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. 

Just Some Stuff…

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated. President Biden, and his sidekick, Dr. Anthony Fauci, have spoken frequently and loudly about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Their purpose was always to shame those who haven’t gotten the mRNA COVID shots or, almost as bad, neglected to be boosted. In the spirit of full disclosure, Dear Diane and I both got the two Moderna shots and the 1st booster…but that’s it. We’ve decided to get no more COVID shots until we know more about the effects of these still experimental drugs. 

I actually believe I contracted COVID back in early 2020, before I had been vaccinated. I felt so bad I went to the doctor on a weekend and was treated by a very nice and seemingly competent PA. I had all the symptoms of COVID, but since no test was yet available, she assumed I had a bad case of some random virus. She gave me meds and told me to rest, drink liquids, and come back if it got worse. After a week or so, I recovered and forgot about it. But many months later I spoke to several others who had suffered from COVID and our symptoms, although they varied in intensity, were identical. Despite my age, I am in good health, so I think I just slid through my case more easily than many. 

Anyway, yesterday the CDC released its latest data on COVID deaths and — surprise, surprise! — “a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine.” This, of course, alters the narrative that it is only the unvaccinated who will die from COVID. My unscientific guess is that those who are dying today are folks with serious comorbidity issues and compromised immune systems. Perhaps the president should change his mantra since it apparently doesn’t reflect the “science,” which is always a moving target.

Dumbing Down the Legal Profession. The American Bar Association has decided that those hoping to enter law school should no longer be required to take the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), and apparently Harvard and Yale have decided to go along with this. Interestingly, the LSAT is designed to measure prospective law students’ ability to reason, solve problems, comprehend what they read, along with other intellectual traits that lawyers believe they should possess. I certainly won’t argue with the need for these traits. If I ever need a lawyer, I want him to be rational and smart. But one can only assume that by failing to test for these traits and abilities, some aspiring lawyers will lack them. I suppose, then, we can conclude that, on average, the lawyer of tomorrow will be less rational, less capable, and not nearly as smart as today’s lawyer, assuming such an outcome is even possible.

Okay, okay…my apologies to all my lawyer friends for that last remark. Perhaps I was thinking only of those lawyers who gravitate to government and subsequently do everything they can to siphon political power from the people, who are sovereign.

Abortion, Religion, and Politics. Shortly before the recent mid-term elections, during one of those “after Mass” conversations with a parishioner, I was told that “the Church really shouldn’t get involved in politics. After all,” he added, “our country was founded on the concept of separation of church and state.” I assumed he was telling me this because of his tacit acceptance, and the Church’s adamant condemnation, of abortion. As it turned out, my assumption was correct. Of course, his supporting statement was false. Our nation was not “founded on the concept of separation of church and state.” In fact, that specific concept was voiced by only one man, Thomas Jefferson, in a rather obscure letter written to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802. The Constitution does not demand separation. Here’s the actual text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the first freedom, that which the founders believed to be most important, is the freedom of religion. The Constitution prohibited Congress from establishing a state religion of the sort found at the time in many European countries, especially England where the ruling monarch was, and remains today, the head of the established church. But it said nothing about banning religious faith from influencing political thought or action. Indeed, for true believers of any faith, religious values have a major influence on every aspect of their lives. This understanding no doubt drove the founders to add the second clause in which the government may not prohibit citizens from freely exercising their religious faith. Both religious freedom clauses are further supported by the subsequent clause that guarantees the freedom of speech. 

Because our bishops — and, yes, even priests, deacons, religious, and the faithful — are citizens, they may scream to high heaven about the gross injustice of the government’s support for the willful slaughter of the unborn. Abortion is by no means solely a religious issue. It is also moral and political, as we all saw in the last election. Politics, religion, and morality cannot and should not be separated. Religious values have always had an impact on politics. We need only consider the Ten Commandments and their place in many of the world’s legal systems. 

