NEVER actually come into being. Each agent’s perceptions of what might be a good action would end up conflicting with some other agent and they would defeat each other. Achieving the common good would be impossible. Then instead of each agent directing HIMSELF to act for the common good, each agent needs to be directed toward the common good by a unified mind, a person who organizes the whole and unifies the actions of many so they harmonize rather than conflict. This is the one in authority – this is the WHOLE PURPOSE of there being a human authority: to make it so that efforts by many can build together instead of interfere and destroy each other. Now, it is of course likely that no human authority actually sees perfectly how to achieve the common good in toto. But even in the case of imperfect understanding, by being a SINGLE mind directing the actions of many, he will enable at least a partial success in achieving the good; not even THAT much can be achieved without there being someone in authority. In this idea of law, all that is needed for a true, valid law is that the ruler have a basic understanding of the common good to be achieved, have a grasp of the present facts and conditions which constitute the ground from which communal action may achieve the good, and apply his practical reason to determining a course of action for achieving it in a feasible way, then direct others based on that. Critically, it is the ruler’s practical reason that is the judge of the practical method to achieve the good, not that of the subjects – that is the entire reason there is one in authority to begin with. So, it is an invalid model for the subjects to say “I don’t think your new rule is going to be a very good method to get to the good we (all) want, so it ‘isn’t law’ because (I think) it won’t in actual fact ‘serve the common good’.“ It isn’t the subject’s prudential, practical reason, which decides whether the rule will achieve the good, it is the ruler’s. So a disagreement by subjects as to whether the chosen rule will in fact work to achieve the common good desired is NOT the measure of whether the law is valid law. Because final cause is a cause via intention, it is the RULER’s intention that determines whether the prescribed rule is “for the common good.” If, as a as a corrupt dictator he intends to serve his own pockets, or if as a degenerate tyrant he intends only to fill his own bed with desirable maidens, these rules have no force of law because his intent has nothing to do with the common good, rather the opposite. This is what Thomas means by a bad “law” being no law. Arguably, though, St. Thomas more or less hints at something that is similar to “reception theory” when he talks about a law being changed by custom:
All law proceeds from the reason and will of the lawgiver; the Divine and natural laws from the reasonable will of God; the human law from the will of man, regulated by reason. Now just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution. But it is evident that by human speech, law can be both changed and expounded, in so far as it manifests the interior movement and thought of human reason. Wherefore by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded; and also something can be established which obtains force of law, in so far as by repeated external actions, the inward movement of the will, and concepts of reason are most effectually declared; for when a thing is done again and again, it seems to proceed from a deliberate judgment of reason. Accordingly, custom has the force of a law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.
So once a law is made and exists for a time, a new practice in society that is incompatible, if repeated enough to become custom of sorts, and is not suppressed by the authorities, would indicate that the legislator has CHANGED his will on the matter, so that the new practice now is compatible with his will, and his LACK of action against it effectively promulgates that new intention. Thus custom can change law:
As stated above (I-II:96:6), human laws fail in some cases: wherefore it is possible sometimes to act beside the law; namely, in a case where the law fails; yet the act will not be evil. And when such cases are multiplied, by reason of some change in man, then custom shows that the law is no longer useful: just as it might be declared by the verbal promulgation of a law to the contrary.
Thus a common phrase in this context is “an unenforced law is no law.” But the REASON is that by the ruler failing to take steps to correct the failure of the authorities under him to enforce the law, that ruler thus makes his will known implicitly, that he no longer intends that people follow that law. It is on account of the ruler’s own action, later, manifesting a changed will regarding the rule set forth, that makes it to be properly not a law, and thus ceases to have binding force. The ruler himself changes the law. Let me note here that it is exceedingly difficult, after a law is rightly written and in force, to later rightly ascertain WHEN it occurs that we no longer have a binding law because it “is not enforced”, sufficiently to remain “law in fact”. Two simple examples: (i) on observing people doing 70 mph in a 65 mph zone all day long, without being stopped for speeding, one might be inclined to say “speed limit is not enforced.” But in reality, if the police see someone doing 80, he is stopped and ticketed: SOME limit is enforced, just not at the boundary line listed, because the police are willing to grant a certain “benefit of the doubt.” A speed limit is enforced. (ii) The IRS says that tips (i.e. for waitresses and bartenders) are “income” and must be included for tax purposes. However, people might imagine that “the IRS doesn’t enforce that rule”, because the IRS rarely takes explicit action to punish violations. But the “rarely” is, actually, only a small percentage of the time, it isn’t the same as “never”, nor even “only once in a great while.” It happens every year, in those cases where (a) the IRS at random audits a person, and (b) can locate data that is secure enough to establish the fact of tips not reported. The “small percentage” is not a result of any official disregard of the problem. This shows just two types of difficulties in ascertaining “enforcement.” And, in the very nature of the concept of a law being changed by repeated practice, it is effectively impossible for there to be a bright-line demarcation of when the law as written ceases to be binding. Even an instance of a highly publicized refusal on the part of prosecutors to take a case could be due to other factors than lack of desire to prosecute – it can be from lack of clear evidence, or for procedural obstructions. So, it is quite hard to make a solid, justified case for a law ceasing to be binding, until it is far and away clear that the authorities have no intention of enforcing it. And, in effect, the law as written must initially have the presumption in its favor, the claim of it being changed by practice must have the burden of proof. However, it is different for a law that is in conflict with some practice out of the starting gate, for, the whole reason such restrictive laws are made is to STOP some practice: (At least in normal situations), it would be crazy if the pre-existing practice were, for that very reason, protected from being changed by law.
If, however, the same reason remains, for which the law was useful hitherto, [i.e. the purpose for which the law was made to begin with], then it is not the custom that prevails against the law, but the law that overcomes the custom.
It is also very dangerous to suggest – across the board – that a law needs to be “received” in order for it to become law at all. One reason is that this would seem to subject divine law (such as the ceremonial law given to Moses by God) as being “not law” until the Israelites deigned to agree to it. God’s decrees do not require our consent in order to become binding. To say it more generally: it is not impossible for a legislator’s stated will to morally bind his subjects against their desire. To assert otherwise is to fail to understand law in general. Yet, St. Thomas allows that there CAN BE qualifiers or limitations on this. In speaking of human law, he breaks it down into different types of cases:
but the law that overcomes the custom: unless perhaps the sole reason for the law seeming useless, be that it is not "possible according to the custom of the country" [I-II:95:3], which has been stated to be one of the conditions of law. For it is not easy to set aside the custom of a whole people…
The people among whom a custom is introduced may be of two conditions. For if they are free, and able to make their own laws, the consent of the whole people expressed by a custom counts far more in favor of a particular observance, than does the authority of the sovereign who has not the power to frame laws, except as representing the people. Wherefore although each individual cannot make laws, yet the whole people can. If however the people have not the free power to make their own laws, or to abolish a law made by a higher authority…
The first comment harkens back to a dictum by St. Isidore of Seville:
A law will be moral, just, possible, in accord with nature, in keeping with the custom of the homeland, suitable to the place and time, necessary, useful, clear so that it not mask something unsuitable, not for private benefit, but conceived for the common utility of the citizens.
St. Thomas is distinguishing between two different types of civil orders: one in which “the people” is the root legislator and the officer is limited to putting their will into effect with further details; the second is where the ruler holds the sovereign power to make the laws, and not merely as the agent of “the people.” In the former case, custom has a greater force of law than the will of the official who carries out the will of the people. In the latter case, it does not. Clearly, with divine law, the ruler is sovereign and not bound to observe the will of the people. With direct democracy like in Athens, the people were the sovereign, and the acts of individual officials (such as generals) were as agents for the people. It is a bit muddled to sort out mixed societies like republics. And also difficult for ecclesiastical law, which is decidedly not either a democracy or a republic. It would be, at a minimum, very difficult to approve “reception” theory with regard to ALL decisions made by Church authorities. For example, in the very early Church, the Apostles had to decide whether new converts must conform to Jewish law requirements. The final decision that they were not required to conform to Jewish law could not have been held – by the people – to be “not received” because they didn’t think it good, or because they thought it incompatible with prior customs. “The people” were not competent to pass judgment on the apostolic decision in the matter, and were not in a position to “receive” or “not receive” this new law. It was binding, period. The difficulty also lies in this: church law is “law” in something of an imperfect or extended sense. This stems from the nature of the Church and its purpose.
b. Rules have a different purpose in the Church. They serve to keep good order and protect personal rights, but their ultimate aim is the spiritual good of the members, mutual love among them, and, indeed, their eternal salvation.
