Dad und die Kinder

My father, John McCarthy, who was an Army captain at the time, entered Berlin with the occupation forces in 1945. He had two sons of his own back in the USA -- my brother, Jeff, born in 1941, and me, born in 1944. He enjoyed being with children and the kinder of Germany were no exception. The other day going through some old photos -- and there are literally thousands I have not yet looked at -- I came across this snapshot, probably taken by his old friend, the late Lee Hanel. He and Dad, both Army officers who served together, were avid photographers. 

I would guess that Dad was sharing some candy or sweets with the children. In the background you can see a number of German women looking on. Sadly, some of them probably lost their husbands in the war -- men who were drafted into the Wehrmacht, forced to fight Hitler's losing war. Many never returned. One can only imagine what these young mothers were thinking as they watched this American treating their children with kindness. I recall Dad once mentioning the "war children" of Germany, and telling me, "The children had nothing to do with the war, with Hitler, with the carnage, and the brutality. That was done by adults. I always tried to be friendly and kind to them." Sometimes a simple black and white photo is worth far more than a thousand words.

Pray for peace.

The War

The first major battle of the Civil War, the battle of Bull Run, took place near Manassas, Virginia, not far from our nation’s capital. Most Northerners expected an easy victory, and many civilians, carrying picnic baskets, followed the Union force, planning to watch the battle as if it were a sporting event. You can imagine their surprise when the Confederate troops not only won the battle but forced a Union retreat. Suddenly all those curious civilians became unwilling participants in the battle and ran for their lives. Most managed to escape, although one New York congressman was captured and spent many months in a Richmond prison. The battle convinced many Americans the Civil War would last far longer than anticipated.

Today we, too, are in the midst of a war, a very different war, one against demonic forces. I suspect most Americans don't realize this and assume, as one person recently told me “It’s just politics.” But it's not. It's a full-fledged, declared war against our civilization's foundational religious and moral values. To undermine these values the enemy first disguised their battle tactics as merely political, but then, realizing this couldn’t guarantee success, they decided, rather boldly, to claim traditional values are exactly the opposite of what people generally believe. The moral, then, became immoral, the good became evil, the Godly became diabolic, and vice versa. 

Our president has, willingly or not, joined the demonic forces as he accuses pro-life and pro-marriage Americans of being "white supremacists" and "extremists." Indeed, he slapped the same labels on anyone who objects to his economic agenda and went on to define “MAGA Republicans” as those who believe Americans have “no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who (sic) you love...MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.” Here we see a perfect example of the reversal of good and evil, where the truth is shrouded in a “shadow of lies.” And not surprisingly, he said little about his economic agenda, and nothing about inflation, gas prices, or border security.

And the demonic forces? Radical left or radical right, it makes little difference. Although the communists of the USSR and Mao’s China called themselves “international socialists” and the Nazis called themselves “national socialists,” both sought one thing: power. Both used that power to slaughter millions they considered threats. Both applied near identical methods to achieve total control over their populations. And surprise, surprise! Both claimed to be socialists. Today, though, the greatest threat to our civilization comes from the ideologues of the radical left. Yes, they rule China, a nation determined to replace American influence in the world. But they also educate our youth in high schools and colleges. You’ll find lots of victimized snowflakes, the left’s “useful idiots,” in every college classroom, but you’ll have to search long and hard to find a neo-Nazi on a campus. 

Because many of the radical left’s desired outcomes carry highly negative connotations, euphemisms abound. Abortion, the willful slaughter of today’s Holy Innocents, is disguised and celebrated as women’s health. Total control of our nation's citizenry (that's you and me) is disguised as national healthcare, or the patriotic search for enemies, or gun control, or necessary suppression of misinformation. To criticize an actual enemy — for example, the Chinese Communist Party or the Taliban — becomes racism. Global warming, because the facts keep getting in the way, is redefined safely as “Climate Change.” “Follow the science,” we’re told, even though the science, as always, is far from settled. For decades some scientists and pseudoscientific experts have issued a stream of predictions, each telling us the world will end on some future date that is inevitably forgotten as it moves into the past. But this doesn’t stop those in power from destroying the economy to protect us from terrors that never materialize. Why do they do this? If you want the truth, don’t bother following the science, just follow the money.

As I have often said on this blog, probably far too often, the left has focused primarily on abortion; it’s their sine qua non. For almost 50 years, since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, abortion was legal. But then in 2022 the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, claiming "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." The court, then, decided to "return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.” 

Abortion, no longer nationally legal, suddenly became a state and local issue. And so other moral issues now take center stage and the enemy has extended its reach to include transgenderism, even pedophilia, and the indoctrination of school children in sexual perversion. These are all celebrated as acceptable lifestyle choices and offered as positive alternatives to the intolerance of religion, especially Christianity, the bete noire of the radical left. Yes, indeed, just listen to the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, et al and you will discover that Christianity is a racist religion of white supremacy. Following the same script, a highly politicized FBI decided that traditional Catholics were likely domestic terrorists and white supremacists. We’re it not so serious, it would actually be humorous since I know people of all races who regularly attend Latin Masses. The feds actually planned to, and likely did, infiltrate Catholic churches in which Latin Masses were celebrated. It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to recognize that the Department of Justice apparently isn’t bothered by First Amendment concerns.

It’s not just freedom of religion that’s under attack; it’s religion itself. And believe it or not, some people, far too many people, have bought into this. Let me just highlight one very recent example. Our president just proclaimed March 31, 2023 a Transgender Day of Visibility, and then using Twitter celebrated the day with some remarkable words: 

“On Transgender Day of Visibility we want you to know that we see you just as you are: Made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support. We'll never stop working to create a world where you won't have to be brave just to be yourself.”