When I said all this to our parishioner, he just shrugged and mumbled something about disagreeing. But he apparently decided not to argue the issues with me and walked away. At first, I was pleased because his silence told me I had “won” the argument. But then I realized I had done little to change his opinion. In truth I had focused more on myself and my ability to argue effectively than on his need for conversion. We must learn to listen to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit speak through us:

“…do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say" [Lk 12:11-12].

I’ll have to talk with this parishioner again.

Breaking with the Left. I often must remind myself of the reality of the passage of time. For example, anyone younger than 35 really has little memory of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European puppet states. After all, by the early 1990s much of the world had been transformed. For decades all of these nations had been ruled by the iron fist of communism, an ideology that maintained power only through the application of terrorism against its own people.

The exploited and the poor, those who suffered under earlier tyrannies, had liked the sound of socialism. It seemed to provide a solution to their problems, to offer a better life, to promise a leveling that would eliminate the vast disparity among the classes. Yes, indeed, socialism, and even its more violent and oppressive manifestation in communism, sounded so very good to the uninformed. Often enough, war and revolution created the catalytic environment needed to bring about radical societal change and a total shift in the balance of power. The Soviet Union was born out of the chaos of World War One and its subsequent discord, while Communist China arose in the aftermath of World War Two. 

But once the left assumes power and the people actually experience the reality of totalitarianism, they realize their lives are controlled by a corps of elites who wield absolute power. Even after they come to understand the truth about socialism, it becomes very difficult to turn back the clock. Only when an oppressed people decide that their freedom and that of their children is more important than life itself do they rise up, cast off their chains, and overthrow the tyrants. Perhaps the people of China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and too many other nations will someday make that decision.

Now for something a bit lighter, a wonderful fish story. 

A Goldfish Story. When I was growing up, like a lot of kids, I had a few goldfish. I managed to keep them alive, at least for a while, and I suppose the biggest ones might have grown to four or five inches long. The size of the tank seemed to be the limiting factor, so they never got much bigger. I just assumed that goldfish were by nature small fish. But the other day I was hooked by a story about a man who caught a rather large goldfish in a French lake. How large was it? A whopping 67 pounds. Here’s a photo of the UK fisherman, Andy Hackett, with his catch, a goldfish appropriately named “Carrot” by the locals. And don’t worry, after photographing his record catch, Hackett released Carrot so the remarkable fish could gain a few more pounds and continue to set new world records.

 

How the French See Islam

Harris Interactive, in a survey they have called, “The Heart of the French,” offers some snapshots of the current religious and societal views of the French. As a result of significant migration in recent years, the population of France has undergone significant changes. Of particular interest are the thoughts of the French relating to the future growth of the nation’s Muslim population. I’ve included just a few tidbits below. The survey was conducted in late July. 

Note: If you would like to access and digest the complete survey and its results, you must be a French speaker, or at least a French reader. Unfortunately, I minored in German, and with the exceptions of a few “social phrases,” French remains a mystery to me. I relied, therefore, on the summarized reports of others. For the complete survey (quite long), click here: Le cœur des Français  (If anyone can find an accurate translation of the survey, please pass it along.)

• 39% of French believe Islam will become the largest religion in France. 55% of Muslims and 44% of Roman Catholics believe this. 

At first  glance, this can be misinterpreted because today most French are essentially irreligious. This is particularly true among France's younger citizens. The threshold needed to become the "largest religion" is, therefore, not very high. The most relevant result here is that vast majority of Muslims are faithful believers, while most non-Muslim French have rejected Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

• 72% of French believe France will lose its historic identity if Islam becomes the largest religion. 83% of Catholics and 67% of Protestants and non-religious people believe this. 

Interestingly, only 17% of Muslims responded by saying France would lose its historic identity were Islam to become the nation's largest religion. I can’t say what this wide divergence of opinion indicates, other than the fact that many French and Muslims view the impact of Islam on French culture very differently. 

