Intellect and Will: Rarely Do the Twain Meet

Confronted by all the hatred and stupidity evident in both our world and our country, I try to view it all from an eternal or more comprehensive perspective. It’s remarkable and disturbing that so many human beings seem to have lost or, at best, misplaced their humanity. We — at least some of us — believe that God, by creating us in His image and likeness, imbued us with both intellect and will, gifts that define our humanity and separate us from other earthly creatures. Sadly, far too many of us do not apply either of these gifts very well, or focus only on one and ignore the other. 

Leadership, of course, demands the effective, coordinated application of both intellect and will. A leader with a keen intellect, who strives to understand the situation facing him, but lacks the courage to make a meaningful decision and apply his will correctly is essentially powerless. Fundamentally he knows what he should do but fears doing it. As you might expect, the results are usually catastrophic. I fear that our president and those who surround him have succumbed to this failing whenever the real interests of our nation are at stake. Instead they focus the administration’s will on a collection of “woke” sideshows that seem only to undermine our culture and its moral and spiritual roots. I trust they will soon come to recognize the nature of the challenges facing them and develop the will to act courageously and decisively in the defense of our civilization. I won’t hold my breath, though. Ideologues rarely change their core beliefs unless they undergo a radical conversion. St. Paul is among the most obvious examples. Actively involved in the murder and imprisonment of first-generation Christians, he didn’t change; God changed him. As Christians we must pray for a global metanoia, a Pauline-like conversion through which God will change the hearts and minds of those striving to destroy His Church and suppress His holy Word.

But the willful leader who lacks understanding can be equally, perhaps more, dangerous. By failing to use his intellect and grasp the reality of the situation, including its moral aspects, he is motivated only by ignorance and emotion. This most often leads to very destructive results. For example, the terrorist, blinded and consumed by the ideology that motivates him, applies his will amorally and, focused solely on the attainment of the ideological goal, leaves his intellect far behind. This is why negotiation with committed and thoroughly indoctrinated terrorists is inevitably fruitless. Driven by their ideology, they are unmoved by arguments based on truth and morality. The only truth is their truth; all else are signs of weakness. They will take advantage of the weaknesses of others and use them to achieve their ideological ends. At one point in our diplomatic history, we refused to negotiate with terrorists because it was immoral and inevitably led to a degradation of the current situation. Now we not only negotiate with the demonic, but also allow it to dictate the terms. As I have said elsewhere, the willful, especially those captivated by evil, respect only power and the willingness to apply it.

Do I side with the Israelis in the current conflict? Yes, indeed — not because they are perfect, because they’re not. Like every nation, including our own, they have done some very stupid and immoral things. But they at least struggle to do what is right. All those Americans protesting in our streets and on our campuses in support of Hamas are too ignorant or too filled with hate to understand the idiotic slogans they chant. What to do with them? Because as a nation we respect free speech, about all we can do is shame them, make them understand that actions and words have consequences that might affect their current or future lives, and inundate them with the truth. And if Israel destroys Hamas, support for this specific terrorist group will likely fade away quickly. And most importantly pray for our ally Israel.

It’s Time for Our Bishops to Act

The other day, during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, a senior White House official, Keisha Lance Bottoms (former mayor of Atlanta, but now the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement), was asked about the extent of President Biden’s support for abortion. The program’s co-host, Willie Geist, asked Bottoms, “Does the President, does White House, believe there should be abortion available without limits in the country?” As you might expect from this White House, Bottoms did not provide a clear “Yes” or “No” response, but instead said the following:

“What the president believes is that there should be a fundamental right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body and the President has said this time and time again, that there are basic, fundamental rights, access to health care, this access to health care includes women across this country. And what we expect to see is that, especially college-aged women, women who’ve had to face these very difficult choices will be reminded of this, especially during this season. And it’s something that we can’t ever put too far behind us because, again, we know that elections matter and we know that congressional Republicans want to take us back. I’m 52 years old. In my lifetime, I’ve always known that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body and what we are seeing being put forth by congressional Republicans right now takes us back more than 50 years.”

It would seem her response confused even the folks at MSNBC; and Geist, trying to elicit a more definitive answer from Bottoms, asked: “So, does that mean the President supports abortion at any time during the pregnancy, whether it’s 3 weeks or 30 weeks?” To this, Bottoms replied: 

“What the President has said very publicly is that he supports a woman’s right to choose. I’ve never heard the President give a timeframe on that. But he has said that he believes that a woman has a fundamental right to make decisions about her own body and her healthcare choices.”

I’m pretty sure this is White-House-Speak for a “Yes” answer, that the administration is telling us President Biden supports abortion at any time during a woman’s pregnancy. Ms. Bottoms certainly didn't say otherwise.

The next question, then, should be asked of the Catholic Bishops of the United States. If President Biden, who frequently declares himself to be a "devout Catholic," absolutely denies the Church’s consistent magisterial teaching on life and a host of other moral issues, should he be allowed to partake in the Church’s sacramental life? Just consider the scandal the President causes as he publicly attacks the Church by denying its teachings and, as one parishioner remarked the other day, “…just gets away with it. Where are our bishops?”

Yes, indeed, where are our bishops? One priest told me they likely hesitate to get involved in what they view as political issues, something that might influence elections. I think my response surprised him. I simply said the Church has always taught that the goal of evangelization is to ensure the Good News of Jesus Christ reaches individuals and also penetrates and transforms cultures, highlighting and lifting up those aspects of culture relevant to the Gospel. 