President Biden then went on to issue a lengthy proclamation on the Transgender Day of Visibility. It’s a bizarre proclamation, but worth your time if only to understand better who our president really is. We know our “devoutly Catholic” president openly rejects Church teaching on most moral and many theological issues. Reading his transgender day proclamation only confirms how distant he is from the Church. I think we can stop pretending Joe Biden is a Catholic since he ignores or openly attacks Church teaching. 

Of course, like all of us, so-called “trans” people were made in God’s image and likeness, but for them, that seems to be the problem. They want to change what God has done, to alter the image and likeness He created. In other words, they and their enablers want to assume God’s power, to become little gods able to recreate humanity in their own image, and a false image at that. If we truly “follow the science” we discover that DNA is forever, that males are males and females are females, just as God made them.

The timing of the president’s proclamation also seems a bit unusual. Just days before, a transgender woman had slaughtered six people, including three young children, at a Christian school in Nashville. She was killed by a team of courageous and competent police officers who responded and surely saved many more lives. Since then, some in the trans community have called her Nashville’s seventh victim, even though she was the murderer of six innocent people, and certainly no victim. To emphasize their obvious disdain for those six victims in that Christian school, a radical trans mob, led by several legislators, stormed the Tennessee legislature protesting guns but not murderer or the death of Christians. It is all, of course, symptomatic of the culture of death that St. John Paul described in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium vitae (The Gospel of Life): 

“…this situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life.’ We find ourselves not only ‘faced with’ but necessarily ‘in the midst of’ this conflict: We are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life” (Evangelium vitae, 28).

Trans, pro-abortion, LGBTQ, and all the rest…it’s all of one piece, all part of Satan’s effort to undermine and destroy the domestic church, that is, the family, and to lead people away from God and His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The deceiver, who was “a murderer from the beginning…a liar and the father of lies” [Jn 8:44], uses whomever he can to spread evil throughout God’s creation. In the end, of course, he will fail, but how many souls will he take with him? 

As Christians we cannot sit on the sidelines and passively observe the battle. Like the tourists at Bull Run, we must eventually recognize and accept our involvement. 

Reflection: Divine Mercy Novena - Day 6

 At this time of year, our parish prays the Divine Mercy Novena, led by our deacons and ably aided by our wonderful musicians. I was asked to lead Day 6 and Day 9, and so today I led the first of these. I usually begin with a brief reflection on some aspect of Divine Mercy as revealed to us in St. Faustina's Diary. Here's the text of my reflection:

________________________

Welcome to day 6 of our Divine Mercy Novena.

A few weeks ago, a parishioner came up to me after Mass. He'd just seen an announcement about this Divine Mercy Novena and remarked that Divine Mercy didn't seem to mix well with pandemics and wars.

As you might expect, I vehemently disagreed and suggested that God's mercy and our extension of it was exactly what our world needed. I realize it's been a difficult few years and we're all in a bit of a funk, and not just because of masks, vaccinations, testing, family separation, and all the rest. Far more painful has been the loss of many friends and loved ones. I know I miss them all and the older I get the more frequent these losses. But we take hope in the promise that, soon enough, we'll be with them again.  Yes, indeed, life and death continue, as does God’s love for His people. This, too, sometimes escapes us when we’re affected by grief.

Now, in the midst of the Easter season, we are also reminded of God’s great gift to the world: His Divine Mercy. The other day, reading a few pages of St. Faustina’s Diary, I came across these words of Jesus:

“You are to show mercy to your neighbors always and everywhere. You must not shrink from this or try to absolve yourself from it" [Diary, 742].

Meditating on this command from Jesus, I couldn't help but recollect all those times when I have been less than merciful, those times when I looked the other way rather than confronting another's need head-on. Sadly, there were far too many instances, too many to count.

There's nothing new about this command; indeed, if it were new, we would have every right to suspect the validity of the visions and private revelations experienced by St. Faustina. True private revelation can do nothing but confirm and reinforce divine revelation as found in sacred scripture and apostolic tradition.

And, of course, this same plea to mercy is stated explicitly in the Gospel:

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy" [Mt 5:7].

When Matthew describes Jesus’ depiction of the final judgment, we will all experience [Mt 25:31-46], we encounter a judgment focused on the mercy we have extended to each other. As I reflected on Jesus' command, and on my own failure to obey it fully, I realized how grateful I am that we have a merciful God, who willingly forgives and forgets the sins of the repentant.

In other words, our personal failure to extend mercy to others can be overcome by God's infinite mercy when we come to Him in true repentance and a willingness to change, to undergo conversion. Without this gift of mercy and forgiveness none of us would be saved.

Today, as we pray together at the foot of the Cross, when we look up at our crucified Lord, do we tear open our very being? Listen to the prophet Joel, who revealed God’s will:

“Rend your hearts, not your garments, and return to the Lord, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relenting in punishment.” [Joel 2:13]

Do we rend our hearts exposing all to God’s merciful gaze?

Do we come to Him, ready to die to self and sin?

Praying the chaplet on this 6^th day of our novena, can we abandon ourselves to His Divine Mercy?

Joyce Kilmer, the Catholic poet, another of my favorites, was struck down by a sniper's bullet during World War One. But in the midst of his wartime experience, surrounded by the destruction and devastation and death in the trenches, he wrote a little poem called "Thanksgiving." 

     The roar of the world in my ears.
     Thank God for the roar of the world!
     Thank God for the mighty tide of fears
     Against me always hurled!

     Thank God for the bitter and ceaseless strife,
     And the sting of His chastening rod!
     Thank God for the stress and the pain of life,
     And Oh, thank God for God!

Brothers and sisters, that's exactly what we must do: just thank God for everything.

Thank God for the joys and the pains of our lives.

How did St. Paul put it?

"We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose" [Rom 8:28].

It’s all a gift, even when it's beyond our understanding.

Yes, thank God for His mercy which makes life itself livable. 