Unlike civil law whose object is primarily an action in conformity with the rule, an action which contributes to the common good regardless of the intention by the subject obeying the law, (whether he does so willingly or grudgingly), Church law has as its object primarily charity which cannot be so much commanded as elicited in connection with the outward action. So, arguably, a different standard may apply to canon law so that obedience stands to canon law somewhat differently than in the case of civil law. However, it is probably unhelpful to try to use “reception” theory to explain why sometimes church law can be not obeyed with an upright conscience. A Better Approach I believe the standard Thomistic account of law is a better model to use for this. The reception theory assertion that “contrary custom has abrogated certain laws” pretty much falls apart as useless, under St. Thomas’s account, because contrary NEW practices not eliciting new enforcement to suppress the new practice manifests a different intention of the legislator – that’s WHY it abrogates a prior law, and it has no application to a new law at all. The exception is when it is “the people” who are the sovereign lawgiver, and this certainly does not apply in church law. For St. Thomas, a law fails to be binding to the extent it fails to be law, i.e. to the extent it runs afoul of the 4 stated causes of law. Let’s take the easiest first: promulgation. For these purposes, a law is “promulgated” when the lawgiver has made known to the subjects what his will is, and that he intends to bind others to the rule. In this case of TC, there may be a few aspects about which Francis’s will is unclear, (and in those respects I would say there is no binding obligation), but by and large his will is clear. However, other aspects of the Thomistic model do come to play here. In order for a ruler to rule, he has to apprehend “the good”, apply his practical reason to a set of facts, (i.e. the conditions that confront the community) and then craft a “solution” that constitutes a pathway of action that reasonably tends toward the good apprehended. What that means, then, is the ruler can fail either (A) in the part of apprehending “the good”, or (B) grasping the actual facts at hand, or (C) in applying practical reason toward those facts regarding a course of action. And, when I went back over TC (and the accompanying letter), I realized something: Francis has MAJOR FAILS for points A and B. The first major fail is in his article 1 in TC: that the Novus Ordo “is” the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Latin Rite. Even ignoring, for the moment, his descending into a bit of word-salad foolishness in compounding “expression of the lex orandi” with “of the Latin Rite”,* it is still off. As a matter of SHEER FACT, the Traditional Latin Mass exists, and it too is one of the masses that “express” the lex orandi of the Latin Rite. So also is the Dominican mass. And the Ordinariate mass. And so on with the other masses he seems to have forgotten in his haste. (Also, even if these other masses stop being used for a time – e.g. for one solid year – it would remain true that they “exist” in that history contains them, and thus they will forever be real, valid, expressions of the prayer of the Latin Rite. Just as the Pythagorean Theorem is, always, a valid proof whether anyone teaches it anymore or not. His first article simply fails. In order for the TLM not to express the prayer of the Latin Rite, it would be absolutely necessary for the “lex orandi” to have essentially changed from TLM to Novus Ordo. Since this is both DIRECTLY contrary to what Paul, JPII, and Benedict said, Francis cannot now “make” it true by merely saying it. Also, if it were true that the Novus Ordo comprised a different lex credendi, it would (by that fact) seem to comprise heresy. (See note*.) ) This is of critical importance, because (similar to a good legislator), Francis tried to EXPLAIN to us the “reason” behind his ordinances in TC. But his reason just doesn’t work. And, in fact, when he goes into greater depth in his letter, his faulty reason for TC is even more clear: Francis has come to the point of view that is, effectively, entirely contrary to that expressed by Benedict, who quite clearly intended that the two masses co-exist because there is nothing wrong with having two masses in the Roman Rite (since that rite has had MORE than two masses for many centuries). And, indeed, the fact that there were more than two (immemorial) masses under the Roman Rite when Pius V issued Quo Primum, masses which he did NOTHING to suppress, proves beyond doubt that the Church can have two masses which “express the lex orandi” of the Latin Rite.** The accompanying letter also shows something else: The Church has been in little doubt that Francis simply does not like traditionalists on account of their attachment to the old mass; he sees that attachment as both defective in itself, and (now) sees it as damaging the Church. His distaste is, clearly, a bias, a mere personal preference. What is entirely unclear, though, is that the informational basis upon which he claims this damage, even COULD BE well founded. His source (as he asserts) is the survey of the bishops, but one obvious problem is that the bishops have been a notoriously anti-TLM bunch for 40 years, and for the last 8 years they have known quite clearly that their immediate superior doesn’t like it when they say stuff that is supportive of the old mass: he has this bias, and he doesn’t promote people who violate his bias. The likelihood that he (a) received reliable information in the survey, and (b) that he READ that information in a reasonable fashion, is, shall we say, not promising. As a result, Francis’s practical reason is engaged on (i) probably erroneous particulars of the so-called “damage”; and (ii) with respect to a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the whole “problem” of having two masses – i.e. a mis-apprehension of “the good” to begin with. Now, St. Thomas does allow that a subject may, for example, disobey the LETTER of the law in a case where following the law would (for some reason unknown to the ruler) actually defeat the SPIRIT i.e. purpose of the law – at least under time constraints where you can’t go to the ruler and say “hey, we have these conditions that are unlike the conditions you made the rule for….” and ask for an exception. He does not say it explicitly, but it seems to be implied by his model, that if the WHOLE BASIS of the ‘law’ is not supported by reason, then the subjects could not-follow the law “until they could show the ruler how his ‘rule’ fails to be an ordinance of reason.” Which, if the ruler is controlled by bias, is (probably) never, so they might have to wait until a new ruler comes along? (I am not confident this is right, and would welcome correction.) Perhaps I am mistaken here but my suggestion is that those situations where “reception theory” has a valid place in practice is in those situations where the apparent law as issued FAILS one of the 4 items on the list of causes of law, and the usual culprits are 1 and 3, (not 4). And the real basis upon which a law is “not received” is that the subjects – or at least a critical portion of them – see quite clearly that it fails 1 or 3. In this case, we have a pretty strong candidate for TC failing 1 – it is not an ordinance of reason, because the reason stated is a blatant failure. It also appears to fail 3 – it is not ordered to the common good, but NOT because the ruler happens to be mistaken about whether the rule (if followed) would achieve the object he intends; rather, it is that the object he has in mind is not the common good at all (or part of it), but only appears to him as a good because of his bias. If he were more able to appreciate diversity in the Spirit, he might see the good of the TLM. *It is my sense that the phrasing Francis used, “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite” is, just slightly, gobbledygook. The “lex orandi” is the “law of prayer”. It comes from the phrase “lex orandi lex credendi”, which is typically translated as “the law of prayer is the law of faith”, or, more loosely, as how we pray reflects and influences what we believe, (though the influence really goes both ways, it is not a one-way street). “Lex” in “lex orandi” does not mean, strictly, the written rule books telling us how to carry out the liturgy, it means the prayer itself, the very substance of the mass (and of the divine office), representing a “rule” of the mind and heart: the ACT of praying a certain way exercising a regulating influence on how we think and adhere to the Faith. Since the Church has always accepted that the peoples of the different rites (that are united with Rome) all have the same faith, we cannot understand by “lex orandi lex credendi” a notion that the prayers of different rites imply different faiths. Thus it would be erroneous to consider a “lex orandi of the Roman Rite” that referred to a faith ESSENTIALLY different from the “lex orandi of the Byzantine Rite”. Hence the “lex orandi” is not “OF” one rite, it is (for all rites), the “lex orandi” of the Church. In context, the substantive object to which “the lex orandi” points is the FAITH OF THE CHURCH, and it cannot be taken as pointing to one specific rite in distinction from other rites. The prayer of the Roman Rite is the rule of faith of the Church. The prayer of the Byzantine Rite is the rule of faith of the Church. Etc. To give it a charitable meaning, Francis must have meant something less heinous than that the Novus Ordo mass, as a "rule of belief", points to a different faith than the Byzantine rite mass. Probably he meant to refer to the specific charism of the Latin Rite in its particularity, for each rite has its own special flavor. Because this is so, none of the masses of the different rites can claim to display ALL ASPECTS of the faith in an equal way: they are not the same. It is not necessary to think of one rite as “better” than another, simply, in order to allow for the possibility that one rite is better than another with respect to one specific aspect of apprehending the faith. There are different charisms: diversity in the Church.*** Within each rite, there can be different “uses” which, while being similar in most respects, diverge from each other enough to be recognized as distinct in some stable, specific sense. Within the Latin Rite, besides the dominant Roman Use, there have been these uses: Dominican, Sarum, Carmelite, Benedictine, and Anglican/Ordinariate. Like with Rites, different uses can excel in one or another aspect, compared to other uses. While there is nothing fundamentally impossible that one use is, simply, BETTER than the other uses, they all “express” the charism of the Latin Rite in some manner or measure. The Roman Use of the Latin Rite has co-existed with other uses for many centuries. It is, simply speaking, false to say that the Roman Use is the only mass that expresses the Latin Rite charism. Since a new ordinance cannot change history, it is impossible to eradicate the FACT that there have been other masses than the Roman Use that expresses the charism of the Roman Rite. It may be possible to suppress those uses, leaving only one use current, but this would be irrelevant to whether other uses express the charism of the Latin Rite. **Some traditionalists have been arguing since 1970 that the Novus Ordo does not carry a full expression of the faith of the Church, and that this is, as such, its major defect. The more extreme version of that claim is that the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate mass because it is so defective an expression of the prayer of the Church that it is, foundationally, a failure. The less extreme version is merely that it is a significantly defective expression of the faith of the Church. But there is an interesting facet of Francis’s assertion: if it were true that the Novus Ordo is THE unique expression of a certain charism as the prayer of the Church, it would by that very fact be A DIFFERENT RITE than the mass that preceded 1970. Since the mass of Pius V and John XXIII is, without any possible doubt, a mass of the Latin Rite, the Novus Ordo would constitute a new Rite, i.e. the “Novus Rite”; Francis would be asserting that the Novus Rite is the Rite of the Roman Church. This would present Francis with 2 major problems: (1) It is argued that it is not valid for a pope to simply generate a rite by innovation. All of the rites claim, effectively, apostolic authority, via Tradition. And in this respect, the apostolic authority is NOT the authority handed on to the bishops, not even to the pope: the whole point is that the Tradition springs from the 12 men appointed and consecrated by Christ, alone. A new rite of mass initiated by Paul VI, new because it does not derive expressly from the Apostles by Tradition, would be outside the pope’s authority. (I do not have enough historical knowledge to evaluate the premise of this argument.) (2) As was discovered by the Church in the centuries ensuing after the Apostles, the Patriarch of the Roman Church does not have the authority to suppress different rites merely because they are different from the Roman Rite. The authority of the pope to regulate the prayer of the Church is, essentially, a conserving authority: he could only act to suppress a rite on account of some divergence in its practice from its roots, from Tradition. A claim to suppress the TLM merely because it is not the SAME as the new “unique” expression of the (new) charism of the rite chosen by Rome would be a violation of the rights of rites. (Had to say that!) And an act to suppress the TRADITIONAL rite simply because it remains connected by Tradition to the apostles is utterly contrary to the Church in every way, and outside the pope’s authority. So, either (a) the Novus Ordo is actually a newer, revised version of the Latin Rite mass, (so that it retains the needed connection via Tradition to the apostolic authority), or (b) everything Francis is trying to do in TC is outside his authority, since the only “problem” he is citing is, merely, the diversity between the TLM and the Novus Rite. And if (a), then it is unintelligible that it be THE unique expression of prayer of the Latin Rite, given other uses. Either way, article 1 of TC seems to fall apart as a ground for suppressing a mass. ***According to story, Charlemagne attempted to abolish the Ambrosian Rite (of Milan).
He sent to Milan and caused to be destroyed or sent beyond the mountain, quasi in exilium (as if into exile), all the Ambrosian books which could be found. Eugenius the Bishop, (transmontane bishop, as Landulf calls him), begged him to reconsider his decision. After the manner of the time, an ordeal, which reminds one of the celebrated trials by fire and by battle in the case of Alfonso VI and the Mozarabic Rite, was determined on. Two books, Ambrosian and Roman, were laid closed upon the altar of St. Peter's Church in Rome and left for three days, and the one which was found open was to win. They were both found open, and it was resolved that as God had shown that one was as acceptable as the other, the Ambrosian Rite should continue.
]]>
Aquileo | Vatican Roulettetag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31872021-07-27T16:44:30Z2021-07-27T19:43:05ZOn Friday, July 16, Pope Francis released his anticipated motu proprio reacting against reaction, in suppression of traditional Catholics and the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). He also released a letter to bishops explaining his reasoning. If you know anything about...Tony M.in this context it is a fairly brutal slap in the face to traditionalists. Francis says this is to “promote the concord and unity of the Church.” But this is a very strange thing to say: There are several groups of Catholics, including The Society of St. Pius V, and The Society of St. Pius X, and sede vacantists, who will simply reject TC altogether. They rejected the authority of Paul VI in his erecting the Novus Ordo (NO), so they will reject this too. And he must know this. He cannot expect that these groups will submit. So, he is either writing them off, as an irrelevancy to the kind of “unity” he means, or he is expecting that this project here will, somehow, pull the rug out from underneath them and enable the Vatican to wait them out. But it won’t, and it’s a forlorn hope: they have bishops, who will ordain new bishops, who will continue ordaining priests who are committed to the TLM. TC won’t eradicate these groups, it will confirm their presumptions and strengthen their resolve. As for writing them off: this is hardly the kind of “accompaniment” that Francis preaches, or the welcoming attitude toward diversity that he demands in other arenas. ]]> lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” This is not a command or a rule, it is an observation, i.e. an assertion about a state of affairs. And, as an assertion, it is either true or false. I am afraid that it looks false: even though Francis would LIKE the NO mass to be the unique mass of the Roman Rite, in fact it is not. First, because THIS VERY DOCUMENT allows for priests to continue to use the TLM. So the NO is NOT UNIQUE. Sorry, just stating what the words mean. Now, if Francis were someone else, like JPII, we would be well advised to seek other meanings of “is” and “unique” (of course, any other modern pope would have chosen his words carefully, and wouldn't have chosen a word-salad like "the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Latin Rite"). Maybe he meant “SHOULD BE” unique. Or maybe he meant “unique” in that the NO mass is different from the traditional mass (and all other masses), so it is its own thing – “unique”? Well, the former doesn’t require us to do or act on anything, and the latter is merely solipsistic, (and also doesn’t tell us to do anything either). It’s an odd directive that doesn’t direct. Besides being manifestly not so. Then he gets into actual directives: The bishop is directed to: (i) Make sure groups saying the TLM do not deny the legitimacy of the NO and of Vatican II; (ii) Stop having them say the TLM in parish churches; (iii) Relegate them to saying the TLM somewhere else; (iv) Establish the days they can have a the TLM available; (v) Appoint a priest for this who, while NOT BEING A PASTOR of these faithful, is to be pastoral in every important sense to them; (vi) Not authorize new groups. Priests who already say the TLM “should request” authorization to continue; But priests who are not yet ordained “should” submit a request to the bishop, who can only grant the request after consulting with the Vatican!!!. And finally: “Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.” I don’t know what Francis thinks this is going to achieve, but we can see some of what he wants: First, Francis wants to block the explosive growth of TLM communities. He sees they are attracting tons of young people, and this is (probably) the single most concerning thing to him: it means that the love of the TLM won’t die out on its own in 2 or 3 generations, like everyone assumed in 1975. So: no new groups allowed, and no new priests doing the TLM without Vatican approval. Stop the regeneration of “the problem” (as he sees it). The second is to put the crimp on people ALREADY attending the TLM: no more parish churches, and (preferably) not on ALL Sundays (and even weekdays), but only some. Francis clearly wants attendance at a TLM to be irregular, which will make it very, very hard for families with kids, because they need a lot of stability. Parish masses are stable, going off to some place in Timbucktoo on odd weeks is unstable. By making it very difficult for families to go at all, and NOT regularly, he wants to break up children becoming attuned to the TLM as the norm they understand as “the mass”. The third is an attempt to REQUIRE the bishop to make sure people are learning not to reject the NO, I guess so that they stop wanting something better? It’s a pretty silly idea, frankly, to think that the Vatican is going to get bishops to ACTUALLY oversee an outcome in education, when they have spent the last 60 years defeating that very idea. The 12 or so bishops who WANT to do it might try, but mostly, bishops won’t want to, and won’t try to, and assuredly will have no success at it because (as they have proven) they no longer know how. Certainly they have not bothered to achieve such simple outcomes as: Catholics believing they have to go to mass every Sunday, or Catholics believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Whether he actually thinks these will work or not, it is easy to see why Francis wanted to put these in, given his intention of suppressing TLM. But what has me puzzled is (v) above. He specifically added provisions about appointing a priest to serve the needs of these people who love the TLM, and went even further in listing the attributes of such a priest: he should be the kind of priest who qualifies as a good PASTOR. But, he can’t be a pastor to these people, because the bishop is not supposed to make this new, different location for the TLM masses a parish. And yet, he is supposed to be animated by “lively pastoral charity” and “the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful”. Providing a sound and worthy mass is the act par excellence of a good pastor. Does he not see how providing for their “pastoral and spiritual care” means providing for that very element that they often find missing in the NO, and thus re-affirming in them their good choice to attend the TLM? What else COULD it mean, if they have gone to the (considerable) effort to learn the TLM in order to feed a need in their souls unmet at NO masses? Now, let’s look at the accompanying letter. It is, unfortunately, full of inaccurate representations of the facts and motives in the history of the change to NO and the indult / freedom to use TLM by JPII and Benedict:
Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.