Too often today we live our Christianity strictly as individuals. Even in societies with large and majority Christian populations, Christian influence on laws and institutions, on education, science, entertainment, sports, and the arts is lacking or completely absent. Some say that this is fine and in keeping with our Constitutional freedoms. And I agree, at least partially. Our Constitution guarantees our religious freedom, prohibiting the government from establishing a state religion, but also prohibiting that same government from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion by the people. If that's the case, and it is, we can certainly exercise our Church's primary task: evangelization. As Jesus commanded the disciples right before He ascended to the Father:

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” [Mt 28:19-20].

As Pope St. Paul VI reminded us:

“…The split between the Gospel and culture is without a doubt the drama of our time, just as it was of other times. Therefore, every effort must be made to ensure a full evangelization of culture, or more correctly of cultures. They have to be regenerated by an encounter with the Gospel. But this encounter will not take place if the Gospel is not proclaimed” [Evangelii Nuntiandi, 20]

This teaching was echoed by Pope St. John Paul II who wrote: 

“A faith that does not affect a person’s culture is a faith 'not fully embraced, not entirely thought out, not faithfully lived.'” [Christifidelis Laici, 59]

It’s time to act and restore a culture of life in our nation and in the world. We each have a part to play in this drama, but our bishops should lead the way and set the example for the faithful.

Pope Francis, Giorgia Meloni, and Me

Every so often, probably more often than I would like, someone will ask me, "Deacon, what do you think of Pope Francis?" The questions come from across the entire spectrum of Catholic opinion. But most who ask me about the pope are simply looking for direction and understanding. Occasionally, though, I suspect I am being baited by those few who intend to argue a point, whether theological, ideological, or simply political. They hope to hear me state either my total agreement with the Holy Father or my complete disagreement. I always disappoint them because I'm never in complete agreement or disagreement with any mere man or woman, even the pope. I try to weigh what others say against what I know to be the truth, particularly the revealed truth given to us by Jesus Christ and taught to us by the Church He founded. 

Do I agree with everything Pope Francis has said and written? Probably not, but this might well be the result of a lack of understanding on my part. This came to mind today when I read some of the comments made by the newly elected Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni. Many on the left, including our president, have accused her of fascist sympathies. This, of course, is completely absurd and demonstrates either their ignorance -- they don't know what fascism is -- or their willful dishonesty by accusing their enemies of their own ideological beliefs, a common tactic of the left.

Here's how the new prime minister describes her beliefs that center on the family, her Christian (Catholic) faith, her patriotism:

"Why is the family so frightening?  There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is an identity, and for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and simply be perfect consumer slaves.”

Then, describing those she calls "financial speculators," she says: 

“They attack national identity, religious identity; attack gender identity and family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother. Now I must be citizen X, gender X, parent one, parent two. I must be a number because when I’m only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators.

We will defend the value of the human being -- every single human being.”

If these are the words of a fascist, then I guess I'm one too. Of course, what she said really represents the core beliefs of a Christian society. And I especially liked what she had to say about herself, a self-appraisal summed up in a few choice words:

“I am Giorgia, I am a woman, I am Italian, I am Christian. You can’t take this away from me!”

As you might expect, such a simple, straightforward self-description drives the woke crowd in Washington and Brussels to distraction. She actually cherishes her unique identity: the name she received at her Baptism; the sex with which God blessed her at conception; the nation and culture in which she was born and raised; and the Christian faith that rules her life. As she stated, "You can't take this away from me" because they are all gifts from family, from God, and from a culture.

In her autobiography Giorgia Meloni waxed eloquently on the evil of political correctness:

“You see, political correctness is a shockwave, a cancel culture that tries to upset and remove every single beautiful, honorable, and human thing that our civilization has developed...It is a nihilistic wind of unprecedented ugliness that tries to homogenize everything in the name of One World. In short, political correctness – the Gospel that a stateless and rootless elite wants to impose – is the greatest threat to the founding value of identities.”

I've included all this just to give you a sense of who Giorgia Meloni truly is, so you won't be led astray by the woke, mainstream media, a media that truly despises this woman. But now let's look at what she has said about her Catholic faith and Pope Francis. The following brief comments are sufficient. 

She said this about Pope Francis:

“Maybe it’s age, maybe the memories, but even though I’m Catholic and I’ve never allowed myself to criticize a pope, I admit that I haven’t always understood Pope Francis...Sometimes I feel like a lost sheep, and I hope one day to have the privilege of being able to talk to him, because I’m sure that his big eyes and his direct words can give meaning to the things I don’t understand.”

When I read those words, I almost fell out of my chair, because they reflect my own sentiments almost exactly. I have found so much that is good and valuable in what the pope has said and written, and yet, like Giorgia Meloni, there is much that I simply do not understand. I, too, will not openly criticize the Holy Father, but perhaps in an upcoming post I might share some of my misunderstandings. In the meantime, all of us should pray daily for Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ, and successor of St. Peter. And pray, too, for Giorgia Meloni. I suspect she might need a lot of God's help as she tries to drain the Roman swamp.

Let’s All Be Multicultural

Are you a multicultural American? I’ve been asking this question of myself for some time now, but really haven’t come up with an acceptable answer. My own heritage is 100% Irish, so I have no problem with the Irish and all those Irish wannabes drinking green beer or eating corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick’s Day. This despite the fact that the Irish, the ones who actually live in Ireland, apparently rarely, if ever, consume corned beef and cabbage. Just don’t tell that to all those Irish-Americans who consider themselves more Irish than the Irish. I, however, detest cabbage in all its forms so I tend to focus on the Murphy’s Stout or perhaps a wee dram of Paddy’s or Kilbeggan Irish whiskey.