 

We’re In a Religious War, But Don’t Know It

Note: the first part of this post was written over a week ago. Since then President Biden and the Taliban have confirmed that we will indeed pull all American forces out of Afghanistan on August 31. I simply got very busy with a number of ministry demands and hadn’t the time to complete the post.

——————-

I think it’s time to tell the truth about the so-called “War on Terror.” No country, no civilization wages war on a tactic, for that’s what terror is. Terror is simply a means used to wage war on an enemy. It’s not unlike the use of air power, or submarine warfare, or blitzkrieg waged using armor (i.e., tanks). A military force can take steps to counter a particular tactic, but it certainly doesn’t wage war against it. It wages war against its enemy, and in most instances the enemy is a nation or an alliance of nations. But war can also be waged against an ideology, one that can motivate a large number of people. An ideology may be driven by religious beliefs, ethnicity, economics, or combinations of these. The ideology may be geographically fluid, and transcend the usual national, ethnic, and geographical boundaries. This makes Ideological warfare particularly challenging because the enemy can not always be easily identified and located. 

Today, whether or not we accept it, we are involved in an ideological conflict, a war with a determined enemy. Our enemy wants nothing less than the complete destruction or unconditional surrender of everyone who is not one of them. At least from our enemy's perspective, it is a war of survival -- our survival, for they are convinced they will ultimately prevail. 

The enemy are Islamists and they are waging war on everyone else, throughout the world. You might think they have no real hope of succeeding because they must contend with superpowers like the United States. They have, however, a number of real advantages. Perhaps foremost is the fact that very few of their enemies understand the nature of the conflict or even realize they are at war. It's always less of a challenge to defeat an enemy that refuses to accept it is engaged in a war with a determined foe. If we were to approach the average man or woman on the street in, say, Frankfurt or Copenhagen or Naples or Los Angeles or Charleston, and ask, "Is your nation at war?" I'm pretty sure every one of them would answer, "No, of course not." And that's the problem we face today. Only the enemy knows we are engaged in a war for survival. 

Now let's tighten things up a bit. This war isn't just ideological. At its core, it is a religious war. And that, dear friends, is something most Westerners, particularly West Europeans, don't want to hear. Indeed, they refuse to hear it, and in some nations to say we are in a religious war with Islam might well be a criminal offense. I'm sure I don't exaggerate when I say a significant majority of West Europeans are no longer believers. If a European discounts the importance of religious belief in his own life -- that is, if religion means absolutely nothing to him -- he's far more likely to project that unbelief on others. By ignoring the evidence of religious motivations, he will assume other causes lie behind the hostility he sees and cannot ignore. How can these Islamists be motivated by religion? After all, who would actually wage war for meaningless religious beliefs? No, they are obviously driven by poverty, or anti-colonialism, or resistance to Western imperialism, or pervasive Western arrogance, or climate change, or whatever...and, believing this, they ignore almost 1,400 years of history.

One need not be a historian to recognize the long and consistent record of Islamic belief put into practice. And yet our national leadership has been equally consistent in their failure, or perhaps simply their unwillingness, to face the truth about those who wage this war against us and all who do not share their hateful beliefs. We saw this when President Jimmy Carter and his foreign policy staff rejected the Shah and disregarded everything the Ayatollah Khomeini had preached before he took control of Iran. The result was predictable and led to the long hostage crisis that, along with a dozen other failures, cost Carter a second term, and led our enemies to underestimate us. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan came to the rescue, at least for a time.

The goals of the Islamists haven’t changed over the centuries. Back in the 14th century, the Islamic Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) wrote, “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam by persuasion or by force.” This isn’t an opinion of just one Muslim. This is the universal Koranic call to Jihad. Quite simply the desire is to create a worldwide social order based on the tenets of Islam and the imposition of Sharia law. That’s the goal. The means call for “persuasion or by force,” including violence of every kind, even terrorism and suicidal martyrdom. It also uses the infiltration of Islamists into Western nations through migration, both legal and illegal. Our response to this was the nation-building approach of multiple administrations, under the false assumption that the installation of a quasi-democratic political system and all it’s trappings would overwhelm these religious beliefs that have motivated Muslims from the beginning. Pick up a copy of the Koran, a good translation, and you can read exactly how Muslims are commanded to deal with unbelievers. 

Many Muslims, of course, do not accept the calls to violent Jihad that we hear from Islamist terrorists and leaders of such nations as Iran. They manage to follow the religious precepts of their faith without turning to hatred of those whose beliefs differ from theirs. But I  suspect many of these Muslims do not speak up and castigate the terrorists publicly for fear of their lives and the lives of those they love.

——————

Note: these final words were written today, August 31.

Today I am ashamed to be an American. Our government, a government that represents us, has, for completely political and largely irrational reasons, abandoned hundreds of American citizens and their families, plus thousands of Afghan allies who worked and fought alongside American troops over the past 20 years. But we didn’t just abandon these people. That would be bad enough. No, we left them in the hands of a collection of barbaric terrorists who enjoy torturing and butchering those whom they consider their enemies. And, believe me, their most hated enemies are Americans and any Afghans who supported us.

Today we mourn the deaths of 13 young Americans — marines, soldiers, and a Navy corpsman — who lost their lives in Kabul while serving their country by helping others in dire need. They and the many other Americans and Afghans wounded in that terrorist attack are the latest casualties of this centuries-long religious war. Pray for their immortal souls and for their families who are suffering today and will mourn for years to come. Listening to the president as he spoke to the nation just moments ago, it’s apparent how completely out of touch he is. Based on how he acted in his meetings with those families as the bodies of their loved ones arrived at Dover AFB, one also realizes how completely self-centered he is. More worrisome, he and his foreign policy team certainly don’t realize they’re in the midst of a religious war.