According to a 2019 poll, 61% of French citizens believed that Islam was not compatible with French society. At the same time, when asked which party was best suited to handle the challenges relating to the Islamization of France, the rightist National Rally (RN) led by Marine Le Pen, received the highest score in the poll. France, of course is well “ahead” of the United States when it comes to Muslim migrants and immigrants. A Pew Research study predicted that the Muslim population in France will grow from 2020’s 5.7 million to 13.2 million by 2050. Muslims would then represent 20% of the French population. 

It’s all very interesting, but considering how the current US administration is dealing with immigration issues, we might expect similar responses from Americans in the future. I suspect Pew Research or another polling group might soon conduct a parallel study in the U.S. If so, its results will certainly be of interest.

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].

Future Gulags - Part II

The following excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago describe just some of the ways and means through which the Russian Bolsheviks turned their nation into a communist slave state after taking power as a result of the 1917 revolution. These ways included the crushing of opposition parties, religious groups, professionals, academics, artists, etc. -- pretty much anyone who could in any way be perceived as a past, present, or future threat.

Elimination of opposition political parties. In Solzhenitsyn's words (GA, p. 34-35):

In 1921 the arrests of members of all non-Bolshevik parties was expanded and systematized. In fact, all Russia's political parties had been buried, except the victorious one. (Oh, do not dig a grave for someone else!) And so that the dissolution of these parties would be irreversible, it was necessary that their members should disintegrate and their physical bodies too.

Not one citizen of the former Russian state who had ever joined a party other than the Bolshevik Party could avoid his fate. He was condemned unless, like Maisky or Vyshinsky, he succeeded in making his way across the planks of the wreck to the Bolsheviks. [Both were former Mensheviks who managed to join the Bolsheviks.] He might not be arrested in the first group, depending on how dangerous he was believed to be, until 1922, 1927, or even 1937, but the lists were kept; his turn would and did come...

As Americans we live in a nation in which political opposition has generally been accepted, however grudgingly. We all believe we are right and our opponents are wrong. And yet, the free expression of ideas has always helped those on every side of an issue appreciate other points of view and tone down the extremes the people will wisely reject. Today we're encountering something very different, a vicious level of intolerance, one that seeks to muzzle those who don't agree with the ways of those in power. History shows us that such intolerance is never satisfied until opposing ideas are crushed into total silence.

Destruction and/or control of all religious groups. Like the official Catholic "church" in today's communist China, the Russian communists set up what they called the "Living Church" to gain control of all church apparatus, especially the prominent Russian Orthodox Church. From Solzhenitsyn (GA, p. 36-37):

 

The [Russian Orthodox] Patriarch Tikhon was arrested and two resounding trials were held, followed by the execution in Moscow of those who had publicized the Patriarch's appeal and, in Petrograd, of the Metropolitan Veniamin, who had attempted to hinder the transfer of ecclesiastical power to the "Living Church" group.

...as always, in the wake of the big fish, followed shoals of smaller fry: archpriests, monks, and deacons...They also arrested those who refused to swear to support the "Living Church" "renewal" movement.

The so-called "Eastern Catholics" -- followers of Vladimir Solovyev -- were arrested and destroyed in passing...And, of course, ordinary Roman Catholics -- Polish Catholic priests, etc. -- were arrested, too, as part of the normal course of events.

However, the root destruction of religion in the country, which throughout the twenties and thirties was one of the most important goals of the GPU-NKVD [Soviet Secret Police - 1922-1943], could be realized only by mass arrests of Orthodox believers. Monks, nuns...were intensively rounded up on every hand, placed under arrest, and sent into exile [most often for slave labor in Siberian prisons and labor camps]. They arrested and sentenced active laymen...raked in ordinary believers as well, old people, and particularly women, who were the most stubborn believers of all...A person convinced that he possessed spiritual truth was required to conceal it from his own children. [To pass their faith on to their children was considered a political crime; i.e., counterrevolutionary propaganda.]