Healing the “schism” with Archbishop Lefebvre would have meant taking steps with Lebebvre and SSPX, it would not entail a CHURCH-WIDE change. The SSPX is only a drop in the bucket of tradition-minded Catholics. JPII and Benedict provided broader methods than just dealing with schismatic-leaning elements of the SSPX, because they recognized a broader problem. (In addition: it would have been possible to heal the “schismatic” leaning of the SPPX with 2 strokes of the pope’s pen: (1) regularize their canonical position with a direct order confirming the permanence of their order; (2) give them explicit permission to continue with the old mass. Neither one of these is difficult to do.
With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal. With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.
The fact of the matter is that the number of bishops who made it HARD for priests to have regular TLM masses in their parishes well exceeded the number of bishops who made it easy on pastors. The number of bishops who responded to JPII’s call for “generous” application of the indult was trivial; the vast majority either pretended JPII's Ecclesia Dei did not exist, or actively despised it. The problem here is the bishops: they did NOT accept JPII’s and Benedict’s view of those “just aspirations” in diverse liturgical sensibilities, and they continued their oppressive ways. I believe they picked up this attitude, first, mostly on account of the Vatican’s unjust negative attitude toward love of the old mass in the 1970s, and then fomented this negative attitude as a thing of its own without any foundation or due limits, just a self-contained (but required) attitude. (Effectively: the men who were attracted to the priesthood and strongly encouraged in their vocation, (and advanced in their careers) in the 1970s and 1980s, were men who could imbibe (without choking) the mantra that “if the Vatican issued the new mass, then by golly THAT’s what the Holy Spirit wanted for the Church, so EVERYONE should like it. Failure to like it is uncatholic." And they eventually began to ooze that mantra themselves.) This naturally means that the bishops are not unbiased observers. Whatever information Francis got from bishops should have been taken with a mountain-sized grain of salt. For, according to Francis, the story they told was of “division”: I have been around a fairly broad bunch of TLM-goers. And I listen to a pretty vocal number of them in blogging. Those who could be accused, even on broadly “close enough” terms, as “exploiting” the opportunities offered by Francis’s predecessors to “widen the gaps, reinforce divergences…” are quite few: less than 10% easily. That’s over my whole experience, including decades ago. Moreover, the percentage has been decreasing. The young people who are going to the TLM now DO NOT have the hang-ups their parents and grandparents had about the Novus Ordo and the way it was implemented: they weren’t there at the time. They aren’t putting themselves back into the 1970s. They were raised in the NO, and (mostly) accept it as a given. With that backdrop, they don’t think of the TLM as a divisive hook upon which they can fight against the rest of the Church. To be frank, most of the people who STILL make an issue of the NO as being “invalid” are the ones who have been doing so for decades, and the (modest degree of) generosity of JPII and Benedict did nothing to increase their disgust of it. Nor increase their divisiveness. But the people who tried the TLM for the first time and discovered there something they needed, while they haven’t (usually) come away thinking that NO is invalid, generally do come to a fresh and increased appreciation for the Mass as such, which is, PRECISELY, what Benedict was hoping for. It is my opinion that Francis completely mis-states the situation. It may be that he has more the right of it than I do, but I don’t know how he would have gotten his hands on objectively better data than I have: the survey of the bishops didn’t provide objective data. They don’t have any source for objectively sound data. And it is undoubtedly true that for every angry letter a bishop gets from a hard-line traddie who “reinforces divergences”, there are a dozen other traddies who don’t feel that way. (And, mind you, the Vatican did not release the survey responses themselves, so their characterization may or may not be fully correct.) Francis goes on to say:
At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.
It is good to hear the Pope say this. But like the last 4 popes, he is not taking ONE SINGLE HARD AND FAST STEP AGAINST THE LITURGICAL ABUSES. Why not? He found the time, energy, and resources to pitch a major effort against the traddies. But the number of people who attend the TLM is about 1% or so of those who go to NO, and there are regular abuses at at least 20% of NO masses (that’s not even counting the ones that are, merely, importantly lacking in reverence, which would be more like 60 to 90%). So, by any realistic measure, the NO abuse problem is AT LEAST 20 times as large. Actually, it’s much worse than that, since the percentage of “divisive” TLM attendees is far below 100% of those who attend, below even 10%, so the abuse problem is actually affecting more like 200 times as many people, and so is really 200 times as great a problem. And yet Francis can’t be bothered to address the abuse problem with anything definitive? The NO problem is also recorded in cold, hard numbers: according to PEW research in 2019, the number of TLM attendees who think like the pope does on abortion is 99%, where as those at NO who do are only 49%. It’s even worse about gay marriage. And, worse yet regarding weekly attendance at mass: only 22% of those who attend the NO go to mass every week, as opposed to 99% for the TLM. The NO, for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism, is clearly fostering dangerous division in the Church. The division is that of apostacy and heresy, rather than schism, but all three of these sins are in the very same category of gravest sins against the Church herself. But the underlying problem is a failure to recognize and accept the real roots of the issue, the real reason there even is a TLM movement. You would think that the real roots of something this large, and across this many people, would be a hard and difficult problem to lay out, but it really isn’t. In 1966 to 1970, Pope Paul VI commissioned a committee led by Annibale Bugnini to “reform” the Mass, as was the explicit direction of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) of Vatican II. But the majority of the committee members had no business being on it, and Bugnini himself was almost certainly a heretic, but at a minimum had already been under censure for his (wrong) outspoken views and had no business being proposed for leading the project (or being within 1000 miles of it). He did what anyone would have expected had they known him, he railroaded the project to produce a mass that he wanted, regardless of what the Council Fathers said. And when you compare the changes made to the principles indicated in SC, it is inescapable that he did not follow SC. I mean, not even sort of. There is no comparison. It was so bad that when the draft was submitted to Pope Paul, he was so horrified that he took pen and struck out a few of the most outrageous of the changes. But being a liberal-minded procedural guy, he was unwilling to do the right thing, which would have been to scrap the whole thing, fire nearly all of the committee, and start from scratch. It is almost like he seemed to think that this was some democratic process, and “well, if this is what the people want…” I have never understood (a) why he thought the resulting product was a “good enough” instantiation of “reform” as called for by SC, nor (b) why he imagined that changes that severe would sit easily with “the people.” Well, it WASN’T what the people wanted, not particularly. In general, “the people” had to be pushed and shoved into accepting it, and that ONLY worked by being strong-armed by “it’s the will of the Pope, who is the supreme head of the Church on Earth.” So, the “will of the Pope” was used when the Pope could barely hold his nose long enough to sign it, and did so "for the people". Talk about (sickening) irony. Paging O Henry... But I am getting ahead of myself: once the final text was determined, in 1969, the Vatican issued Missale Romanum putting the new mass, Novus Ordo, into force for Advent 1969. With a little leeway until 1971, I think. Given the amount that changed, this was without doubt an absolutely stupid and unreasonable way to do it: every single Catholic had been born and raised in the old mass, and knew that their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents had been raised under the very same mass. Custom matters. Customs that long, and that important (every Sunday, every Feast day, etc) grow tethers into 10,000 other practices that are not, strictly speaking, in the missal, but are connected to it: the music, for example. And the genuflecting, and … You cannot just re-do huge sections of the mass all at once, without a long lead-time of education, preparation, discussion, and (to some degree or at least in some elements) gradual implementation, so as to enfold within the adjustment all the OTHER things that were connected to the things you changed. But none of that happened. And it didn’t happen, most likely, intentionally: the liturgo-terrorists who had the bit between their teeth had no desire for an orderly, careful, slow and thought-out process of implementation that moved everyone along step-by-step all together. Nothing doing. They WANTED chaos. And that’s what they got. They used the chaos in order to implement a million OTHER changes that were not actually in any of the books, and were none of them approved. They wanted, especially, so much change that nobody could keep track of it any more, or tell what had permission and what did not, and then they fostered an explicit attitude of expected, even required EXPERIMENTATION outside of the rubrics: priests who did not try new things were accused of fighting against the “Spirit of Vatican II”, although that was a complete lie and was explicitly denied in the Missale Romanum. The chaos helped the lie along. Naturally, out of this we got abuse. We got so many abuses that it is nearly impossible to even come up with a classification system for them. “Clown” masses isn’t even the worst of it. We got so much abuse that abuse became the new normal. However much the Council Fathers wanted the mass to be reformed, there is no way in the world they wanted THAT as the end result. What they put into SC proves they didn’t. And as for the Catholics in the pews, not only didn’t they want all the nonsense, many of them were repulsed by it and offended by the notion that this was all “necessary” because the Council called for “the reform”. What we must raise here, and be perfectly clear about, is the equivocation being CONSTANTLY HAMMERED ONTO OUR SKULLS for the last 50 years: while it is true that the Council directed the pope to see to a reform of the mass, that does not mean the Council directed the pope to produce THIS SPECIFIC MASS and then all the ancillary changes that we actually got – like mass said versus populum, for example. The “reform” we got is nothing like the reform they demanded. So, when Pope Francis says TLM Catholics are “rejecting the reform”, he is unfortunately using an equivocation. If the Vatican had produced the reform asked for, TLM Catholics (at least most of them, though not all) would not now be running from the NO. And the implementation OF “the reform” (i.e. the new missal) doubled down on the injustice of imposing a completely inappropriate and unnecessary set of changes (the ones in excess of and contrary to what the Council directed): it extended the range of injustices and the severity of them almost unimaginably, via poor implementation and abuses. If the popes of the last 50 years had spent as much effort on proper implementation and control of the changes, and careful oversight of those responsible, as they have on those who are just trying to say the old mass, we would not have had TLM growing by leaps and bounds over the last 13 years. If they had taken effective steps to correct the abuses, and to REPAIR some of the worst aspects of the actual missal of the NO that didn’t need to have been changed that way, then 99.9% of the “traditionalist problem" would have died out by now. It is the Vatican’s constant, unchanging attitude, for the last 50 years, that THIS SPECIFIC NO mas is the mass “of the Council”, because by golly it’s the mass produced by the committee put in charge of it, (and the terrorists after them), and anybody who speaks against THIS result speaks against “reform,” and “against the Council.” That fraudulent assertion is the underlying, root problem – refusal to admit the substantive problem in the first place. Reacting against unnecessary changes, and against an ocean of abuses so prevalent as to constitute a degeneracy of “norms”, is not rejecting “reform” or “the Council.” If Paul had admitted his mistakes before he let the draft go forward; If he had put forth a mass worthy of the name “reform” that VII asked for; If he had required a reasonable implementation period and process; If he had restrained the early abuses actively, and censured the people doing them; If he had listened to the faithful laity who expressed legitimate concerns and problems; If he had allowed a bishops the freedom to say “no thanks” even when he COULD NOT restrain the abuses; If he had not doubled down on “this is the process the Vatican approved”; If JPII had taken the opportunity of being his own man, a different chief executive, of not being directly implicated in the failures of Paul, and admitted the errors; If he had taken effective steps to rein in the abuses; If he had freely and early granted permissions that he ended up granting anyway; If he had MADE SURE that Ecclesia Dei actually was generously followed, and had made the bishops obey; If he had not allowed his underlyings to yank the chain of Archbishop Lefebvre with no good reason; If he had admitted publicly what he (probably) came to believe privately – that the old mass had not been abrogated; If he had recognized the catechetical failures of the NO and made essential changes to the NO to correct them; And so on: If the popes and the Vatican had handled the reform properly, or even less than incredibly foolishly and disastrously, they would not have created this horrific mess. If, at ANY TIME in the last 50 years, the Vatican had admitted it made a huge blunder and was going to take steps to correct it, they would have gotten instant support from the TLM community to help and to work with them. But…crickets. The problem of the Vatican response to traddies is a particular sort of clericalism, and Francis, for all he preaches against clericalism, is practicing it by not acting on the REAL problem. The problem was the