This is a religious war, and if we do not actually come to understand this, we will lose…unless, of course, our living and loving God, the God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, takes pity on us and in His mercy answers our prayers and comes to our aid. Faith and trust, brothers and sisters…

“Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth, so that very day their plans perish. Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God” [Ps 146:3-5].

Going Poilitical Again...

Since the 2016 presidential campaign, my opinion of our president has undergone more than a little change. I was no Trump supporter, but neither was I a "never-Trumper." Before and immediately after his election I was leery of the man and his intentions. It was hard to believe he really meant what he said, especially when some of what he said, and how he said it, seemed so outrageous at the time. For example, his campaign comments about John McCain's status as a POW during the Vietnam conflict were particularly offensive to me, a veteran of that war and, like McCain, a naval aviator. I was never a fan of John McCain, the man or the politician, and believe the Republicans couldn't have chosen a worse candidate to compete with Barack Obama. But McCain's military service was honorable and not worthy of ridicule by someone who never served in the military. This, plus other Trumpian campaign statements, caused me concern. And yet, despite my misgivings about the man, I predicted Donald Trump's election fairly early (see my post of July 18, 2016), and did so for a number of reasons:

First, I agreed with candidate Trump that the American people had become increasingly fed up with career politicians, especially Washington politicians, who promise everything and anything during their campaigns. Once established in Congress, however, many, perhaps most, vote against the good and the will of their constituents, and do so without embarrassment. I thought that Donald Trump's clearly stated mission -- Drain the Swamp -- appealed to enough voters to make his election probable.

Bill and Hilary

And second, although Hillary Clinton was perhaps the best candidate the Democrat party could have nominated, she was still a horrible candidate. She seemed to exhibit an attitude of entitlement, as if she and only she deserved to be president. This is the kind of elitist attitude despised by many Americans. It's an attitude we'd expect from socialist elites who believe they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they should have the power to plan every aspect of our lives. Despite her husband's Rhodes Scholarship and his two terms as president, I'm pretty sure she's convinced she's the smarter of the two. She might well be right. I also believe a large number of Americans had come to view her as unethical in the extreme and hoped she and her husband would vanish from the public square. Some voters probably feared a Clinton presidency more than they hoped for a Trump presidency. And others simply didn't believe her or like her. I never really thought Hilary Clinton could be elected president. I could not believe our nation had fallen that low.

Donald Trump won the election, and like most of the nation, I sat back and wondered how this most unusual president would carry out the responsibilities of the office. Since then, however, I have come to appreciate his rather unorthodox approach to things political. Don't get me wrong, though; I am still astonished, and often perplexed, by some of his comments (and his tweets). And yet his use of Twitter and other unorthodox means to communicate directly to the American people and the world, thus bypassing a hostile and increasingly irrelevant media, is a stroke of true genius. Although I don't always agree with the man. I suspect we're probably on the same page more often than not. And most surprisingly I usually know exactly where Donald Trump stands on any given issue. If he changes his stance, he doesn't dance around the issue, but lets us know. He is actually willing to admit a change in belief or policy, and to tell us why. This is more than refreshing; it's unheard of in modern American politics. We have become so accustomed to politicians and their constant lawyerly spin (apologies to my few honest lawyer friends) that we have come to accept their behavior as "normal."

The career politician's approach to his responsibilities eludes me. I've known quite a few over the years, and if I were to name one trait that most of them shared it would be their unfamiliarity with the truth. Instead of accepting the Gospel maxim, "The truth will set you free" [Jn 8:32], they seem to believe that the truth will lose elections. A few weeks ago, a friend asked me to name the members of Congress whom I most respect, and I decided it would be best to ignore the question. Whenever I've spoken well of a politician he or she soon says or does something that causes me to regret my words of praise.

President Trump Rally

I'm pretty sure President Trump honestly believes he is speaking the truth. And he delivers it in plain, non-political, unrehearsed language. It's the kind of talk most Americans hear around the dinner table or when they share their views at work or with their friends. Like me, you might not always agree with him, but unless you're a denizen of the far left, consumed by hate, you probably find him refreshing.

As I look back on the past few years, I am truly amazed that Donald Trump, who is so despised by the mainstream media and his political enemies on both sides of the congressional aisle, has accomplished so much. But even more amazing, to me at least, is that I am in agreement with so many of these accomplishments.

Perhaps most encouraging is his pro-life record, one surpassing that of all his predecessors. I never expected this of him, largely because other Republican presidents talked pro-life during their campaigns but did little while in office. I just assumed Donald Trump would be no different. How inspiring to encounter a president who took action and courageously took the heat that predictably followed.

Pro-Life Support for Trump

I also agree with President Trump's decision to move our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel is our only real ally in the Middle East, the only nation in the region with a truly representative form of government. Israel isn't perfect, but then neither are we. And every nation, including Israel, should strive to do what is best to further its citizen's interests and defend itself from aggressors. The rest of the region is a sewer, a collection of despotic regimes that truly despise both Israel and the United States. Worse, far too many of them support, bankroll, or harbor the Islamist terrorists that have plagued the world for so long.

Like Trump, I too am not a big fan of the nation-building goals of our protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although I'll admit my views have undergone some change in recent years. But I've always believed that any effort to develop democratic systems in Muslim-majority nations is doomed to failure. Islam is far more than a religion; it is a societal totality that strives to permeate and control every aspect of a people's life. Its governing rule of law -- shariah -- is simply incompatible with democratic, representative forms of government. Any attempt to democratize a fervently Muslim nation will eventually fail. Such attempts will also be overwhelmed by the growing number of Muslims willing to use force (I.e., terror) to achieve their Islamist ends. 

Pope Benedict XVI (2006)

Most informed people now realize Pope Benedict was absolutely correct when he addressed violence and Islam during his Regensburg lecture in 2006. It was the ideological intolerance of both Islamists and Western academics that drove the criticism and violence that followed the pope's well-reasoned remarks.