As Tanya Khodkevich wrote:

You can pray freely

But just so God alone can hear.

She received a ten-year sentence for these verses.

Anything that ran counter to the official atheism of the Soviet state was considered counterrevolutionary.  

Jews were also persecuted, especially Zionists. Of course, perhaps the most famous incident was the 1952 "Doctors Case" in which Stalin arrested leading Kremlin physicians (almost all Jews) and accused them of trying to kill Soviet leaders. 

Religious believers, of course, were being arrested uninterruptedly...There was the "night of struggle against religion" in Leningrad on Christmas Eve, 1929, when they arrested a large part of the religious intelligentsia...Then in February, 1932, again in Leningrad, many churches were closed simultaneously, while at the same time, large-scale arrests were made of the clergy.

Yes, indeed, religion is abhorrent to totalitarians of all stripes because it claims for God the allegiance of those who should worship only the state.

When I hear of government officials at any level trying to control religious worship in any way, or infringing on the Constitutional right of the "free exercise" of religious faith, I believe all Americans must speak up. One interesting example of anti-religious bigotry involved a member of Congress who claimed that those who were against abortion were racists, white supremacists who must be silenced. There is, of course, a strange irony here, since the nation's premier provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood, was founded by Margaret Sanger on racist principles to eliminate the undesirable races. 

There are so many other instances that I expect religious persecution will continue and grow.

[Note: Vladimir Solovyev, whom Solzhenitsyn mentioned above, wrote a fascinating and remarkably prophetic book, Tale of the Anti-Christ. It's certainly worth a read. In fact, I first heard of Solovyev and this book from a talk Pope Benedict XVI gave years ago.]

Persecution based on "social origin." Those descended from former noble families, or the intelligentsia, including those who simply went to universities were arrested in waves. From Solzhenitsyn (GA, p. 40-43):

And so the waves rolled on -- for "concealment of social origin" and for "former social origin." This received the widest interpretation. They arrested members of the nobility for their social origin. They arrested members of their families. Finally, unable to draw even simple distinctions, they arrested members of the "individual nobility" -- i.e., anybody who had simply graduated from a university. And once they had been arrested, there was no way back. You can't undo what has been done! The Sentinel of the Revolution never makes a mistake!

The state organs of terror called this effort "social prophylaxis" or the need to eliminate those who might resist because of their social origin. And then, throughout the twenties and thirties, historians and other scholars were arrested, and for good reason. They knew the truth, you see, and getting rid of them made the job of rewriting Russian and world history much easier. Look at our colleges and universities today, and you will find the percentage of Marxist professors significantly higher than those who claim to be conservative. Yes, our young people are receiving a Marxist-inspired education in which historical distortion has replaced truth.

The Soviets did not concern themselves with truth or with guilt or innocence. As one leader of a major slave labor project stated to one of his more educated political prisoners: "I believe that you personally were not guilty of anything. But, as an educated person, you have to understand that social prophylaxis was being widely applied." In other words, we don't care if you're innocent or guilty, the sentence is the same. Solzhenitsyn relates a typical example:

Several dozen young people got together for some kind of musical evening which had not been authorized ahead of time by the GPU. They listened to music and then drank tea. They got the money for the tea by contributing their own kopeks. It was quite clear, of course, that the music was a cover for counterrevolutionary sentiments, and that the money was being collected not for tea but to assist the dying world bourgeoisie. And they were all arrested and given three to ten years -- Anna Skripnikova getting five, while Ivan Nikolayevich Varentsov and the other organizers of the affair who refused to confess were shot!

Of course, these young people really met just to listen to music and drink tea, simply to be together and enjoy each other's company. But given their innate paranoia, the secret police always assume such meetings can only be for nefarious purposes. The arrests and executions also serve as effective warnings to others: we are watching and listening to everything. 

Ask General Michael Flynn, USMC, whether as the President's prospective National Security Advisor, he could take part in a routine phone call with the Russian Ambassador and not be accused of treason. 