product of an odd, clerical egotism that insisted, as a metaphysical absolute, that whatever concrete events happened after the Council constituted “the reform” intended by by the Council,, as if post hoc implies propter hoc. As if: because the Council itself was protected from formal doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit, all of the actions taken “in the name of the Council” after it was over must have been prudent and well-designed to make the Church better. “The Vatican can make no mistakes.” Clericalism. (Actually, it’s a kind of ultramontanism, but that is one species of clericalism.) In an odd sort of way, the NO has achieved the primary purpose the Council Fathers had in mind in calling for reform: more fulsome and complete “participation in the mass”. What is odd is that it did so in an entirely unintentional and backhanded way. The prime motivation driving the Fathers was a certain sort of perfunctory and merely physical presence at mass by many, which was made easier to do by the fact that the VISIBLE “activity” of the TLM is almost entirely by the priest and altar boys, with the people doing nothing and saying nothing: it is easy, in that context, just to show up and daydream your way through mass. The Fathers wanted more “active participation”. However, they clearly DEFINED the participation intended as that of an active energy of attention and desire and will: for each person there to attend to what the priest is doing, and to unite himself, by intention, to the sacrifice of the mass, to assent, interiorly and privately, to what the priest, in persona Christi, does actively and ministerially. That’s what the Council wanted most of all. They SAID that. And that’s what now happens at TLM masses, because people who make the effort to seek it out, after having grown up in the NO, would not bother making that effort without doing it for a reason. And in that reason, they devote themselves to actively learning the TLM and understanding their role at mass, and diving into it energetically. So, the NO is causing this, BY CONTRAST. Not precisely the pathway intended by Paul VI, but hey, they should take what they can get, shouldn’t they? What Francis and the bishops should have noticed is that even if the NO weren’t (as usually practiced) as bad as it is, the MERE CONTRAST ALONE between the two masses is actually an aid in understanding the mass better. There are clear benefits to having people easily attend either mass, and once in a while be exposed to the old mass, just for the contrast between what is the norm now and what was the norm for 1500 years. Diversity, you know. And this shows the ultimate mistake Francis is making: he thinks that most of the energy and motivation behind the (increasing) numbers of people using the TLM is from a “rejection of reform” and an “us vs. them” attitude. But this is just not true. The increase in numbers is almost wholly from younger people who weren’t around when the change happened, and who are not into that whole “you took away our mass” stuff. They are not rejecting reform. They are making real the very purpose the Council Fathers had in calling for reform. Francis should be PROMOTING the TLM, not suppressing it. I indicated at the beginning that this motu proprio had something new. What I meant is this: since the advent of the modern era, we have never seen a pope issue something official that is this harsh and downright nasty. These provisions were aimed at trads in a mean and cruel way. (a) It was effective immediately, even though issued on a Friday and could not possibly be implemented immediately without gross and unjust disruption. There was no emergency, it could have been made effective next month, or on January 1. (b) The name Traditionis Custodes, a slap in the face of tradition. (c) the explicit divergence of treatment for those who are not yet ordained, as to whether they will get to say the old mass – including many young men who have already predicated several years of study (under the regime of Summorum Pontificum) thinking they will have unfettered access to the old mass. (d) The dictum that the old mass shall not be said in parish churches. In places where parish churches have been used (and, especially, in places where the bishop has given a TLM group the whole rights to a parish), much time, money, and effort has been put into making the place suitable to the old mass in an eminent way, precisely because of the traditionalists desire for the reverence and the aesthetics of high worship; to rip them away from these spaces and relegate them (probably) to sub-human locations like gyms and conference centers is, effectively, aesthetic torture, i.e. a location itself at odds with the mass being said and the reason for it. And unjust, in the bargain. And (e) ultimately, the larger presumption of the whole Bergoglian dispute with Benedict that the Church cannot tolerate the ongoing existence of the old mass and those who love the old mass even if the Church cannot achieve any effective success in correcting the abuses in the new mass, i.e. the LIVED EXPERIENCE of those suffering from the rampant abuses is irrelevant to whether they should get relief via access to a holy and reverent mass. It is, unfortunately, adding insult to injury, that these actions should be taken by a pope who, for all other downtrodden groups, is all mercy and “accompaniment”, who actively opposes measures to rein in error and troublesome divergence from the Church’s official theology or practice. He seems to be saying that the ONLY people not worthy of his mercy are those who have been harmed by friendly fire from the artillery of the Church herself. And (apparently) only because a small percentage of them are “rigid” and “resist the Church” after having been harmed by friendly fire for 50 years. There is, out of the starting gate, a refreshing amount of evidence that Francis is not going to get quite the active assent to this instruction from the bishops that (maybe) he thought he was going to get. The sheer silliness of saying it is effective “immediately” virtually FORCED many bishops to issue quick public comments saying, in effect: “not yet, it isn’t; keep on doing what you have been doing until I sort this out.” And many of the ones who didn’t say that publicly will be found to have meant that by silence: they are not taking any measures against priests who continued to say the TLM at parish churches according to the schedules in the bulletins. And I have this suspicion that once you force bishops to publicly say whoa, Nellie to implementing TC, you won’t easily get them to go into full-bore application of it in all of its cruel splendor. I suspect that for every bishop like Bishop Minnerath (of Dijon, France, who got a clear idea of what was in TC months early, and kicked out all of the FSSP priests in his diocese 2 months before Francis issued TC), you will get 3 bishops who will implement TC in their typically desultory but mostly compliant (supine) format of approximately half effectiveness, 2 bishops who dig in their heels with an obstinate resistance to precipitate (unnecessary) changes, and 1 more bishop who actively and aggressively repudiates the spirit of TC and tries to undermine its desired effect while either (pick your poison) (i) exhibiting a show of following TC’s directives in outward form, while doing it with what I call “constructive malcompliance” in actual practice, or (ii) telling the pope in effect to go pound sand (maybe, but not necessarily, quietly and only by actions, rather than by outspoken announcement). Francis even may have generated a few brand new Hotspur nodes of resistance IN BISHOPS by this, which is an almost incredible achievement, given that they usually have their spines surgically removed in progression toward a bishop’s miter. In other words, the pope may have shot himself in the foot by his excessive harshness. He might have achieved far more compliance by more restrained efforts. I also think that many bishops will so notice the harshness and untoward spirit of meanness toward trads, that they will reflect on the very plausible scenario that if Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum can be reversed so soon after it was issued (and while Benedict is still alive – and on the 70th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood, no less), then Francis’s TC effort can be and might be reversed by his successor – and Francis is no spring chicken. He is 84, just 1 year younger than Benedict when he resigned, and the same age as JPII when he died. And Francis just went through a week in the hospital. We could well have a new pope in just a year or two, and if a bishop wanted to not implement TC fully, he could simply wait out the pope’s demise with slow-motion “implementation”. There are an infinity of methods to use for that, as all bureaucrats know (and believe me, nobody gets to be a bishop without at least some experience with bureaucracy). I hope that the NET effect of all this is that Francis causes even more bishops to notice the positive good that most TLM congregations in the Church are doing, and reflect more deeply on the possibility of using the TLM to kickstart better Novus Ordo masses in their dioceses. (And, in the longer term, foment a successful movement to reform the Novus Ordo itself.) If I were to speak to bishops directly, I would advise them to do everything in their power to draw TC’s teeth and to “implement” it with the least possible harm to traditional-leaning groups and individuals, and the least possible diminution of TLM masses in general; and, indeed, to increase devotion to the TLM where they can, because that is actually to the Church’s benefit. Interestingly, TC’s obligated actions are on the bishop – it doesn’t even have specific direct orders to parish priests, much less to the laity. Hence, the laity can continue to go to mass (and other ceremonies) under the 1962 missal that are held, without disobedience to Francis. The only people who even could disobey TC are the bishops. Since Francis clearly said the bishop is the custodian of the liturgy in their diocese, the laity are free to attend TLM wherever the bishop does not forbid it. ]]>
Aquileo | The Same Old Weary Shufflingtag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31862021-07-18T09:11:20Z2021-07-18T09:33:41Z I don’t believe anyone of discernment can fail to be moved by the misery, horror and hardship endured by the men who fought the Pacific War in the 1940s. Particularly the US Marines (and Army) against the Japanese Army;...Paul J Cellahttp://cellasreview.blogspot.com/ I don’t believe anyone of discernment can fail to be moved by the misery, horror and hardship endured by the men who fought the Pacific War in the 1940s. Particularly the US Marines (and Army) against the Japanese Army; these two fearsome fighting forces confronted each other, amidst a supremely punitive environment, with a level of ferocity for which it is difficult to find historical parallel. There was cruelty and courage in superabundance, and tenacity in the teeth of unimaginable privation. The extreme scarcity of acts of surrender speaks to the bitterness of the combat and the reciprocal hatred that impelled it. And yet, somehow our two nations put the bitterness and hatred behind them. And rather quickly at that. A mere fifteen years after the war, Japan and the US signed a treaty which began by declaring a mutual desire “to strengthen the bonds of peace and friendship . . . and to uphold the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.” The compact founded upon that treaty stands today, by some measures, as the most durable alliance between two great powers in all of history. Put more whimsically, will any American athlete, upon touching down in Japan for these fraught Olympic Games, or Japanese athlete, seeing the Americans land, spare even a moment to ponder what happened on Guadalcanal almost eighty years ago? Not a bad record of reconciliation for (a) an Empire which instilled such fanaticism in her soldiers that some of them maintained solitary guerilla operations, on godforsaken island redoubts, for decades after the war ended; and (b) a Republic agreed by all her forward-thinking elites (at least since, oh, last summer) to have been founded on racist principles and systems. old%20breed.png Below are some harrowing excerpts from E. B. Sledge’s memoir of his combat tour as a Marine in the Pacific War, With the Old Breed. In simple, direct prose undergirded by a palpable generosity of spirit and unmarred by militaristic hauteur, Sledge supplies a narrative of his experience justly deserving of its reputation as one of the best Pacific War memoirs. You don’t need to be a military history buff to profit from the book. I’ll conclude this prolegomenon with a remark tailored to Lydia and her readers: notice how Sledge’s memory attaches so often to features of the physical world? In a strange way it reminds one of a certain Evangelist, whose own historical narrative of great events is so ill-treated by scholars, that his sturdy Hebrew name has been debased into the ridiculous pseudo-Teutonic jargon of “Johannine community.” Saint John the Apostle, too, had an eye for physical features, which he tended to convey in simple, direct prose. He didn’t fight a bloody war (so far as we know), or endure the trauma of prolonged shelling; but he sure witnessed some bloody events, and he endured a brutal exile, where he was traumatized by a Vision of something rather like a spiritual shelling. As Lydia rightly says, this emphasis on physical detail is a mark of authenticity. If Sledge’s book should manage to abide for another two thousand years, no doubt pompous 41st century scholars will speak of it as, “emanating from the Sledgehammer community” and asseverate that, because it’s “little concerned with actual events” but rather, “general theological themes of the war,” it only “contains history” and isn’t actually a historical document. + + + + + The next morning, again with the help of tanks and amtracs, our battalion took most of the remainder of Ngesebus. Our casualties were remarkably low for the number of Japanese we killed. In midafternoon we learned that an army unit would relieve us shortly and complete the job on the northern end of Ngesebus. Our mortar section halted to await orders and dispersed among some open bushes. In our midst was the wreckage of a Japanese heavy machine gun and the remains of the squad that had been wiped out by Company K. The squad members had been killed in the exact positions to be occupied by such a squad "according to the book." At first glance the dead gunner appeared about to fire his deadly weapon. He still sat bolt upright in the proper firing position behind the breech of his machine gun. Even in death his eyes stared widely along the gun sights. Despite the vacant look of his dilated pupils, I couldn't believe he was dead. Cold chills ran along my spine. Gooseflesh tickled my back. It seemed as though he was looking through me into all eternity, that at any instant he would raise his hands — which rested in a relaxed manner on his thighs — grip the handles on the breech, and press the thumb trigger. The bright shiny brass slugs in the strip clip appeared as ready as the gunner, anxious to speed out, to kill, and to maim more of the "American devils." But he would rot, and they would corrode. Neither he nor his ammo could do any more for the emperor.]]