President Trump has shown he understands the need to destroy the Islamist terrorist organizations whenever and wherever they arise and thrive. This may well be his most difficult international challenge because this aim runs counter to the appeasement efforts of so many of our European allies, and of too many in our own government, including both the state and defense departments. Yes, indeed, it's easy to hide in that murky swamp water.

President Obama made a total mess of the Middle East. Examining his policy in the region, one would think his every decision was driven by what would be best for the Shiites of both Syria and Iran. His do-nothing approach to the atrocities the Syrian government inflicted on its people only strengthened Russian presence in the region and increased Iranian influence. Repairing the long-term damage caused by President Obama's agreement with the Iranians is a case in point. I find myself in full agreement with President Trump's decision to dump the agreement, a non-treaty even the current Congress would never have supported. Russia and China are certainly long-term threats, but Iran, the world's foremost exporter of terror, must be dealt with today.

I also support the president's tax cut, a piece of legislation to which only a socialist would object. Whenever we have slashed taxes, especially taxes on businesses, the economy has boomed. It happened when John Kennedy cut taxes, just as it happened when Ronald Reagan did the same. And yet not a single House or Senate Democrat voted for this tax cut. Democrats have certainly changed since Kennedy's time. Indeed, their rejection of the legislation tells us much about the current core beliefs of the Democrat party, a party that has moved increasingly to the far and irrational left.

What the Democrat Party Once Believed

President Kennedy, when promoting his plan to cut taxes, said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut taxes now." He was right and his tax cuts led to a period of remarkable economic growth. Like Kennedy and Reagan, Trump also ignored the deficit hawks of his own party, believing that the tax cut will, in the long run, lead to a significant increase in revenues. Ironically, many Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, who have never uttered a word against increased deficits were suddenly all aflutter, expressing fears about the legislation's potential impact on the deficit. Go figure.

When it comes to immigration I find myself wondering why we don't focus on the root cause of illegal immigration. Most immigrants flock to our borders because they want to leave the failing economies and corrupt governments of their native lands. How often have individual bishops, much less the USCCB, challenged the corrupt governments of Latin America and elsewhere? They seem far more interested in attacking our nation for trying to control immigration and protect our borders. And how often do our politicians do anything to encourage our corrupt neighbors to change their ways? If these nations actually developed free economies and truly representative governments perhaps they, too, would become lands of opportunity. As for those screaming for "no borders," I think we can safely ignore them for the ideologues (or "useful idiots") they truly are. The only aim of those pulling their strings is to destroy this nation. Every nation has the obligation and the right to control its borders -- how much control is something its citizens must decide. This is a question that Congress has danced around for some time, but time is running out. I suspect the President and the voters will force the issue sooner rather than later.

As for North Korea, President Trump's efforts to overcome the horrendous mistakes of previous administrations should be interesting to watch. For the first time since 1953 this vicious, totalitarian regime seems to realize they are dealing with someone who won't allow them to break agreements. I expect these negotiations will take some time, quite likely several years, before they bear real fruit. We'll see what happens.

Then there's China, the world's most populous, communist, totalitarian state. It is a nation ruled by those who murder and enslave, a pack of liars and thieves who will do anything, absolutely anything, to maintain their power. Like Mafia dons, they dress up in their shiny suits and smile at the cameras while they plan the destruction of all that is good. They cleverly instituted some elements of a free economy because they realized their socialist policies had failed and they needed to bankroll their ever expanding base of power. But make no mistake, every Chinese firm is under the thumb of the ruling Communist Party leadership. 

The Communist Dons

Unlike his predecessors Trump seems to recognize the truth about China and his negotiations with the communist leadership will surely break the mold. When he hammered the Chinese with tariffs and other barriers, the talking heads and Wall Street hand-wringers screamed and assured us the president would drive us into economic ruin. Many said the same thing when Trump was elected in November 2016, but our economy instead experienced continued record-setting growth. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly in the long term, despite the efforts of the Senate Democrats to block confirmation votes on the president's judicial and executive appointments, most of these appointments, particularly those of federal judges, have been wonderful. Once again a president is appointing men and women who actually read and understand the Constitution and reject ideological activism. If President Trump serves another four years the federal judiciary will likely experience historic change.

Our president, like all men, is far from perfect, but he's certainly far better than the collection of wannabes the Democrat Party offers us. Every single one of them supports the great atrocity of our age, the deliberate, pre-meditated murder of the most innocent among us. I fear God's judgment, not for me, for I'm too near the end of my life. No, I fear for my children and grandchildren, and for all who may well face a faith-testing decision to choose between a culture of life and a culture of death. 

Here's something I trust all the faithful can agree on: Pray for our nation and our president.

Interview with an Exorcist

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!" -- Charles Baudelaire, The Generous Gambler (1864)

For the believer, Satan seems to be extraordinarily busy these days. Since the onset of the First World War just over 100 years ago, humanity has suffered more than in all previous history, and all as a result of our sinfulness. The two world wars, the cold war with its threat of annihilation, the ongoing battle against Islamist terrorists, the increased persecution of Christians in every corner of the world, the slaughter of God's most innocent, the unborn, by the millions -- these and other modern horrors are all symptoms of the spiritual war being waged by Satan.  

I suppose the unbeliever would attribute the chaos of the past century to a variety of other causes. After all, if one does not believe in God, he can hardly accept the reality of sin. For the same reason the unbeliever cannot logically accept the existence of Satan. When the only reality is a material reality, the spiritual must be consigned to the fanciful.

Jesus Casts Out Satan

Over the years I've encountered many Christians, both lay and clergy, even a number of well-known theologians, who do not accept the existence of angels and devils. The idea of spiritual beings, a personal reality outside of our material world, seems to upset them. I suspect some even question the existence of a personal God and would probably prefer a Star Wars-like "force" to the Holy Trinity. Many do not accept such basic Christian beliefs as the truth of the Gospels, the miracles of Jesus, His bodily Resurrection, etc., etc.  And sadly, they teach and preach these distorted beliefs as if they come from the heart of the Church.