I also enjoy joining the Germans for Oktoberfest when, once again, beer takes center stage. There seems to be a pattern here. But we can’t ignore the many, tasty German foods: varieties of wurst, or schnitzel, or sauerbraten. Just trash the sauerkraut, another disguised version of always distasteful cabbage. 

And then there are the Italians, probably my favorite collection of ethnic Americans. They have all kinds of holidays, perfect excuses to celebrate and share their wonderful food and excellent wines with those of us who wish our names had more vowels than consonants. There’s nothing like a good Neopolitan pizza and a bottle of inexpensive Chianti. Yes, I actually am an Italian wannabe, and look forward to our next trip to Italia, once they scrap all the COVID nonsense. 

I also love the Jews, our elder brothers and sisters in faith, but don’t really care much for their traditional foods. I suppose I’m too much of a meat and potatoes guy. But on second thought, I always did enjoy Mrs. Moll’s potato kugel and brisket. The Moll family were our neighbors in Larchmont, New York, where I grew up as a kid. I hung out with their twin sons, Richard and Robert, and would on occasion be asked to join them for dinner. If I happened to be there at lunchtime, Mrs. Moll would always offer me a nice thick pastrami sandwich. Jewish wines, however, tend to be far too sweet for me, so I politely decline them when asked. I like to think that at Cana Jesus didn’t turn water into a first-century version of Manischewitz, but perhaps offered the newlyweds a drier kosher wine.

I also enjoy many Asian foods, from China, Japan, and Vietnam, although my all-time favorite Asian food is Filipino lumpia. Back in the mid-70s, aboard the USS Okinawa, the officers’ wardroom was blessed to be managed by Senior Chief Filipe who made the best lumpia I have ever tasted. I’m searching for a good recipe and when I find it will have to convince Dear Diane to give it a try. I’ve also sampled perhaps too many glasses of sake as well as a variety of excellent Asian beers. 

So, you see, I am very multicultural, at least when it comes to food and drink. I also enjoy the people I have known, wonderful folks who, like my grandparents, immigrated to this country and settled here in the U.S.A. for the long term. Most brought pieces of their cultures with them — their unique foods, their music, art, and literature, their faith — making wonderful contributions to our uniquely American melting-pot. Because most immigrants came here for a purpose, to escape repression, corruption, violence, genocide, and the other evil trappings of their decaying societies, they willingly embraced the American form of Western Civilization. Thank God for that. 

But today, things are changing. The multiculturalism of the left makes some truly foolish claims; for example, that no civilization is better than any other. Sorry, but even the most cursory study of history and culture will show this to be false. Western Civilization has been a true gift to the people of the world. It has brought them more personal freedom, more economic opportunity, more political freedom, more progress in the sciences and technology than any or all other civilizations. Why do you think so many people have continued to take such horrendous risks to enter this country while virtually none leave? Sadly, our current administration and its fellow travelers seem to despise the nation and the civilization that allowed them to take office. It takes centuries to develop a multinational civilization, but only a few short years to destroy it. If we let them, those in power today will lead us back to the barbarism that results when civilizations die. We can’t let that happen. Pray for our troubled, divided nation and our civilization.

Incarnations of Christianity

Note: As I finished writing this post, I realized it was far too long, but rather than edit and compress it, I decided to leave it alone in its original, unorganized state. 

_____________________

One of the more interesting aspects of my ministry as a parish deacon is to fulfill the role of what the late Tom Wolfe called “flak catcher.” Some parishioners apparently feel more comfortable approaching a deacon with their complaints and concerns than taking them directly to the pastor. I suppose I can understand that. The deacon might be clergy, but he’s generally, and erroneously, viewed as a kind of part-timer. After all, when we’re not wearing vestments, we deacons look like everyone else. Maybe we’re seen as more approachable because we, too, have families, work for a living, and live in the local community. 

Of course, what most parishioners don’t know is that deacons really can’t do much about most of their concerns. The big issues are decided by the bishop, the pastor handles how the parish will implement those decisions, and we deacons, quite appropriately, do what we’re told. After all, the word deacon derives from the Greek word, diakonia, which means service, especially the service of those who carry out the commands of others (that's us). When I find myself in that flak-catching role, I try to ease the parishioner’s concerns, explain the Church's or the parish's position, and, if necessary, refer the parishioner to someone who might be able to do something about it.

Anyway, I get phone calls. Not long ago two very different people called me on consecutive days with related, but different concerns. One caller wanted to know why we couldn't celebrate an occasional Latin Mass. He brought up his dissatisfaction with the Novus Ordo Missae; i.e., the new order of the Mass promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. He prefers the traditional Latin Mass, now called the extraordinary form, which he believes the Church has abandoned. I explained that both forms are equally valid. I also tried to convince him, as the great theologian Romano Guardini said, that it is the faithful, not the rubrics, which determine the faithfulness of a liturgy, whether extraordinary or otherwise. I then told him that although the vernacular is in general use throughout the world, the Church still prescribed Latin as the primary language for Mass. In fact, all translations derive from the Latin Roman Missal. I added that I, too, had a particular fondness for the traditional Latin Mass, the Mass I grew up with and in which I participated as an altar boy back in the 1950s. But he remained adamant and couldn’t understand why the Church had to change.

The second call was from a seasonal parishioner – what some call a "snowbird" – whom I will kindly describe as a “progressive” Catholic. He, too, had a liturgical question that eventually morphed into a complaint. He was unhappy with the pastor of his New York parish — “always preaching about abortion but rarely about social justice.” I think sometimes he calls just to test me, to see if he can get me to argue with him. Surprisingly, though, I kept my cool as I explained that to preach on abortion, the killing of millions of the most innocent among us, is to preach the very essence of social justice. Our conversation wandered among a variety of subjects and when I mentioned that some Catholics longed for the Latin Mass, he laughed and said, “Just a bunch of lost souls, trapped in the errors of the past. Just wait until we ordain woman. That’ll drive them over the edge.”