Better be careful, folks -- well, those of you who haven't yet been canceled: Exactly what have you been saying on all those Zoom meetings?

That's enough for now. More in a future post. 

 

My Unsightly Pile of Books

During a phone conversation about a week ago, one of my friends, who knows me all too well, asked, “What’s in that stack of books on the table next to your easy chair?” He likes to know the books I’m reading so he can argue with me about them and their authors. He also knows that, at any given time, I’m usually reading about a half-dozen books. This is nothing to brag about; indeed, it’s a failing, a sign of a lack of focus. 

Sometimes, especially with good fiction, I’m enjoying a book so much, I hate the thought of finishing it. And so, I put it aside for a few days and return to it when I can resist no longer. Other books demand more than my aging brain can handle and must be read and digested in small bites. These call for more and deeper thought than I can usually conjure up as I read. So I set them aside, occasionally think about what they’re trying to tell me, and then return to them when my mind seems ready to dive into them once again. And then there are the books that simply conflict with whatever my current mood might be. These include poetry, short stories, or books of a certain genre, for example, science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, and what are often called, “ghost stories.” Yes, indeed, I enjoy all them all, but only if they’re well written and I’m in the mood. These, then, are the reasons for the “unsightly pile” (Dear Diane’s words) of books on my end table. 

What books now reside in this pile, and who are their authors? I’ll start from the top and work my way down. Here goes...

The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey (1896-1952).

Okay, in truth, I finished this book yesterday, so it shouldn’t still be in the stack with the others. After closing its cover, I just plopped it down on top of the pile, thinking I’d find a spot for it in a bookcase today. But I enjoyed it so much I just had to tell you a little about it. Anyway, my friend asked his question a week ago, so the book should still qualify as a true member of the current pile. 

Josephine Tey (a pen name of Elizabeth MacKintosh) was one of those classic British crime writers of the first half of the twentieth century, authors like Dorothy Sayers, G.K. Chesterton, Agatha Christie, Margery Allingham, E.C. Bentley, and so many others. The Daughter of Time (1951) is among the more unusual of her Inspector Grant of Scotland Yard mystery novels, in that Grant investigates a centuries-old crime from a hospital bed in which he is recovering from severe injuries. The crime? The fifteenth-century murder of the “Princes in the Tower” that historians and many others (including William Shakespeare) long attributed to King Richard III despite a lack of any real evidence. (Spoiler Alert!) Naturally, as a lifelong fan of Richard III, I agree with the good inspector’s ultimate conclusions. The real killer probably acted on orders from King Henry VII, the first of the Tudor monarchs, but really just another murderous member of that family. 

Richard, who lost his life and his crown 535 years ago (yesterday) at the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485, has had his reputation restored by a number of current historians who actually examined the evidence. Among my favorite biographies of this misunderstood and mistreated king is Richard the Third, by Paul Kendall, first published in 1955, and still in print. 

The most recent news about Richard III involves the remarkable 2012 discovery of the king's body beneath a parking lot in Leicester, the site of what was once the Franciscan Grey Friars Church. It's a remarkable story and you can read the short version here: Finding Richard III. If you want the whole story by the woman who led the team of archaeologists who found Richard, read Philippa Langley's book, The King's Grave (another book in my current pile).

As you might suspect, I'm a bit obsessed with Richard, and have been for decades. This last great Catholic king of England was systematically defamed by his Tudor successors. The Franciscans had buried Richard in their friary church shortly after his death in battle. The friary church and Richard's tomb were demolished by Henry VIII in 1536 as part of his sacrilegious dissolution of the monasteries. To me, the final insult was Richard's re-burial in 2015 in the Anglican Leicester Cathedral. The Anglicans despised and defamed this good king for centuries, but now that he's fashionable, they lay claim to him. Thankfully, Vincent Cardinal Nichols, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, celebrated a funeral Mass for King Richard at Holy Cross Priory in Leicester. 