While these pseudo-believers work tirelessly to persuade God's people that the devil doesn't exist, Satan is roaming the earth doing his work. Fortunately the Church has not abandoned its beliefs. Pope Francis, for example, has repeatedly warned the faithful of the reality of the devil.

"The Prince of this world, Satan, doesn't want our holiness; he doesn't want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: 'But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!' But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here...even in the 21st century! And we mustn't be naive, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan." [Pope Francis Homily, 10 April 2014].

Fr. Gary Thomas

Recently a Vatican-trained and formed exorcist, Father Gary Thomas, of the Diocese of San Jose, California, was interviewed by Wesley Baines of Beliefnet. It's a fascinating interview that deserves to be read by all Christians, especially those who question the existence of Satan. Here's the link: Interview With an Exorcist

And here's another brief article about Fr. Thomas and his ministry as exorcist: The Devil Hates Latin, Says Exorcist 

Even better, I've included the video of a talk by Fr. Thomas on his ministry. It's well worth watching.

Atrocity in Orlando

Early Sunday morning, not far from where we live here in central Florida, a young Muslim man murdered at least 49 people at an Orlando gay nightclub before being shot dead by law enforcement. The FBI quickly declared the murders an act of terrorism and indicated that the lone terrorist had possible connections with the Islamic State.  The FBI also revealed that this young man, a native-born American citizen of Afghan descent, had made two trips to Saudi Arabia in recent years and had been investigated several times for connections with terrorists and for threats of violence, but they had subsequently "closed the case." 

His beliefs, however, were nothing new and seem to have been formed years ago. His high school classmates report that on the morning of September 11, 2001, he openly celebrated the terrorist attacks. We have also learned that his ex-wife had to be rescued by her parents after only four months of marriage because he had beaten her so frequently she feared for her life. And it now seems his father, an Afghan living in the USA, actually ran for the presidency of Afghanistan. His father also hosted a California-based satellite TV show in which he regularly condemned the United States and strongly supported the Taliban. Indeed, despite this questionable background the Orlando terrorist was permitted to continue his employment with a major security firm that is a key subcontractor with the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency. 

None of this apparently triggered any alarms within the local, state or federal law enforcement bureaucracies. As a security professional, he therefore had no problem legally purchasing the two weapons he used in the attack.

I realize that, unlike the FBI investigators, we have the advantage of hindsight, but I can't help but wonder whether political correctness played a role in the lack of scrutiny this man received from both his employer and law enforcement. Did his immediate supervisors fear the backlash that might arise if they had disciplined or fired him because of the threats he had made to coworkers and others? Did he get a pass because he was a Muslim? After all, that's exactly what happened in the case of the Fort Hood terrorist, an Army psychiatrist who was investigated by the FBI for his terrorist connections and then went on to murder 13 innocent human beings. Lots of red flags that seem to have been overlooked.

My major concern, however, is that as a nation we apparently have not accepted the obvious fact that we are at war and have been since well before September 11, 2001. Equally disturbing, we seem unable to define the enemy. For example, just moments ago I  heard one supposed expert declare that we are engaged in a "war on terror." It would seem that few people recognize the stupidity of such a statement. Terror is not our enemy; rather, it is a means of waging war. One might as well say we are engaged in a war on strategic bombing or a war on anti-personnel mines. It makes absolutely no sense unless one's purpose is to obfuscate. It's not unlike the president blaming the Orlando atrocity on guns rather than on the Islamist terrorist who repeatedly pulled the trigger. At some point, if we hope to defeat our true enemies, we must be willing to identify them. Quite simply, we are at war with Islamic Jihadists, those Muslims who believe that Islam must wage war with the infidel nations -- i.e., the rest of the world -- and are more than willing to use terrorism to achieve this goal.

Of course, most Muslims just want to live their lives and have no desire to join the jihadists in their war against infidels like you and me. But a surprisingly large percentage of the world's Muslims accept much of what the jihadists preach. Islam's teaching on homosexuality is particularly relevant given what happened in Orlando where the terrorist chose as his target a nightclub catering to the LGBT community. By doing so he actually carried out the demands of sharia or Islamic law which calls for the death sentence for homosexuality. It's important to realize that many, if not most, of the world's Muslims believe that sharia should be the "law of the land" throughout the world. In many Muslim nations a majority believe the death penalty should be applied for such offenses as adultery, homosexuality, and apostasy. Indeed, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and several other Muslim nations, homosexuals are regularly executed. Even here in the United States too many Muslim leaders preach the same. Ironically, just a few weeks ago, an imam speaking in Orlando stated that gays should be executed "out of compassion."  (See the video below.)

To see the eye-opening results of the Pew Research polling of Muslims worldwide on these and other issues, click here: Muslim Beliefs about Sharia.

Strangely, though, the notables of the political left are so blinded by political correctness they cannot accept even the most obvious truths. Yesterday I read that lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union had declared, quite incredibly, that the "Christian Right" was responsible for the terrorist attack in Orlando because "they created this anti-queer climate." And, trust me, the ACLU includes the Catholic Church among the Christian Right because of its moral teaching on the homosexual lifestyle. The Church, of course, does not in any way condemn homosexuals, who like the rest of us are sinners for whom our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died. We don't condemn the sinner; we condemn the sin.

The left simply cannot bring itself to criticize Islam and instead attacks the soft target of Christianity knowing it has little to fear from Christians. I cannot recall having heard any Christian leader call for the killing of homosexuals, and to my knowledge no terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by Methodists, Episcopalians, Jewish rabbis, Benedictine monks, or the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Pray for the dear souls, God's children, who lost their lives in Orlando. Pray for those who mourn them. And pray for our nation as its citizens try to decide which adolescent to elect as our president.