These two calls got me thinking about the Church over time. Was it wrong earlier – "the errors of the past" – and correct now, or was it correct in the past and wrong now? After thinking about this for a while, I concluded that the correct answer to each part of this double-barreled question is “No.” Certainly members of the Church, even an occasional Pope, have been guilty of error, and worse. After all, ordination at any level does not guarantee holiness. Called to holiness, deacons, priests, and bishops all remain sinners. Only the Church itself remains holy. And the Church knows this. In fact, one of the recent changes to the English translation of the Roman Missal reflected this internal awareness. The English translation of the congregation’s response to the priest’s prayer preceding the Eucharistic Prayer (a response we altar servers used to call the Suscipiat) was changed to more accurately reflect the original Latin:

“May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of his holy Church.” 

For years, ignoring the original Latin, this response had not included the word, “holy.” Could that omission in a prayer repeated by millions over several decades had an impact on the Church and its holiness as perceived by the faithful? An interesting question.

This leads us to infallibility, which is a magisterial gift of the Holy Spirit, a gift granted to the pope and to “the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium.” [See CCC 891.] But many of the details, the nitty-gritty of how we worship, are not immutable. Infallibility simply does not apply. Over the centuries the Church has often changed what it considers non-essential and managed to adapt its approach to the ever-changing political, social, even economic conditions it encounters in the world. But throughout its life, the Church has continued to do God’s redeeming, sanctifying work through the infallible Magisterium and the grace-filled efficacy of the sacraments. 

Because the Church was divinely instituted by Jesus Christ [Mt 16:18], it is transcendent. But because it must do God’s work in the world, it is also incarnate. The Body of Christ lives partly in the world and its history is one of adaptation to many different Christian cultures: Palestinian and Aramaic, Greek and Roman, Byzantine, Medieval, Baroque, Late European, Modern, and today’s emerging global Christianity. The problem occurs when we try to identify the Church with just one of these forms, in effect telling it to become static in its approach to the world. 

The Church cannot be identified with any given race, culture, or society. The true Christian is no more Greek or Roman than Italian or American or Chinese or Indian. The Church, then, freed from its attachment to any specific civilization or society becomes enriched by each culture in which it thrives. God certainly blessed the Church when Western civilization embraced Christianity, but this is just one of many incarnations of the Faith on earth. The Christian message, the Good News of Jesus Christ, because it comes from God, and not from man, must transcend all cultures and societies.

Sacred history began not with Abraham, but with creation. Indeed, God began His formal revelation in time with the words of creation:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [Gen 1:1].

Actually...with the Word of creation, for the Person of the Redeemer is Himself the Creative Word of God. 

All that preceded Christianity cannot be dismissed simply as wrong! God is present throughout time, revealing Himself in ways we cannot grasp. The nature religions, Hinduism, Buddhism...all had their roles to play in the world's sacred history. 

Judaism, especially, through which God revealed Himself personally and more deeply over time, paved the way for the fullness of revelation. The covenant with Noah held firm, revealing God’s will for humanity, until it was superseded by the covenant with Abraham. This, too, held firm, reinforced by God’s covenant with Moses, and later with David, a covenant that included a promise.  With Jesus Christ, with the Incarnation, that promise and all that came before is fulfilled. 

Just as sacred history passed through all of human history, the Church has and will continue to do the same. The Church of the future, that emerging global Church, will in its own way incorporate the varieties of human civilization. The deposit of faith and the sacramental life cannot change, but so much of what we do, how we pray and worship, undergoes frequent and often rather radical change. 

If a first-century Roman Christian had tried to introduce the Rosary, I suspect it would have been summarily rejected. The time and place and culture simply weren’t right. But by the 13th century God knew the world needed this prayerful devotion and, through Mary, St. Dominic introduced it to the Church. Today we see the growth of the Divine Mercy chaplet thanks to God working through the life of St. Faustina. 

Devotions evolve over time, as do many elements of sacramental and other rites. Next Tuesday I will baptize a baby girl using the newly revised rite: the Order of Baptism of Children. Over the past quarter-century I've baptized a few hundred little (and not so little) ones, using the earlier rite. Both rites were valid because they center on "the water and the words." The other elements of the rite support our worship and our catechesis. Through them, parents and godparents, and all who witness this sacrament, come to share in and better understand God's miraculous work as He adopts this new Child. Sin is remitted, the grace of the Holy Spirit fills the soul, and the Church accepts a new member. None of this has changed, nor will it ever change. 

I should remind my two callers of this. 

"Make disciples of all nations," Jesus commanded. He didn't tell us what language to use in our worship, for He understands all language. Nor is the Church to be measured solely on its success in improving people's social conditions. Important as they are, these things are secondary.  The essential work of the Church is the liberation of the soul from spiritual bondage...its salvation.

Priorities

An old friend sent me the below tribute in honor of those who have devoted their lives to defending our country. I don't know who wrote it but the author suggested we pass it along to others, so I thought I'd simply post it on my blog, along with a few of my own comments. 

I'm not a big fan of professional athletics. I haven't watched a major league baseball game in years and haven't attended one in decades. The NBA and NFL have both lost me as well. The NFL, for example, has displaced religion in the lives of many Americans, who would much rather devote their Sundays to football than to "keep holy the Sabbath Day." Indeed, this fanatical focus on professional (and college) sports, along with all the other celebrity worship that permeates our society, is symptomatic of our nation's moral decline. When we remove the "cult" -- the religious foundation -- from our culture, we are left with nothing.