> The crown of the gunner's skull had been blasted off, probably by one of our automatic weapons. His riddled steel helmet lay on the deck like a punctured tin can. The assistant gunner lay beside the gun. Apparently, he had just opened a small green wooden chest filled with strip clips of machine-gun cartridges when he was killed. Several other Japanese soldiers, ammo carriers, lay strung out at intervals behind the gun. A Company K rifleman who had been in the fight that knocked out the machine-gun crew sat on his helmet nearby and told us the story. The action had taken place the day before while the mortar section was fighting at the pillbox. The rifleman said, "The thing that I just couldn't believe was the way those Nip ammo carriers could chop chop around here on the double with those heavy boxes of ammo on their backs." Each ammo box had two leather straps, and each ammo carrier had a heavy box on his back with the straps around his shoulders. I lifted one of the ammo chests. It weighed more than our mortar. What the Japanese lacked in height, they certainly compensated for in muscle. "I'd sure hate to hafta lug that thing around, wouldn't you?" asked the Marine. "When they got hit," he continued, "they fell to the deck like a brick because of all that weight." As we talked, I noticed a fellow mortarman sitting next to me. He held a handful of coral pebbles in his left hand. With his right hand he idly tossed them into the open skull of the Japanese machine gunner. Each time his pitch was true I heard a little splash of rainwater in the ghastly receptacle. My buddy tossed the coral chunks as casually as a boy casting pebbles into a puddle on some muddy road back home; there was nothing malicious in his action. The war had so brutalized us that it was beyond belief. I noticed gold teeth glistening brightly between the lips of several of the dead Japanese lying around us. Harvesting gold teeth was one facet of stripping enemy dead that I hadn't practiced so far. But stopping beside a corpse with a particularly tempting number of shining crowns, I took out my kabar and bent over to make the extractions. A hand grasped me by the shoulder, and I straightened up to see who it was. "What are you gonna do, Sledgehammer?" asked Doc Caswell. His expression was a mix of sadness and reproach as he looked intently at me. "Just thought I'd collect some gold teeth," I replied. "Don't do it." "Why not, Doc?" "You don't want to do that sort of thing. What would your folks think if they knew?" "Well, my dad's a doctor, and I bet he'd think it was kinda I interesting," I replied, bending down to resume my task. "No! The germs, Sledgehammer! You might get germs from them." I stopped and looked inquiringly at Doc and said, "Germs? Gosh, I never thought of that." "Yeah, you got to be careful about germs around all these dead Nips, you know," he said vehemently. "Well, then, I guess I'd better just cut off the insignia on his collar and | leave his nasty teeth alone. You think that's safe, Doc?" "I guess so," he replied with an approving nod. Reflecting on the episode after the war, I realized that Doc Caswell didn’t really have germs in mind. He was a good friend and a fine, genuine person whose sensitivity hadn’t been crushed by the war. He was merely trying to help me retain some of mine and not become completely callous and harsh. [. . .] The sun bore down on us like a giant heat lamp. Once I saw a misplaced phosphorous grenade explode on the coral from the sun's intense heat. We always shaded our stacked mortar shells with a piece of ammo box to prevent this. Occasional rains that fell on the hot coral merely evaporated like steam off hot pavement. The air hung heavy and muggy. Everywhere we went on the ridges the hot humid air reeked with the stench of death. A strong wind was no relief; it simply brought the horrid odor from an adjacent area. Japanese corpses lay where they fell among the rocks and on the slopes. It was impossible to cover them. Usually there was no soil that could be spaded over them, just the hard, jagged coral. The enemy dead simply rotted where they had fallen. They lay all over the place in grotesque positions with puffy faces and grinning buck-toothed expressions. It is difficult to convey to anyone who has not experienced it the ghastly horror of having your sense of smell saturated constantly with the putrid odor of rotting human flesh day after day, night after night. This was something the men of an infantry battalion got a horrifying dose of during a long, protracted battle such as Peleliu. In the tropics the dead became bloated and gave off a terrific stench within a few hours after death. Whenever possible we removed Marine dead to the rear of the company's position. There they were usually laid on stretchers and covered with ponchos which stretched over the head of the corpse down to the ankles. I rarely saw a dead Marine left uncovered with his face exposed to sun, rain, and flies. Somehow it seemed indecent not to cover our dead. Often, though, the dead might lie on the stretchers for some time and decompose badly before the busy graves registration crews could take them for burial in the division cemetery near the airfield. During the fighting around the Umurbrogol Pocket, there was a constant movement of one weary, depleted Marine company being relieved by another slightly less weary, depleted company. We seemed to rotate from one particularly dangerous part of the line to one slightly less so and back again continuously. There were certain areas we moved into and out of several times as the campaign dragged along its weary, bloody course. In many such areas I became quite familiar with the sight of some particular enemy corpse, as if it were a landmark. It was gruesome to see the stages of decay proceed from just killed, to bloated, to maggot-infested rotting, to partially exposed bones — like some biological clock marking the inexorable passage of time. On each occasion my company passed such a landmark we were fewer in number. Each time we moved into a different position I could determine the areas occupied by each rifle company as we went into that sector of the line. Behind each company position lay a pile of ammo and supplies and the inevitable rows of dead under their ponchos. We could determine how bad that sector of the line was by the number of dead. To see them so always filled me with anger at the war and the realization of the senseless waste. It depressed me far more than my own fear. Added to the awful stench of the dead of both sides was the repulsive odor of human excrement everywhere. It was all but impossible to practice simple, elemental field sanitation on most areas of Peleliu because of the rocky surface. Field sanitation during maneuvers and combat was the responsibility of each man. In short, under normal conditions, he covered his own waste with a scoop of soil. At night when he didn't dare venture out of his foxhole, he simply used an empty grenade canister or ration can, threw it out of his hole, and scooped dirt over it next day if he wasn't under heavy enemy fire. But on Peleliu, except along the beach areas and in the swamps, digging into the coral rock was nearly impossible. Consequently, thousands of men — most of them around the Umurbrogol Pocket in the ridges, many suffering with severe diarrhea, fighting for weeks on an island two miles by six miles — couldn't practice basic field sanitation. This fundamental neglect caused an already putrid tropical atmosphere to become inconceivably vile. Added to this was the odor of thousands of rotting, discarded Japanese and American rations. At every breath one inhaled hot, humid air heavy with countless repulsive odors. I felt as though my lungs would never be cleansed of all those foul vapors. It may not have been that way down on the airfield and in other areas where the service troops were encamped, but around the infantry in the Umurbrogol Pocket, the stench varied only from foul to unbearable. In this garbage-filled environment the flies, always numerous in the tropics anyway, underwent a population explosion. This species was not the unimposing common housefly (the presence of one of which in a restaurant is enough to cause most Americans today to declare the place unfit to serve food to the public). Peleliu's most common fly was the huge blowfly or bluebottle fly. This creature has a plump, metallic, greenish-blue body, and its wings often make a humming sound during flight. The then new insecticide DDT was sprayed over the combat areas on Peleliu for the first time anywhere. It supposedly reduced the adult fly population while Marines were still fighting on the ridges, but I never noticed that the flies became fewer in number. With human corpses, human excrement, and rotting rations scattered across Peleliu's ridges, those nasty insects were so large, so glutted, and so lazy that some could scarcely fly. They could not be waved away or frightened off a can of rations or a chocolate bar. Frequently they tumbled off the side of my canteen cup into my coffee. We actually had to shake the food to dislodge the flies, and even then they sometimes refused to move. I usually had to balance my can of stew on my knee, spooning it up with my right hand while I picked the sluggish creatures off the stew with my left. They refused to move or to be intimidated. It was revolting, to say the least, to watch big fat blowflies leave a corpse and swarm into our C rations. Even though none of us had much appetite, we still had to eat. A way to solve the fly problem was to eat after sunset or before sunrise when the insects were inactive. Chow had to be unheated then, because no sterno tablets or other form of light could be used after dark. It was sure to draw enemy sniper fire. Each morning just before sunrise, when things were fairly quiet, I could hear a steady humming sound like bees in a hive as the flies became active with the onset of daylight. They rose up off the corpses, refuse, rocks, brush, and wherever else they had settled for the night like a swarm of bees. Their numbers were incredible. Large land crabs crawled all over the ridges at night, attracted by corpses. Their rustling through dry debris often was indistinguishable from prowling enemy soldiers. We responded by tossing a grenade at the sound. In addition to rotting corpses and organic waste, the litter of smashed and worn out equipment of every type became more abundant as the battle dragged on and the size of the Umurbrogol Pocket shrank slowly. The ridges and ravines were littered with the flotsam of fierce combat. Debris of battle was everywhere and became more noticeable as the weeks dragged on. I still see clearly the landscape around one particular position we occupied for several days. It was a scene of destruction and desolation that no fiction could invent. The area was along the southwestern border of the pocket where ferocious fighting had gone on since the second day of battle (16 September). The 1st Marines, the 7th Marines, and now the 5th Marines, all in their turn, had fought against this same section of ridges. Our exhausted battalion, 3/5, moved into the line to relieve another slightly more exhausted battalion. It was the same old weary shuffling of one tired, depleted outfit into the line to relieve another whose sweating men trudged out of their positions, hollow-eyed, stooped, grimy, bearded zombies. Aquileo | Lisa Miller updatetag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31852021-07-05T14:02:28Z2021-07-05T14:13:10ZI wanted to post here an update on Lisa Miller. She has been in federal prison now awaiting trial, after turning herself in in Nicaragua, for 4 1/2 months. (Wasn't there supposed to be something in the Constitution about speedy...Lydia McGrewhttp://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Lisa Miller. She has been in federal prison now awaiting trial, after turning herself in in Nicaragua, for 4 1/2 months. (Wasn't there supposed to be something in the Constitution about speedy justice? Oh, well.) I think perhaps the date of "June 3" on the letter is a misprint or was incorrectly written, since on the blog where it was posted there is a June 7 letter that comes prior to it. But since it was posted on July 1, it can't mean July 3, so perhaps it is June 3 after all and is just posted out of order. I also wanted to mention that Philip Zodhiates has been released to home confinement as of May. Her courage in the face of all that she is going through is humbling. I didn't know that she has an autoimmune disorder (she identifies it as Hashimoto's Disease). It doesn't sound like the feds are treating their prisoners very well, not even those still untried and hence presumed innocent. Let us not forget those in prison. Here is her letter.]]