Wars and Numbers

The current administration and its allies have been talking a lot about a supposed "War on Women," but if one looks at the numbers published by this same administration's agencies, it would seem there are some other wars being waged. Knowing how they can be misused to distort reality, I'm not normally a big fan of statistics. But in some instances the numbers are so extreme they can lead to only one conclusion. Here are a few examples.

The War on Black Babies. African Americans make up only 12.6 % of the population of our country, yet they have 46% of all abortions. And in Mississippi black babies are the victims of 78% of abortions. Does the African American community not realize what is being done to them? And why is our first African American president such a champion of abortion, even supporting the killing of babies who happen to survive an abortion? That's right, as a state senator, Barack Obama opposed the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" on three different occasions. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them medical care. To show how extreme his position is, the federal version of this bill passed the U. S. Senate unanimously. Read more here and here.

The War on Parents. The "Obamacare" mandate issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services has generated much controversy, largely because of its requirement that religious affiliated organizations offer services that directly violate their religious beliefs. But did you know that it also demands that parents' healthcare plans include free coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs for minor children? And here's the interesting statistic: in 26 states there is no requirement for parental notification. In other words, a school nurse can't give a child an aspirin without her parent's consent, but that same 12-year-old can get a "morning-after" abortifacient from any physician who's willing to give it to her. Read more here.

War on Christians in Africa. While it hasn't received much attention in the mainstream media, Islamists in many African nations have been waging a war on Christians. In Egypt, the Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and elsewhere on the continent, Islamic fundamentalists have murdered Christians, destroyed churches, burned Christian homes and businesses, all in an attempt to eliminate the Christian community. Remarkably, despite this ongoing persecution, these communities have persevered, setting a wonderful example of faith for the world's Christians. The most interesting statistic out of Africa, though, relates to the increase in its Christian population, which has now surpassed the continent's Muslim population. Christians now make up 46.5% of Africa's population, while Muslims make-up only 40.5%. It is estimated that within 10 years Africa will be the continent with the largest Christian population. This rising tide of Christianity has reportedly disturbed the continent's Islamic fundamentalists.

Massimo Introvigne, the founder of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) at the University of Morocco, stated:

“This data is still not widely known but they have a profound historical, cultural and political significance. There are now more practicing Christians in Africa than in Europe. In the long run, this will not only change Africa but Christianity as well, as John Paul II had intuited. His attention to Africa was continued by Benedict XVI who has already visited the continent twice.

“Of course, not everyone is happy about this development. Some Islamic ultra-fundamentalists consider it scandalous that there are more Christians than Muslims in Africa and proceed to persecute and kill Christians in countries such as Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and Kenya. The way the ultra-fundamentalists see it, today, the battle which will determine whether the world will be Muslim or Christian is being fought in Africa. And that Islam is losing. This is why they are responding with bombs.”

You can read more here.


Lots of wars taking place in the world today, but too many of them are way under the radar.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Irish and Islamist Terrorism

Not long ago a friend, speaking of what he called the "tensions in the Middle East", told me that eventually the Israelis and Palestinians would follow the example of the Irish and come to a "reasonable solution" that would no doubt lead to lasting peace. I thought this was more than little Pollyannish and suggested that the two conflicts were not at all alike. He, however, countered that there was little difference between the IRA and Islamist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood or even al-Qaeda. "We just need to get them all together with the Israelis," he argued, "apply some serious diplomacy, and they will come to see that violence never leads to success." When I said that World War II was a rather obvious example of the successful application of violence, he got personal and said, "That's the sort of warlike talk I'd expect from you." (He knows I am a retired naval officer.) At this point I concluded there was little reason to continue our argument.

Sadly this all occurred before I read the following article by Clifford May, or my (rhetorical) weapons would have been considerably more effective. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security. The article appeared this week on National Review Online. I intend to share it with my friend, who I am certain does not read this blog or NRO.

Dublin — In 1978, I was a young foreign correspondent assigned to cover “the Troubles,” the conflict in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics, between those loyal to the British Crown and those determined to make Ireland a united and independent nation. There were “paramilitaries” on both sides. Terrorism — bombings, assassinations, and other forms of violence targeting civilians for political ends — was among the principal weapons employed.

But in at least one way, terrorism was different then: Although I sometimes worried that I might end up on the wrong Belfast street at the wrong time, I was confident that no one saw me as a target. Journalists were neutrals. “Loyalists” and “Republicans” alike were eager to tell me their stories, and have me retell those stories to distant audiences. Without fear, I would sit down with hard men and ask tough questions.

At some point over the years since, new technologies and ideologies brought changes that became obvious when the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl took his notebook and pen to a 2002 meeting with terrorists in Karachi. They had a different approach to shaping the narrative — one that would entail beheading Pearl on camera and posting the video on the Internet.

The Troubles wracked Northern Ireland for almost 30 years. More than 1,500 people were killed. In those days, that was a serious number. But early in the new century, nearly twice as many innocent people would be killed on a single day in New York, Pennsylvania, and Arlington, Va. Meanwhile, in Syria over the past year, a conflict with ethno-religious-political undercurrents has taken some 20,000 lives. Perceiving this as an inflationary trend does not inspire optimism.

Queen Elizabeth & Martin McGuinness, former IRA commande

George Will, the venerable columnist, once cited Northern Ireland as one of the world’s two “intractable” conflicts. The other was what was then known as the Arab–Israeli conflict, today more usually called the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, though in reality it is now Islamist regimes and movements that are most seriously waging what they call a jihad against Israel.

Will was wrong about Ireland. The Troubles ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Two Northern Irish politicians, John Hume and David Trimble, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — a rare occasion on which the awards were actually deserved.