I find it remarkable that so many of our professional athletes, who have reaped rewards unavailable elsewhere, seem to despise the nation that provided them with the opportunity to achieve such material success. One would think they would be overwhelmed by a sense of gratitude. Instead they pay homage to groups like "Black Lives Matter," a movement founded by committed Marxists whose stated goal is not the saving of all, or even most black lives, but the destruction of the family and religious faith, two major obstacles to the power they seek. It's all very sad, and so we pray for them, knowing we have a loving God who has promised to be with us "until the end of the age."

As for me, I was honored to have been able to serve my country and its citizens for many years as a officer in the U.S. Navy. During all those years, and even afterwards, I lost many Naval Academy classmates and close friends. Some lost their lives in combat, others in aircraft accidents, and some as a result of the lingering effects of wounds or agent orange. But none died in vain, despite what the current crop of neo-Marxist protesters and rioters scream at us as they try to destroy our nation and its history, while belittling all the good the United States has brought to the world.

The tribute (and its fitting rebuke) follows: 
________________________________________________________________


To the NFL and its players,

If I have brain cancer, I don't ask my dentist what I should do. If my car has a problem, I don't seek help from a plumber! Why do you think the public cares what a football player thinks about politics? If we want to know about football, then depending on the information we seek, we might consult with you, but even a quarterback doesn't seek advice on playing his position from a punter.

You seem to have this over-inflated view of yourselves, thinking because you enjoy working on such a large-scale stage, that somehow your opinion about everything matters. The NFL realizes the importance of its "image" so it has rules that specify the clothes and insignia you can wear, the language you can use, and your "antics" after a touchdown or other "great" play. But somehow you and your employer don't seem to care that you disgrace the entire nation and its 320 million people in the eyes of the world by publicly disrespecting this country, its flag, and its anthem! The taxpaying citizens of this country subsidize your plush work environments, yet you choose to use those venues to openly offend those very citizens.

Do you even understand what the flag of this country means to so many of its citizens before you choose to "take a knee" in protest of this country during our national anthem?

You may think because you are paid so much that your job is tough, but you are clueless when it comes to tough. Let me show you those whose jobs are really tough.

You are spoiled babies who stand around and have staff squirt Gatorade in your mouths, sit in front of misting cooling fans when its warm, and sit on heated benches when its cold. That's not tough, that's pampered.

You think you deserve to be paid excessively high salaries because you play a "dangerous" game where you can incur career-ending injuries. Let me show you career-ending injuries!

You think you deserve immediate medical attention and the best medical facilities and doctors when injured. Let me show you what it's like for those who really need and deserve medical attention.

You think you have the right to disrespect the flag of the United States, the flag our veterans fought for, risked limbs and mental stability to defend, and in many cases died for. Let me show you what our flag means to them, their families, and their friends.

You believe you are our heroes, when in reality you are nothing but overpaid entertainers, who exist solely for our enjoyment! Well, your current antics are neither entertaining nor enjoyable, but rather a disgrace to this country, its citizens, all our veterans and their families, and the sacrifices they have made to ensure this country remains free. You choose to openly disgrace this country in the eyes of the rest of the world, yet with all your money, still choose to live here rather than any other country. People with even the slightest amount of "class" will stand and respect our flag. Where does that put you? You want to see heroes...here are this country's heroes!

You can protest policies, the current government, or anything else you choose. That is your right. But when you "protest" our flag and anthem, you insult the nation we all live in and love, and all those who have served, been wounded, or died to keep it free. There is nothing you can do or say that will make your actions anything more than the arrogance of a classless people, who care about themselves more than our country or the freedoms for which our veterans and their families have sacrificed so much, all to ensure you have the right to speak freely. Our country is far from perfect, but if you can point to any other country with greater freedom and opportunity, then you just might want to go there and show respect for their flag! 
_________________________________

That's all of it...a fitting tribute to those who, since the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, have sacrificed their lives and their livelihood for this remarkable nation.

God bless America, folks. 

Brexit, European Unity, and Culture

Brexit Vote: UK will leave the EU

 In a referendum on June 23 of this year, a majority of the people of the United Kingdom (and Gibraltar) voted to leave the European Union. Voter turnout for the referendum, popularly called "Brexit" (or British Exit), was high -- over 72% -- with approximately 52% of voters opting to leave. 

Although it's always dangerous to ascribe motives to voters, those in favor of leaving the EU seemed to believe that British sovereignty was at stake. They expressed concerns that non-elected EU bureaucrats were making and enforcing regulations affecting almost every aspect of people's lives, and that such decisions should be made by the people themselves. For them, membership in the EU is costly, intrusive, undemocratic, authoritarian; in other words, decisions affecting the UK should be made by the UK, not by unrestrained bureaucrats in Brussels. Some were also motivated by a desire to regain control over the nation's borders. Immigration, they believe, is out of control and causing unwanted changes to the nation's long-established culture. And others, looking to the future, saw no mechanism in place to limit the expanding power of the EU. They feared an EU transformation from an authoritarian bureaucracy to a totalitarian oligarchy.

Although I'm not British, I'll admit to siding with those UK voters who favored leaving the EU. I understand and in general agree with their reasons for voting as they did. After all, we Americans can certainly sympathize with British rejection of a foreign power who subjects them to "taxation without representation." 