> June 3, 2021 Dear Brethren and Friends, Greetings in the name of Jesus the One who is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble (Psalm 46:1). This verse is a very special truth to me, especially because it is the truth that returned to me in the moment when I realized in 2003 that I was being taken to court. Thankfully, God is the same God now as He was then!! Can you believe that it has been 4 ½ months since I have been in jail? Primarily, the most difficult part of my experience has been my separation from my daughter. Another difficulty has been the decline of my health. My main health challenge has been in the area of my Hashimoto’s disease. As a result of the jail (including FDC “throwing out” the meds I brought with me) refusing to grant me my usual medication and treatment plan, my overall health has rapidly declined creating other flare-ups and conditions, which were previously under “remission” prior to entering the penal system. As a result, I am extremely fatigued, brain-fogged, and my pain level has risen significantly, which in turn precipitates a need to rest throughout the day and increase my intake of ibuprofen. In addition to compensate for my brain fog and fatigue, I have switched my quiet time (devotions) from my usual lifelong morning time to night time in hopes to be able to obtain more sleep but more importantly to be able to be more focused on my Q.T. (my pain level is higher in the mornings) for another inmate commented that she has noticed that I am distracted in the mornings and therefore am not doing my devotions as I have previously been doing. =( Since I am living in a dorm my every move can potentially be watched by others, which means I have basically a built-in accountability system! I am grateful though that she felt the need to bring my remissness to my attention! =) At this time in my life due to both my declining health and increased need to concentrate on my legal case by reading page after page of legal documents, I am unable to respond to each of you personally as I have done before. These last weeks I have been resting/sleeping more and have fallen very behind on my correspondences. Even though I read and cherish each and every one of your letters, even jotting down the verses and chapters (and quotes) you encourage me with for purposes of having a handy list of God’s truths to peruse later, please do not be offended should you not receive a return letter at this time. Life in jail continues to be a blessing for I am daily reminded of Jesus’ love for me and am daily reminded of my shortcomings so that I may be refined in the fire. God has been good to me in many ways, including but not limited to: Permitting me to watch during rec. time a mama robin tend to her two babies from their “infancy” to when they were big enough to sit on the side of their nest to puff up and preen. Be asked to work in laundry – folding, organizing, preparing linen for linen exchange and performing other various and sundry duties (I work with another lady). Receiving mail from many brothers and sisters in Christ who encourage me and who offer me a glimpse into their lives (which by the way blesses me beyond words) Even though I do not feel worthy and at times feel like an utter failure while doing so, speak with others about Christ. I’ll close by sharing with you a sample of the quotes that I have been gracing my bunk in hopes that you too are encouraged to trust God more and to be spurred on to be “zealous for good works:” “And the LORD will guide you continually and satisfy your desire in scorched places and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.” Isaiah 58:11 All I have seen teaches me to trust God for all I have not Our hope is in His unfailing love. Psalm 147 Be still and know that I AM God. Psalm 46:10 There is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven. Ecclesiastes Thank you again for your prayers, cards and letters, gifts, and money on my commissary (by the way I have no way of knowing who puts money on so I am putting the “thank you” in here =) ). I appreciate your generosity and am so blessed and encouraged by our unity in Christ. Serving Him, Lisa Miller “…in this place will I give peace saith the LORD of hosts.” Haggai 2:9 Aquileo | Social media censorship, social control, and penalizing successtag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31842021-05-21T15:36:27Z2021-05-21T15:51:31ZAs we think about things like Facebook censorship of particular views, done deliberately because of the content of those views, we should think in terms of the large social effects of such censorship. During the past ten years, social ostracism...Lydia McGrewhttp://www.lydiamcgrew.com/As we think about things like Facebook censorship of particular views, done deliberately because of the content of those views, we should think in terms of the large social effects of such censorship. During the past ten years, social ostracism of people who utter certain views, and the idea that those views are just unacceptable and taboo, has increased greatly. An example would be the view that homosexual acts are both unnatural and seriously immoral. Some even of my friends who agree with that view may feel uncomfortable with my saying it. Some may openly think that I am somehow unkind for saying it or that it is the kind of thing one shouldn't say in public where others can hear you (in the broader sense of "hear"). Indeed, it is a paradox of social media that the platforms positively invite and encourage people to build up a following so as to communicate a message effectively to as wide an audience as possible, then selectively penalize those who do this with views that they oppose, especially those that I consider importantly true.]]> The harm that this does to society cannot be measured in terms of the numbers of people who, for example, get put in Facebook "jail" or even who suffer more draconian injustices, such as the complete loss of access to their photographs and intellectual property in the form of their posts over many years, the communications platform they have built up, etc., by having their pages shut down. The mere threat of such measures, which we all know that Facebook can take and has taken in some cases, is enough to discourage the expression of the views in question. It is a truism of social control that making it taboo to say certain things is part of controlling thought, and in this respect Facebook is a big player, and threat of losing access to one's page is just one weapon in its arsenal. At the same time, those of us who want to have an impact in the world by means of writing have to go where the people are, and places like Facebook and Youtube (and Twitter, though I have not yet agreed to use Twitter) constitute that kind of public square in the 21st century. Here I can post content, advertise books, post links to content, and have that message amplified by being shared by others. And to a huge extent in such matters it's a case of "the only thing that succeeds is success." MeWe is great but I predict will never achieve the kind of following that enables it to replace FB, and for that reason I treat MeWe as even more private than my FB private content and do almost nothing with it. I might as well, since I can see from the handwriting on the wall that it isn't going to fulfill the infrastructure role that I need to have fulfilled *right now* for the work that I believe God has given me to do right now. So I stay on this semi-monopolistic platform because I need it, while recognizing the risks. Those who have argued with me over the years about the free market know that I'm a big advocate thereof, but recent events with various platforms (including Amazon) have shown me that we free marketers need to take concerns about monopoly seriously. And then there's the platform-publisher distinction and FB's attempt to have it both ways. But here I'm talking more about moral than about legal issues. For a company to build up what is in its essence a communications infrastructure platform, to encourage people to use that platform and become dependent on it, and then occasionally to severely punish those who use it to disseminate importantly true views, is not a small injustice but a large one. And yes, the truth of the views matters. As with most such things, we can't get away from the content issue. And we have all seen the hypocrisy and inconsistency of such deplatforming, in which truly evil material (e.g., glorifying terrorists and the like) is left up while virtue-signaling censors put people in FB "jail" or block them out of their pages for saying that a man cannot turn into a woman. The targeted hatred of Christian and morally sane views, even if expressed in a calm, rational manner, is quite blatant. Someone like me is skating on thin ice. I'm taking some risk of FB "punishment" and even of harm to those I love who are in a less protected position than I am (through loss of livelihood, "canceling," etc.), and this risk grows as I build up more of a following--which is exactly what I'm trying to do! Such bullying by a very poweful media entity may not happen to me. So far I've been lucky, as have many others. Many of us just happen to fly under the radar. But meanwhile I'm not going to pretend that it is no big deal and that Christians and conservatives are just whiners merely because the more significant silencing happens only to a few. Those few are being used as examples to silence others. That's how social control works and how it has always worked, and we should not be naive. Aquileo | The Small Vine: Life Over Deathtag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31832021-05-16T15:07:07Z2021-05-16T14:03:09ZMany-a year ago, I went on a sci-fi reading binge in my spare time. It was mostly a flop. Turns out I'm not really into reading sci-fi. One of the authors I tried unsuccessfully to enjoy was Fred Saberhagen. I...Lydia McGrewhttp://www.lydiamcgrew.com/ Many-a year ago, I went on a sci-fi reading binge in my spare time. It was mostly a flop. Turns out I'm not really into reading sci-fi. One of the authors I tried unsuccessfully to enjoy was Fred Saberhagen. I read quite a number of short stories set in his Berserker universe. The Berserkers are demoniacally clever, life-destroying robots. They specialize in torture as a mode of forcing humans to do their will (they have no emotions) as they try to eradicate life from the galaxy. I'm a sensitive soul. This series wasn't for me. Plus, like so many sci-fi authors, Saberhagen just didn't seem to me to have the gift of making you see landscape or get really involved with characters. Everything was just plot sketches on board spaceships. There was one short story, the title of which I don't remember. I'll just let some enterprising reader do the googling to try to find its title and perhaps correct my memory of its plot. But the plot, and the ending (spoilers coming) have always stuck with me for conceptual reasons, even though I can scarcely remember if the protagonist was male or female, let alone his name. I'm pretty sure it was a man. The Berserkers had taken over the spaceship. The main character was being left alive for a while because they had some nefarious use for him. The Berserkers would sometimes force humans to act as spies or lures for other humans. I remember that from other stories. So maybe that was it. Anyway, they were going to make some bad use of the spaceship as well. Meanwhile, they had to let the few humans they were keeping continue to grow food, so there was a garden on the ship. The climax (and ending) of the story came when the protagonist realized that one of the melons or gourds in the garden had sent its vines (roots?) down into the side of the ship and pried apart a seam of some kind. This meant that he was going to die pretty soon. It would also destroy the ship. Normally a disaster. But now that the ship was taken over by the Berserkers, he perceived it as a triumph. The story ends with him ready to die happy when the ship is depressurized, realizing that now it can't be used by the Berserkers to destroy more life. Probably the scenes he is now witnessing will not provide material for an intellectual attack on his faith...But there is a sort of attack on the emotions which can still be tried. It turns on making him feel, when first he sees human remains plastered on a wall, that this is "what the world is really like" and that all his religion has been a fantasy. You will notice that we have got them completely fogged about the meaning of the world "real." They tell each other, of some great spiritual experience, "All that really happened was that you heard some music in a lighted building";...The general rule which we have now pretty well established among them is that in all experiences which can make them happier or better only the physical facts are "real," while the spiritual elements are "subjective". In all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them the spiritual elements are the main reality, and to ignore them is to be an escapist. Thus in birth the blood and pain are "real," the rejoicing a mere subjective point of view; in death, the terror and ugliness reveal what death "really means."...Wars and poverty are "really" horrible; peace and plenty are mere physical facts about which men happen to have certain sentiments....Your patient, properly handled, will have no difficulty in regarding his emotion at the sight of human entrails as a revelation of reality and his emotion at the sight of happy children or fair weather as mere sentiment. The Screwtape Letters, pp. 142-144 (from Letter XXX) Precisely. Uncle Screwtape has nailed it. And so, if you see something beautiful and are in danger of being encouraged by it, your own personal Screwtape or Wormwood will be quick to remind you that all is just as wrong with the world as it was before and that you are merely experiencing a shot of dopamine occasioned by the nice weather. On the other hand, if you hear some tragic news of a friend of a friend who is dying alone, your personal Screwtape or Wormwood will tell you that that is what reality is really like and will ask you, pointedly, why God allows such things if He really exists. See how that works? It's a game the Devil delights to play. Lewis made this devilish view of the world even more vivid in Perelandra. Ransom, the protagonist, has fought and (seemingly) defeated the demon-possessed Unman (formerly Dr. Weston) and has been cast up on the shores of an underground country where he wanders for some time. Unfortunately, the Unman is only partly dead. He follows Ransom through the underworld in a zombie-like state and has to be finally killed in one last fight and his body burned in a subterranean lake of fire before he stops pursuing Ransom. Just before the Unman emerges for the last time, he pours into Ransom's mind the demonic view of things:
Suddenly and irresistibly, like an attack by tanks, that whole view of the universe which Weston...had so lately preached to him took all but complete possession of his mind. He seemed to see that he had been living all his life in a world of illusions....The beauty of Perelandra, the innocence of the Lady, the sufferings of saints and the kindly affections of men, were all only an appearance and outward show. What he had called the worlds were but the skins of the worlds: a quarter of a mile beneath the surface, and from thence through thousands of miles of dark and silence and infernal fire, to the very heart of each, Reality lived--the meaningless, the un-made, the omnipotent idiocy to which all spirits were irrelevant and before which all efforts were vain. (Perelandra, p. 180)