Today, Northern Ireland remains British. But a good road connects the Republic in the south with the United Kingdom in the north, and no border guards or checkpoints impede travel between the two. Former terrorists, reformed if not repentant, serve in Northern Ireland’s government. Rightly or wrongly, Queen Elizabeth II shook hands with one earlier this year.

On a brief return to Northern Ireland this week, it was apparent that there are still tensions, still segregated neighborhoods, still pubs where Protestants and Catholics do not mix. But the Troubles ended when most people on both sides accepted the idea of an imperfect peace, when they came to see compromise as preferable to more killing and dying, and when they tired of the poverty and degradation that chronic carnage brings in its wake.

Should that give us hope that peace in the Middle East also is possible and perhaps even imminent? Absolutely not.

At its worst, the IRA never sought the destruction of Britain and never vowed to wipe Protestants off the Irish map. The most extreme Protestant paramilitaries did not argue that southern Catholics had no right to self-determination.

These days, it is fashionably multicultural and politically correct to assign blame in roughly equal measure to Israelis and Palestinians. It also is patently false. Time and again, Israelis have demonstrated their willingness to compromise in order to achieve an imperfect peace with their neighbors, not least those in Gaza and the West Bank.

Hamas, by contrast, is openly committed to Israel’s annihilation, attacking those who would settle for less as traitors and apostates. Fatah’s spokesmen, at least in Arabic, express solidarity with Hamas on that score. Meanwhile, Iran’s rulers, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood all continue to insist that they will never accept Israel, that they will not allow even the tiniest swath of the Middle East to be ruled by non-Muslims, least of all the despised Jews, who, it is charged with bewildering inconsistency, defied the Prophet Mohammed in ancient Arabia and have no roots in the region.

“There are fascist forces in this world,” David Trimble said in his 1998 Nobel Lecture. “The first step to their defeat is to define them.” In Ireland, enough people took that step, and what Trimble has termed “a sort of peace” has been the admirable result. In the Middle East, too many are still unwilling or unable to take that first step, and so no other steps can follow.

Here's a link to Clifford May's original article on NRO: Letter from Ireland

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

War and Peace

A few days ago, during a conversation with a parishioner, I was told that war has never accomplished anything, and that war is always immoral. As those who know me might expect, I disagreed with both statements, and even commented that I was especially proud of my limited participation in the Vietnam conflict. (I have always believed that the United States' involvement in Vietnam was particularly altruistic since we certainly had little to gain strategically and almost nothing to gain financially. But that's a topic for another time.) My disagreement seemed to take the parishioner by surprise. He said he found it hard to believe that a deacon could be a "warmonger." He then stated that a true Christian must be a pacifist, and that any participation in war is always immoral.

Hoo-boy! How does one respond to someone who holds such beliefs? Of course his basic premise -- that war accomplishes nothing -- is simply wrong by every historical yardstick. I shudder to think what the world would be like today if England, the United States and their allies had not stood up to Hitler and his regime. Yes, war often accomplishes a great deal, and sometimes for the good of the world.

I suppose I should also issue a disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a pacifist. Neither am I a warmonger. Indeed, I can say with assurance that anyone who has been to war is unlikely to be a warmonger, for they understand first-hand the reality and costs of war. Career military people prepare for war because that's their job. This does not mean they like war or look forward to it.

With regard to pacifists, let me explain my thinking. I have absolutely nothing against those who claim to be personal pacifists; that is, those who believe that, as individuals, they should always "turn the other cheek." The living out of such beliefs is a good thing; it is not unlike the decision to live the monastic or eremetic life, but it doesn't define the Christian. Monks and hermits don't try to turn everyone else into monks and hermits. They realize some are called to such a life, but most are not.

My objection is not, therefore, with personal pacifism, but rather with what I shall call "institutional pacifism" -- that form of pacifism that insists we embrace pacifist attitudes not only as individuals but also as a nation. This I believe is not just ill advised, but flat-out immoral. The Church has always taught that a nation has the right and the obligation to defend itself, and has never called for any form of universal pacifism.

Not surprisingly we find this same teaching in the gospels. John the Baptist, for example, when asked by a group of soldiers what they should do, didn't tell them to lay down their swords and embrace pacifism. No, instead he gave them practical moral instruction: "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages" [Lk 3:14]. Luke doesn't tell us whether they were Roman soldiers or Herod's soldiers, but I don't think it makes much difference. One thing we do know: John didn't call them "warmongers" simply because they wore uniforms.

Jesus, too, had interactions with soldiers. The most famous is his healing of the Roman centurion's servant, described in Lk 7:1-10 and Mt 8:5-13. Our Lord actuallly praises this professional soldier when he states, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith" [Lk 7:9]. Jesus says not a word about the man's profession, but having granted his request, sends him on his way.

We encounter another centurion during the crucifixion. It is he, a Gentile and a professional soldier, who, according to Mark, first proclaims Jesus' divinity: "And when the centurion, who stood facing him [Jesus], saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, 'Truly this man was the Son of God'" [Mk 15:39]. And yet, although inspired by the Holy Spirit, to our knowledge he does not leave his profession and become a pacifist.

And let us not overlook Cornelius, the centurion of the Italian cohort, who was sent to Peter by an angel of God. Cornelius, described by Luke as "...a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation" [Acts 10:22], is used by God to confirm that His message is for all of humanity, not just for the Jews. And, again, like the others he seemingly remains a centurion, a profession in which one can apparently be "upright and God-fearing."

I think it's important, particularly today when out nation is at war with something as intrinsically evil as Islamist terrorism, for Christians to support our men and women in uniform. Trust me, they do not enjoy doing what they do, but they do it because they know it must  be done. To call them "warmongers" because they are willing to sacrifice their lives in the defense of our nation is inexcusable.

Pray for our military men and women, especially those in harms way.

The peace of Christ -- not the peace of the world -- be with you.