Perhaps more importantly, I believe that a people, united by a common culture, has the right to self-determination, especially when it comes to accepting changes to that culture. I might well, however, differ with many of the UK's voters because I probably view the culture more broadly than they. I am not, therefore, a nationalist, and actually abhor nationalism because it tends to assume the nation state is the source of unity and ignores the unifying role of the broader culture, in this instance, the broader, and deeper, European culture.

For this reason, despite favoring an exit vote, I don't oppose the concept of a united Europe. The problem with the European Union as it currently exists relates to its self-awareness. Those who hold power in the EU don't understand the very source of the unity they extol. The EU seems to believe that European unity will result from economic and political integration. In other words, once all these former nation-states have the same currency and once their national and local governments become superfluous and are superseded by a united European government, the desired unity will result. Unfortunately, this kind of unity, based solely on economic and political ties, is doomed to failure. And I expect the decision by the people of the United Kingdom to be only the first of many similar decisions.

Charlemagne: Europe United in Faith

No common currency can unite a people. No unified government, no political system, can supplant the cultural unity that is at the heart of a people's identity. Unless, of course, a people loses all sense of cultural identity, something that will happen when the culture breaks down. Such a breakdown will occur when the people turn away from the very thing that formed their culture. For at the core of a culture is the cult, its religious foundation. European culture was formed over a period of centuries by men who did not rely solely on themselves or their own efforts. They relied on, they put their faith and trust in something far greater than the society or civilization of which they were a part. They relied on that which is above them, on the supernatural. They could say in faith: Diem hominis non desideravi -- I have not desired the day of man. They, instead, looked forward to the Day of God when all would be resolved, when God's plan for humanity would be fulfilled. But for many today, the day of man is the only hoped-for end. They have severed their cultural (religious) ties to the past and placed a near impassable barrier between them and those who formed the culture that formed today's Europeans. The barrier is a spiritual one and blinds them to their cultural ties to those who preceded them.

Sadly, the EU has also ignored these cultural ties. Its leadership has fallen prey to a kind of temporal bias which judges the past by current standards. Because EU leadership and bureaucrats disregard the role of religion, specifically Christianity, in the life and culture of today's Europe, they assume it had little or no role in the formation of European culture -- hence its omission from the once-proposed EU constitution. And because they ignore Europe's binding cultural roots, I believe the EU as it exists today will not last. Neither am I very optimistic about the future of Europe's nation states unless they experience a renewal of religious -- that is, Christian -- faith, unless they return in humility to their cultural roots. 

Before we dismiss this as improbable, if not impossible, we should recall that "with God all things are possible" and that we see the future only dimly. Jesus Christ is the Lord of History and can act in surprising ways through many unforeseen events. And we Americans, with our deep cultural ties to our European brothers and sisters, must hold fast to the faith that formed us as well.

Yes, indeed, we live in interesting times.

Dwarfs on the Shoulders of Giants...

Isn't it remarkable that so many who came before us turn out to have been pretty smart? This is no new revelation; it's been known for some time. Indeed, an early 12th-century reference is attributed to Bernard of Chartres who is quoted as saying that "we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants." We can see and understand more, and accomplish more, than those who came before us, not because we are smarter than they, but because they were such giants and have raised us to greater heights. 

Friederich Nietzsche

Bernard was neither the first nor the last to believe this. Indeed, Isaac Newton said much the same thing in a 1676 letter: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Of course, believing this contradicts today's progressive ideologues who have convinced themselves that our predecessors and their ideas have little to teach us today. This rejection of the accomplishments and intellectual heritage of the past, especially the distant past, is particularly evident when the sources of these accomplishments are dead white European males (or DWEMs as they are arrogantly abbreviated). 

Driven by ideology -- whether Marxist, feminist, multiculturalist, atheist, environmentalist, or some grotesque fusion of several or all of these -- far too many of today's educators increasingly dismiss the works of such greats as Dante, Chaucer, and Shakespeare. Can you imagine a college survey course of English literature that ignores Shakespeare? Well, believe me, such courses are being taught in many colleges and universities today. 

Not long ago I encountered something even more troubling. I had the opportunity to speak with a young graduate student who had volunteered to help out at our soup kitchen while she visited her grandparents here in Florida. She'd recently earned a BA in philosophy at a rather prestigious private university. When I asked about her undergraduate course of study, it became evident she had read neither Plato nor Aristotle. "The old Greeks really aren't very relevant today," she explained, kindly substituting "old Greeks" for DWEMs in the presence of this living white male. That's when I decided not to ask her about Augustine or Aquinas or Duns Scotus or any of the medieval thinkers. Whom had she studied? Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Marx, Dewey, Marcuse, Peter Singer, Chomsky...all the usual suspects. 

It's all very sad, watching today's educators limit their vision by refusing to climb onto the shoulders of the giants who came before us. Even worse they are effectively blinded by willfully descending into the ideological pits they've dug for themselves. There they see nothing but the dirt beneath their feet and on the walls that surround them. If only they would look up, they would see the light.

More and more colleges and universities are descending into those pits by eliminating programs that focus on the great thinkers who helped Western Civilization flourish and replacing them with courses designed to undermine its foundations. For example, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Heather MacDonald describes the recent changes to UCLA's humanities program:

Until 2011, students majoring in English at UCLA had to take one course in Chaucer, two in Shakespeare, and one in Milton —the cornerstones of English literature. Following a revolt of the junior faculty, however, during which it was announced that Shakespeare was part of the "Empire," UCLA junked these individual author requirements. It replaced them with a mandate that all English majors take a total of three courses in the following four areas: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; genre studies, interdisciplinary studies, and critical theory; or creative writing.