That's what the Devil wants you to think. Frankly, shallow sentimentalism about a daily puppy picture would be truer. But better still the realization that the puppy, the friend, the green leaves, the sufferings of saints, and the kindly affections of men are the garment in which Reality clothes itself--that vast, meaningful, and ultimately powerful Reality that, at the last, will (for those who belong to the Lord, and hence are in touch with Reality) redeem all our losses. It will win because it must, because omnipotence and goodness are ultimately linked in some mysterious way that the Thomists claim to understand (and maybe they're right) and that I don't claim to understand. God's power and His goodness flow from his very being in two mighty streams. His creative acts flow from both, and one day He will make a new heaven and a new earth. It may seem to us now that only goodness is eternally being lost and that only evil and meaninglessness will remain, but when we see from the side of eternity, we will see that that was only what the Enemy wanted us to think. Christians believe that I'm right about this. Thinking Christians know that I'm right. The problem is one of holding on, isn't it? Another thing that can sap our will to hold on is our own sense of ridiculousness. Who am I, pontificating about Meaning and Suffering when others are really suffering? We can be tempted to be harsh with ourselves in a way that is not good, ridiculing our own attempts to cling to the unchanging hand of God on the grounds that, after all, we are so privileged, so pampered, that we shouldn't need such reflections in the first place. The Devil wants you to think that, too. Better to be humble, to take your share of the Cross, however ludicrously small it might seem in comparison with others', with due seriousness but not with self-aggrandizement, to accept with gratitude the present grace, and to go on. If there is one thing that 2020 and now 2021 have shown me, it is that the Devil is astoundingly quick to take advantage of anything and everything that he can turn to his own uses. Since these days I have an increasingly large electronic correspondence, I get a small chance to see that there are an awful lot of people out there going along quietly bearing an increasing sense of darkness and doom but not wanting to say much about it. It may be something concrete like the loss of a job or physical pain or illness, or it may be a sense of psychological or spiritual oppression, or both, but it's there, and I think it's there more and more now. The vine in the Saberhagen story was just a symbol. It would mean nothing to say that life triumphs over death if we didn't have reason to believe that, really, life does triumph over death. Who cares if forests grow back over the ruins of human civilizations? Who cares if a gourd destroys a spaceship and messes up some wicked plans? No doubt the Berserkers will find another way to move forward. The glory of Christianity is that it tells us that the good message is true. We feel, when we see spring come after winter, that life springs up ever and anew and that death is not the final answer. Is that just a feeling? That's what we want to know. After all, when the deadly snows fall again and, in these northern latitudes, the long dark days come back, we feel the opposite--that darkness is the ultimate fate of man. Is that true? Both can seem like insights. This is why we need the propositional content and the empirical evidence to give stability to our feelings and to help us to distinguish the true from the false. Thank God, he has not left us to puzzle out that riddle alone. Crossposted]]>
Aquileo | La nouvelle radiotag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31822021-05-11T02:32:03Z2021-05-11T02:53:14ZAs readers are no doubt well aware, the last five or so years have seen an explosion in podcasting. Statistics on these matters (often self-reported), while lacking reliable precision, nonetheless supply valuable information as trends. So while less than a...Paul J Cellahttp://cellasreview.blogspot.com/complete the entire episodes of the podcasts they listen to; given that many prominent ones exceed two hours in length, even adjusting for exaggeration by surveyed listeners, this suggests a remarkable follow-through rate. Though some podcasters, like my friend Erick Erickson, structure theirs as an adjunct to a traditional radio show, most are standalone features, recorded, produced, and released for consumption some time later. So what we’re talking about here is the rise of what amounts to a new medium of communication. And the market for that medium consists of people who tend to be younger, wealthier, better-educated and more gainfully employed than Americans on average. In fine, la nouvelle radio, while perhaps not killing the video star, is surely causing him some distress. The chief merit of the podcast medium: multitasking. To listen to a sprawling conversation of three hours in length sure sounds daunting -- unless you’re a long-haul trucker or a man training for a half-marathon, alone with your higher mental processes while your lower ones are dominated by physically taxing activity. The demerits are real but minor: repetitiveness, reduced memory retention, the difficulty of moving around in the “text” for clarity, recollection, and cross-reference. A podcast cannot replace a book. On the other hand, I have yet to discover an effective method for reading a book while also washing dishes or mowing the lawn. The fact that even the most fluid podcasters speak at a pace well below average reading pace seems like a wash compared to the emotional vitality of natural human conversation. The loss of rapidity in absorbing information is offset by the gain of dramatic power. After all, I can read the St. Crispin’s Day speech faster than Kenneth Branagh can deliver it. ]]> Brave Art”. The former man needs no introduction; slowly recovering from a debilitating bout with benzodiazepine withdrawal and Covid-19, Peterson has dropped a new book and a new season of the podcast. A recent number: an engrossing two and half hour conversation with the polymath Wallace, best known for writing Braveheart and writing and directing We Were Soldiers. That’s all I really knew about him myself before I listened to this riveting exchange of ideas; now I almost look on those details as mere footnotes in the life of a man in full. Jocko Willink on The Making of a Soldier, by Col. Anthony Herbert. Willink may need an introduction. A retired Navy SEAL with twenty years of service, author, businessman, jiu-jitsu trainer, clothing designer, his singular podcast often consists of lengthy excerpts from the memoirs of combat veterans. His speaking style is instantly gripping, almost spellbinding. Sometimes the author joins him, but in this case the author, being deceased, cannot. Col. Herbert’s memoir of his combat tour in the Korean War is long out of print, and now Jocko listeners have snapped up all the used copies, driving the price on Amazon up to $300; so until a new addition appears (which has happened on the strength of the demand that this podcast generates), we’ll have to content ourselves with Jocko’s reading and commentary on this astounding soldier’s career. (I can almost hear some more mature reader saying, “what about a library, you young blister?” Well, first, I’m not young. And second, I tried that. No copies in Fulton or Cobb County, or even the excellent Emory University library.) The First Things podcast: “Elegies for Friends”. Mark Bauerlein hosts the august Journal on Religion and Public Life’s regular podcast. It features a traditional host-interviews-guest format, and it’s shorter in length (I usually finish the podcast before I finish my run), often centered around a recently published book. In this number, Bauerlein interviews the celebrated Catholic historian George Weigel, best known for his two gigantic biographies of John Paul II. Weigel’s recent book consists of a collection of informal obituaries, ranging from the elevated precincts of world diplomacy to the relative depths of a Major League Baseball dugout. Finally, the incomparable Dan Carlin, whose Hardcore History is a marvel of the medium. His “Blueprint for Armageddon” -- a six-episode, 25-hour audio treatment of the First World War -- has been rightly called a modern masterpiece. Now behind the paywall, “Blueprint” rewards your $13 in abundance. Meanwhile, Carlin’s latest series, “Supernova in the East,” remains available for free. Focused on the rise of Imperial Japan and the Pacific War, “Supernova” may in the end exceed “Blueprint” in length (the final episode has not yet dropped); and while it may not exceed in quality, it will probably come close. Anyone who supposes that podcasts can replace reading is a fool; but the supplementary virtues, above all the capacity to superadd high-quality intellectual stimulation to the mundane tasks in life, affirm the enormous success of this medium. If you haven’t already, give it a shot. ]]> Aquileo | The racial Hatfields and McCoystag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31812021-04-16T21:11:42Z2021-04-16T21:17:57ZHere is something that I recently posted on Facebook apropos of the kind of weak-sauce semi-condemnations of racial rioting and looting. Such statements as I have in mind come with lengthy rationalizations and pleas for walking in the shoes of...Lydia McGrewhttp://www.lydiamcgrew.com/ Here is something that I recently posted on Facebook apropos of the kind of weak-sauce semi-condemnations of racial rioting and looting. Such statements as I have in mind come with lengthy rationalizations and pleas for walking in the shoes of the rioters (would those be the looted Nikes or the shoes they were previously wearing, one wonders?) on the grounds that they feel so oppressed by [fill in here whatever recent event sparked the current round of looting]. I find all of this frankly shocking when it comes from people that I otherwise like or think well of. The acts in question are so obviously wicked, greedy, and evil, and the downplaying comments are so obviously irrelevant. Indeed, things are usually even worse than what is portrayed in my alternative scenario below, because in many cases the event in question could be seen by a reasonable man as an accident (as recently when an officer accidentally shot someone while believing that she was using a taser). But even if there were real bad acts involved (as sometimes there are), that would be utterly irrelevant to the legitimacy of looting and breaking the property of people totally unrelated to the event! It is a savagely stunted moral judgement that suggests otherwise, a moral judgement that gives us undying feuds in which, "He did that to some of my people, so we're going to hurt some of his people" is followed by the exact same statement on the other side. Here is what I wrote. Something to ponder: Suppose that we imagine politically non-favored group A. Suppose that members of group A have, indeed, suffered injustice because of their membership in group A. Suppose that that injustice has seriously harmed them or those whom they love--"their people." Suppose that members of group A go on a spree targeting admittedly completely innocent members of politically favored group B, destroying their property and their livelihoods, with the implicit threat of harming them if they get in the way. Suppose that members of group A make it clear that they are doing so because of their anger due to the perceived injustices and harms done to members of their own group, "their people." I guarantee you that if I fleshed out this scenario in concrete terms and if it really happened with the groups I have in mind, that motivation would be considered to make the acts of vandalism and looting *worse*. It wouldn't be considered to make them understandable! Those destructive members of group A would be seen as bigots on top of being wicked destroyers of the livelihoods and property of innocent people who (everyone admits) had *nothing to do with* the injustices or perceived injustices committed against them. The whole thing would be seen as creepy and bigoted on top of being wantonly destructive. But somehow, when the group in question is a politically more favored group, a group to whom the chattering classes are more sympathetic, then that motive is seen as seriously mitigating and we are told to try to walk a mile in the shoes of the destroyers, to feel their pain, to understand and sympathize with them, because of their group-based motive for wantonly harming the innocent. This is bad. In fact, this is the kind of thing out of which never-ending feuds are made. Group A harms innocent members of Group B, who then harm innocent members of Group A, world without end, Amen. Never, never downplay, mitigate, or ask for sympathy for wicked, destructive, vengeful actions against the innocent on the grounds of perceived injustices or even *real* injustices done to "the people" doing the new harm. And tepid condemnations or "I don't approve" statements coupled with pleas for understanding "how they feel" while they do such wicked acts are indeed downplaying and morally wrong. And hence are encouraging a world of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, in which everyone ends up eyeless and toothless. Just stop it. Aquileo | Building the wall [Updated]tag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31802021-04-12T00:53:59Z2021-04-12T19:01:55ZYou remember Pastor Coates in Canada? This guy. Well, now this is happening. He was released from jail pending his trial. His church continued to meet. The RCMP has now built a big chainlink fence around GraceLife Church. Protesters gathered...Lydia McGrewhttp://www.lydiamcgrew.com/This guy. Well, now this is happening. He was released from jail pending his trial. His church continued to meet. The RCMP has now built a big chainlink fence around GraceLife Church. Protesters gathered outside the fence today, though GraceLife itself says that its own members were not being encouraged to join those protestors. I hope myself that Pastor Coates quietly gathered GraceLife's own congregation somewhere else just to hold a church service out in the prairie or on private property, but I haven't been able to get any information about that. Update: They did! Here is a video. It carefully just shows Pastor Coates and doesn't say where it was recorded. Bless 'em! I bet the police are carefully analyzing the video at this very moment to identify that gray brick wall and figure out where this dangerous, illegal activity is taking place. Click to watch the underground church in Canada meet and pray. If you're a committed Christian and this barricading of GraceLife and fixation on the part of the Alberta Health Department doesn't bother you, it should.]]> Aquileo | Easter 2021tag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31792021-04-04T06:52:31Z2021-04-04T07:09:50Z St. Ignatius of Antioch, a Christian pastor of the immediate post-apostolic generation, was martyred in Rome around the turn of the 2nd century. References in his own works point to death by wild animals for public entertainment. Reliable, if...Paul J Cellahttp://cellasreview.blogspot.com/ St. Ignatius of Antioch, a Christian pastor of the immediate post-apostolic generation, was martyred in Rome around the turn of the 2nd century. References in his own works point to death by wild animals for public entertainment. Reliable, if not definitive, historical evidence links him to both St. Peter and St. John the Apostle. Less reliable evidence puts him among those blessed urchins regarding whom Our Lord declared, “suffer the little children to come to me”; and presents him, much later in life, courageously defying Emperor Trajan in person prior to his imprisonment. His journey in chains from Syria to Italy supplied opportunity and inspiration for a series of epistles whose richness of doctrine and eloquence of language mark them as among the early treasures of post-Scriptural Christian literature. The following excerpt comes from his Letter to the Smyrnans, which is noteworthy for its emphatic defense of the bodily, physical, very much real, life, passion, death and resurrection of the Nazarene. Alleluia, He is Risen!