The idea, of course, is to destroy the dominant culture and replace it with some amorphous, politically correct multiculturalism. In other words great literature is being replaced by garbage. And UCLA isn't alone. Instead of studying Bach and Mozart at the University of South Carolina you can take a course in "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame." Or how about a course at the University of California Irvine on "The Science of Superheroes"? Or perhaps you'd prefer a Harvard University course on "Vampires in Literature and Film"? Or you can spend your time at Appalachian State University studying "What if Harry Potter is Real?" Instead of celebrating the greatness of our civilization, we now celebrate its decadence. And in the process education is trivialized.

According to the National Endowment for the Humanities -- and these figures are from 1988, over 25 years ago! -- one could graduate from 37% of American colleges without ever taking a history course, from 45% without taking a single course in either English or American literature, from 62% without a course in philosophy, and 77% without studying a foreign language. Just imagine what the percentages are today. Far too many students, after putting themselves (and/or their parents) into deep debt are graduating uneducated. Some leave these schools with an acceptable level of technical expertise, equipped to handle the basic requirements of their chosen field. They are prepared for work at its most elementary level, but are they prepared for life? They might know how to be a chemical engineer, but do they know how to be a human being, created in the image and likeness of their Creator? 

This did not happen overnight; indeed it's taken centuries. We now find ourselves approaching the end of a 500-year experiment in humanism, an experiment in which virtually all the obstacles, especially the moral obstacles, to the human will have been obliterated. Once we reject God as the source of all authority and reassign that authority to ourselves, everything changes. Once we reject Christ crucified and replace Him with man deified, we can shout, along with Hegel and Nietzsche, "God is dead!" At that point, anything goes, and I'm reminded of the lyrics of Cole Porter's 1934 song...

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose, Anything Goes.

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
When most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos

And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes.

Today, 80 years later, "anything" has been expanded well beyond the anything of Cole Porter. The Catholic philosopher and historian, Thomas Molnar, in his 1988 book, Twin Powers, described our society's cultural decay as well as anyone when he wrote:

"Culture has come to mean, of course, anything that happens to catch the fancy of a group: rock concerts, supposedly for the famished of the third world; the drug culture and other subcultures; sects and cults; sexual excess and aberration; blasphemy on stage and screen; frightening and obscene shapes; the plastic wrapping of the Pont-Neuf or the California coast; the smashing of the family and other institutions; the display of the queer, abject, the sick. These instant products, meant to provide instant satisfaction to a society itself unmoored from foundation and tradition, accordingly deny the work of mediation and maturation and favor the incoherent, the shapeless and the repulsive."

Western Civilization has been around for quite a while, and so I suppose its ultimate disintegration shouldn't come as a great surprise. In his 1993 book, America's British Culture, Russell Kirk accurately summed up our culture's current condition:

"If the decay goes far enough, in the long run a society's culture sinks to a low level; or the society may fall apart altogether. We Americans live, near the end of the twentieth century, in an era when the general outlines of our inherited culture are still recognizable; yet it does not follow that our children or our grandchildren, in the twenty-first century, will retain a great part of that old culture."

Russell Kirk

Much has happened in the twenty years since Kirk wrote those words. Certainly the moral and ethical decay is evident to anyone who can see. But the culture has also experienced a broader intellectual decay as many rewrite history to fit the demands of their ideologies. The European Union, in a remarkable display of intentional ignorance, has dismissed the role of Christianity, and especially Catholicism, in the development of European civilization. And here in the United States religious freedom, once thought to be the most fundamental of our freedoms, is under constant attack. Enshrined in our Bill of Rights as the first and foremost right of the people, it is now treated as meaningless by those who hold positions of power thanks to that same Constitution. Yes, the dwarfs still refuse to climb onto the shoulders of the giants who went before them.

Of course, this is all just symptomatic of the disintegration of Western Civilization. If the foundational elements of a civilization are tossed aside, if the cult is excised from the culture, the civilization can do nothing but crumble. When and how this will happen is anyone's guess. Will it occur with a whimper or a bang? Will it happen tomorrow or a century from now? I certainly don't know. But because our Christian faith is universal, unattached to any civilization or culture, I know it will survive and flourish until the end of time. 

Instead of worrying about the future, or trying to predict it, perhaps we should simply echo the prayer at the very end of Sacred Scripture: "Come, Lord Jesus!" [Rev 22:20]

European Battles

Secular, anti-Christian forces in Europe, encouraged partly, I believe, by a general apathy among the populace, have been waging outright war against the Church and its teaching in recent years. The following stories from today's news each reflect a battle within this much larger war. In each case you can click on the title to read the details.

• Physicians' Rights of Conscience. The European Parliament plans to vote on regulations that might well restrict the rights of physicians to avoid performing abortions, sterilizations, euthanasia and other procedures that violate their consciences and religious views.

• Church Can't Dismiss for Immorality. The European Court of Human Rights has decided that a musician who violated his employment contract with a Catholic Church in Germany instead had his rights violated by the Church. The musician, who had agreed in his contract to live in accordance with Catholic values, ended his first marriage and had a child by another woman.

• Cardinal Erdo Addresses European Demographic Crisis. One glance at the basic demographic data for Europe and it's apparent that the contraceptive mentality has taken firm hold of the population. Cardinal Erdo, the President of the Council of Episcopal Conferences of Europe (CCEE), made this point clearly in his comments regarding the theme of the Council's plenary assembly in Zagreb: "Unfortunately, today the family is often threatened by a selfish, relativist culture directed exclusively towards short-lived material well-being...many European countries do not have a healthy birth-rate...The demographic crisis and the crisis in the family institution are closely linked."

• Nobel Prize Goes to Inventor of In Vitro Fertilization. The International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC) issued a statement in response to the awarding of the Nobel Prize for medicine to British biologist, Robert Edwards: "Although IVF has brought happiness to the many couples who have conceived through this process, it has done so at an enormous cost...undermining of the dignity of the human person. Many millions of embryos have been created and discarded during the IVF process." The Catholic doctors stated that they "recognize the pain that infertility brings to a couple, but equally we believe that the research and treatment methods needed to solve the problems of infertility have to be conducted within an ethical framework which respects the special dignity of the human embryo, which is no different from that of a mature adult with a brilliant mind."

These battles are not, of course, restricted to Europe. Indeed, they are being fought throughout the world. Europe just seems to be the favored battleground...at least for now.

St. Michael, pray for us.

Reclaiming Our Christian Culture?

When Alexander Solzhenitsyn won the Templeton Prize in 1983 he gave a stirring address that began with the words:

"More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." (Click here to read his entire address.)

Reading these words one cannot help but apply them to our floundering Western Civilization and wonder what kind of future to expect. A few weeks ago I posted some thoughts on this subject -- Bye-bye Western Civilization -- thoughts precipitated by Whittaker Chambers' comment: “The enemy — he is ourselves. That is why it is idle to talk about preventing the wreck of Western Civilization. It is already a wreck from within.” Anyway, I've continued to toss these thoughts around in my aging brain and decided to share a few of them here before the gray cells in which the reside float off into some inaccessible void.

Solzhenitsyn and Chambers would agree -- along with others such as Christopher Dawson, Eric Voegelin, and Russell Kirk -- that a culture grows from and rests on the foundation of the cult, its sense of the holy, the sacred. The cult, then, is the binding force from which all elements of the culture derive. It's no accident that the word "religion" has its roots in the Latin, religare, meaning to bind fast.

Once the culture's binding force begins to decay and lose its meaning, the culture itself can do nothing but decay as well. Some cultures have tried to substitute something else for religion, but nothing else generates the kind of bonds found only in religion. Anything else -- the state, the race, a personality cult -- does not bind the culture as religion does, and such attempts are invariably short-lived.

 In our Western Civilization the bonds of religion began unraveling some time ago, even before the Reformation and the so-called Enlightenment. Richard Weaver, in his wonderful book, Ideas Have Consequences, traces it back to the 14th century English friar, William of Ockham, "who propounded the fateful doctrine of nominalism, which denies that universals have a real existence." And so it's not as if our religious foundation just began to crumble yesterday. It's been a long time coming, but advances in technology have only made the process speedier so that we can more easily recognize the decay from generation to generation.

The only solution, of course, is to restore the religious bonds that have kept our culture and civilization intact over the centuries...a tall order. When I talk about this with others, some invariably say, "What you're suggesting is impossible. You can't reclaim the past. We have to put our trust in progress." They're wrong, of course, for any number of reasons. But the primary reason is their unwillingness to accept the very concept of truth. If, unlike old William of Ockham, one believes in such as thing as objective truth, then he will also believe that truth does not change over time. Today's relativist, though, ignores truth and believes instead that time and matter rule, that "truth" is different for different times and for different people. We Christians, however, believe that truth is timeless. And because truth is unaffected by time, the ideals and values that stem from it, can certainly be reclaimed.

This doesn't mean that we are trying to "turn back the clock" and revert to some pre-technological society. True Christians are not Luddites. We view the products of technological advancement as tools that can be used for good or for evil. One can use a box-cutter to open boxes in a supermarket, as I did when I worked at the Grand Union as a teenager; or one can use it to murder crew members of an airplane, as the 9-11 hijackers chose to do. The same applies to nuclear energy or the Internet. The application of technology is a moral choice no different from any other.

There's really no reason that Christian values and ideals cannot be reclaimed by our culture. I admit, I haven't always been very optimisitc in this regard, but that could change. And after listening to Pope Benedict in recent weeks, I find myself more hopeful. His "new evangelization" -- a favorite term of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II -- is focused on renewing the Faith in (formerly) Christian countries and seems to be a key priority of his pontificate. This is reinforced by the Vatican's recent official announcement of the establishment of a Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization. According to Vatcian Radio:

"Pope Benedict said he received this legacy upon his own election to the Chair of Peter, and noted the challenges of the present time are mostly spiritual. He said he wanted to give the new Pontifical Council the task of promoting a renewed evangelization in countries with deep Christian roots which are now experiencing a sense of the 'eclipse of God', and becoming increasingly secularized.

"He said this situation presents a challenge in finding the appropriate means in which to revive the perennial truth of the Gospel of Christ."

Too many of us, however, consider this a task for the pope and his bishops, forgetting that we are all called to evangelize. And since the vast majority of us are not missionaries doing God's work in other cultures, but people living right in the midst of our own decaying culture, this new evangelization is made to order for us. And in the event you don't believe evangelization is for you, just read what the fathers of Vatican II proclaimed about the true vocation of the laity. They were pretty explicit:

"They exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through  the spirit of the Gospel...Since the laity, in accordance with their state of life, live in the midst of the word and its concerns, they are called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven, with the ardor of the spirit of Christ." [Apostolicam Actuositatem, 2]

If you believe that religion should be kept private, then, quite simply, you are not a Christian. The People of God are called to be an evangelistic people; there's no escaping the fact. Just read Matthew 28:19-20 and meditate on this great commission Jesus gave to those who would be his disciples.

We don't know what God has in store for us as individuals, or for our society as a whole. But the one thing we do know with certainty is that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church will remain under the guidance of the Holy Spirit until the end of time. We know this because Christ promised it.

Praise God!