* * * * *

I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immovable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed to the cross for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful followers, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church. ]]> Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself; not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only suffered in semblance, being themselves mere semblance. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits. For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father. I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also are so minded. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of effecting this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, in fact, he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me. Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they are of the same mind regarding us. For what profit is it to me, if a man commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was truly a bearer of flesh? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought it good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ's passion, which is our resurrection. [. . .] The love of the brethren at Troas salutes you; whence also I write to you by Burrhus, whom you sent with me, together with the Ephesians, your brethren, and who has in all things refreshed me. And I would that all may imitate him, as being a pattern of a minister of God. Grace will reward him in all things. I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual, in union with God and you. Grace, mercy, peace, and patience, be with you for evermore!

Aquileo | Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthanitag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31782021-04-02T15:05:16Z2021-04-02T16:46:01ZMy God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Sermon 68, Leo the Great I. Christ's Godhead never forsook Him in His Passion The last discourse, dearly-beloved, of which we desire now to give the promised portion, had reached that...Tony M.Sermon 68, Leo the Great I. Christ's Godhead never forsook Him in His Passion The last discourse, dearly-beloved, of which we desire now to give the promised portion, had reached that point in the argument where we were speaking of that cry which the crucified Lord uttered to the Father: we bade the simple and unthinking hearer not take the words "My God, etc.," in a sense as if, when Jesus was fixed upon the wood of the cross, the Omnipotence of the Father's Deity had gone away from Him; seeing that God's and Man's Nature were so completely joined in Him that the union could not be destroyed by punishment nor by death. For while each substance retained its own properties, God neither held aloof from the suffering of His body nor was made passible by the flesh, because the Godhead which was in the Sufferer did not actually suffer. And hence, in accordance with the Nature of the Word made Man, He Who was made in the midst of all is the same as He through Whom all things were made. He Who is arrested by the hands of wicked men is the same as He Who is bound by no limits. He Who is pierced with nails is the same as He Whom no wound can affect. Finally, He Who underwent death is the same as He Who never ceased to be eternal, so that both facts are established by indubitable signs, namely, the truth of the humiliation in Christ and the truth of the majesty; because Divine power joined itself to human frailty to this end, that God, while making what was ours His, might at the same time make what was His ours. The Son, therefore, was not separated from the Father, nor the Father from the Son; and the unchangeable Godhead and the inseparable Trinity did not admit of any division. For although the task of undergoing Incarnation belonged peculiarly to the Only-begotten Son of God, yet the Father was not separated from the Son any more than the flesh was separated from the Word.]]> II. Christ's death was voluntary on His part, and yet in saving others He could not save Himself Jesus, therefore, cried with a loud voice, saying, "Why have You forsaken Me?" in order to notify to all how it behooved Him not to be rescued, not to be defended, but to be given up into the hands of cruel men, that is to become the Saviour of the world and the Redeemer of all men, not by misery but by mercy; and not by the failure of succour but by the determination to die. But what must we feel to be the intercessory power of His life Who died and rose again by His own inherent power. For the blessed Apostle says the Father "spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all Romans 8:32;" and again, he says, "For Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify it. " And hence the giving up of the Lord to His Passion was as much of the Father's as of His own will, so that not only did the Father "forsake" Him, but He also abandoned Himself in a certain sense, not in hasty flight, but in voluntary withdrawal. For the might of the Crucified restrained itself from those wicked men, and in order to avail Himself of a secret design, He refused to avail Himself of His open power. For how would He who had come to destroy death and the author of death by His Passion have saved sinners, if he had resisted His persecutors? This, then, had been the Jews' belief, that Jesus had been forsaken by God, against Whom they had been able to commit such unholy cruelty; for not understanding the mystery of His wondrous endurance, they said in blasphemous mockery: "He saved others, Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we believe Him Matthew 27:42 ." Not at your blind will, O foolish scribes and wicked priests, was the Saviour's power to be displayed, nor in obedience to blasphemers' evil tongues was the Redemption of mankind to be delayed; for if you had wished to recognize the Godhead of the Son of God, you would have observed His numberless works, and they must have confirmed you in that faith, which you so deceitfully promise. But if, as you yourselves acknowledge, it is true that He saved others, why have those many, great miracles, which have been done under the public gaze, done nothing to soften the hardness of your hearts, unless it be because you have always so resisted the Holy Ghost as to turn all God's benefits towards you into your destruction? For even though Christ should descend from the cross, you would yet remain in your crime. III. A transition was then being effected from the Old to the New Dispensation Therefore the insults of empty exultation were scorned, and the Lord's mercy in restoring the lost and the fallen was not turned from the path of its purpose by contumely or reviling. For a peerless victim was being offered to God for the world's salvation, and the slaying of Christ the true Lamb, predicted through so many ages, was transferring the sons of promise into the liberty of the Faith. The New Testament also was being ratified, and in the blood of Christ the heirs of the eternal Kingdom were being enrolled; the High Pontiff was entering the Holy of Holies, and to intercede with God the spotless Priest was passing in through the veil of His flesh. In fine, so evident a transition was being effected from the Law to the Gospel, from the synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to the One Victim , that, when the Lord gave up the ghost, that mystic veil which hung before and shut out the inner part of the Temple and its holy recess was by sudden force torn from top to bottom , for the reason that Truth was displacing figures, and forerunners were needless in the presence of Him they announced. To this was added a terrible confusion of all the elements, and nature herself withdrew her support from Christ's crucifiers. And although the centurion in charge of the crucifixion, in fright at what he had seen, said "truly this man was the Son of God ," yet the wicked hearts of the Jews, which were harder than all tombs and rocks, is not reported to have been pierced by any compunction: so that it seems the Roman soldiers were then readier to recognize the Son of God than the priests of Israel. IV. Let us profit by fasting and good works at this sacred season of the year Because, then, the Jews, deprived of all the sanctification imparted by these mysteries, turned their light into darkness and their "feasts into mourning ," let us, dearly-beloved, prostrate our bodies and our souls and worship God's Grace, which has been poured out upon all nations, beseeching the merciful Father and the rich Redeemer from day to day to give us His aid and enable us to escape all the dangers of this life. For the crafty tempter is present everywhere, and leaves nothing free from his snares. Whom, God's mercy helping us, which is stretched out to us amid all dangers, we must ever with steadfast faith resist so that, though he never ceases to assail, he may never succeed in carrying the assault. Let all, dearly-beloved, religiously keep and profit by the fast, and let no excesses mar the benefits of such self-restraint as we have proved convenient both for soul and body. For the things which pertain to sobriety and temperance must be the more diligently observed at this season, that a lasting habit may be contracted from a brief zeal; and whether in works of mercy or in strict self-denial, no hours may be left idle by the faithful, seeing that, as years increase and time glides by, we are bound to increase our store of works, and not squander our opportunities. And to devout wills and religious souls God's Mercy will be granted, that He may enable us to obtain that which He enabled us to desire, Who lives and reigns with our Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and with the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen. ]]> Aquileo | Philip Zodhiates' last letter from prison (hopefully)tag:whatswrongwiththeworld.net,2021://3.31772021-03-22T22:49:50Z2021-03-23T14:56:08ZVia the 419Fund e-mail list (the blog here seems to contain all of the ones I have), I just received this last (hopefully) letter from Philip Zodhiates in prison. He will be (sort of) let out on March 26 but...Lydia McGrewhttp://www.lydiamcgrew.com/here seems to contain all of the ones I have), I just received this last (hopefully) letter from Philip Zodhiates in prison. He will be (sort of) let out on March 26 but must report to somewhere else, where they could order him to stay or let him go to "home detention" until June 24. I'm intrigued by what he said about the difference it seems to have made to the civil suit that Isabella has made a legal motion (via her lawyer) making it absolutely clear that she is no party to the civil lawsuit against her mother and those who helped them. Philip doesn't know if this is why depositions have been once more suspended in the civil case and conjectures this may be why. I wonder if the reason, rather, is that there will now be another criminal trial (Lisa's). Previously, the judge kept delaying the civil case while the various criminal trials were going forward. Here is Philip's letter, dated March 14:
Janet Stasulli at 419Fund.com wanted me to write an update specifically for those who have followed my case on her website and graciously prayed for Kathie, my family and me as well as contributed toward my legal expenses. My family and I would like to thank especially Janet Stasulli, whom I did not even know previously, for being such a blessing and coming alongside of us – – especially Kathie – – during these past 2 1/2 years. And thank YOU, for your prayers, letters, cards, and financial support. Thank Michael Erkel for your weekly and now daily letters I can always count on, and those of you who have written monthly. Thank you lifesitenews.com, Lamplighter Publications, and Lighthouse Trails Publishing for the publicity you have provided, which has resulted in many encouraging letters. Kathie, William, and Josiah have been so faithful and held together the home front filing taxes, enduring and beating an IRS audit, paying bills, keeping Response Unlimited going and dealing with tragedies (such as my mom‘s death), and emergencies without me by their side. Kathie especially, who has been amazingly enduring for one who hates to be alone. It seems that next week in less than 7 days (March 26, to be exact), I’ll be walking out the front door where I self-surrendered at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2018. Kathie, William and Josiah will be picking me up and driving me to Lebanon Community Correctional Center in Lebanon, Virginia where I must check in by 2:00 PM. It will be up to those there whether I will stay, or whether I will go to home detention. Please pray!! My sentence ends completely on June 24, 2021, and then I will still be on “probation” for 1 year.
]]> I know little if anything about what is going on with the civil suit, other than Lisa Miller‘s surrender to authorities, and Isabella Miller’s release of all defendants, has put the plaintiff’s lawyers suddenly on the defensive. They suspended all depositions at least temporarily. But I have been receiving no updates at all. Judge Arcara has yet to rule on my motion “to vacate due to insufficient counsel” (2255), even though it has been eight months since the last responses have been filed. This has been surprising in a way, since the statute is so clear that no laws were broken as I truly believed Isabella was a victim of abuse during mandatory visitations. I am still praying for complete vindication. I have so much to be grateful and thankful for. God has kept us in life and has not allowed our feet to slip. For He has tried us, He has refined us as silver is refined. He did bring me into the prison; and did lay an oppressive burden upon our loins . . . we went through fire and through water; yet He is bringing us now into a place of abundance . . . certainly, God has heard; He has given heed to the voice of our prayer. Blessed be God who has not turned away our prayer, nor His loving kindness from us (adapted from Psalm 66:9-12, 19-20)! Please don’t forget to be praying at 2 o’clock on Friday, March 26! In HIS Service, Philip Meanwhile, please continue to pray for Lisa, who continues to be in uncertainty and not-very-good prison conditions. She was abruptly moved from one prison to another, in the course of which her letters, addresses, the phone number of her lawyer, and the return letters she had written to supporters were all confiscated and hence lost (to her). In one of her updates she mentions a concern about the possibility of "diesel therapy" (a new term to me), which is a form of abusive treatment of federal prisoners in which they are moved about unnecessarily from place to place in shackles. Here is an account of a recent video chat between Lisa and a friend. I'm going to bet that Lisa is having no contact with Isabella so as to maintain secrecy about Isabella's location, even though nothing can be done to Isabella legally. Let us continue to pray for these prisoners of conscience. This blog seems to post somewhat regular updates as well.]]>