Four Quartets, by T. S. Eliot (1888-1965). 

This poetry, by one of my favorites, was Eliot’s final major poetic work. Originally written in 1943, the year before I was born, Four Quartets applies equally to today’s confused world. Here for example...ponder these words from the third part, The Dry Salvages:

There is no end, but addition: the trailing

consequence of further days and hours,

While emotion takes to itself the emotionless

Years of living among the breakage

Of what was believed in as the most reliable — 

And therefore the fittest for renunciation.

I’ve read Four Quartets several times, as well as much of Eliot’s other poetry and prose. While he's sometimes unsettling and confounding, he never disappoints me.

On Islam: a Chronological Record, 2002-2018, by James V. Schall, S.J. (1928-2019). 

Father Schall, who died last year, was one of the few good things to come out of Georgetown University in recent decades. A prolific author -- all of his many books are worth reading -- and political philosopher, Schall takes a hard look at Islam during the years immediately following the 9-11 Islamist attack on New York City and the Pentagon. I found the book especially interesting because it covers those years through which we all lived, but does so by looking deeply into the very heart of Islam and its worldview. Few others, including many of the West's political, religious, and social leaders, understand Islam and its deep-rooted aims, leading to predictably ineffective responses. The book also includes a commentary on Hilaire Belloc's prescient writings on the nature of Islam, writings that, 50 years ago, had a major impact on the evolution of my own thinking on Islam.

Lord Peter, by Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957).

Back again to those British mystery and crime writers. Although Dorothy Sayers was also a Christian apologist and translator of Dante, she was best known for her Lord Peter Wimsey mystery stories. I've always believed if you truly like something, you might as well get it all. This book, then, is the "complete" collection of Lord Peter Wimsey stories, most written in the 1920s and 1930s. (It does not, however, include the many Lord Peter novels.) If you haven't read any of these stories, you might have watched a few of the TV adaptations produced by the BBC some years ago and aired on PBS here in the U.S. Short stories are far more easily adapted to the television medium, and the BBC actually did a fairly good job with Lord Peter. But no TV show will ever be as good as the original.

Lord Peter, though, isn't everyone's cup of tea. The English aristocrat and amateur sleuth is a bit odd, at least for American tastes, with his strange mannerisms, his monocle,  and his upper-class manners. But one grows to like him and his valet, Bunter, along with many other of the stories' recurring characters. Wimsey and Bunter served together in World War One and the latter's care for his "lordship," who suffered from what today we would call PTSD, adds more than a little touching poignancy to many of the stories. 

Unbelievable, by Michael Newton Keas (2019). This book's subtitle says it all: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion. Published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), an organization that offers a wide selection of books, all worth reading. Keas, a historian of science and a senior fellow at the Center for Science and Culture has written a readable and well documented book addressing many of the most pernicious myths that have infected and distorted much of modern thought. Most of these myths (can we simply call them lies?) seem to have one goal: the undermine Christianity in general, and specifically Catholicism. This is one of those books that you should send to every high school and college student you know.

How to Read Buildings, by Carol Davidson Cragoe (2012). Now, this is a book that falls well outside my usual interests, and represents a field of study about which I know far too little: architecture. Although I've traveled extensively during these almost 76 years, and seen a lot of buildings from many historical periods, I haven't always been able to identify one architectural style from another. Yes, I can tell the difference between Gothic and neo-classical, but when does Romanesque end and Gothic begin? What unique features really separate the two? How did one evolve from the other? And did you know that there are many different kinds of buttresses in those Gothic cathedrals? Can you identify the various kinds of columns or arches or vaults? Assuming you, too, are plagued by an inability to answer these questions, and would like to be able to answer them, this is the book for you. Given its subtitle -- A Crash Course in Architectural Styles -- this was one of those bookstore impulse purchases I couldn't resist because it offered a quick, down and dirty overview of building architecture as it has developed over the centuries. It's enabled me to sound much more broadly educated than I really am. It's also well illustrated and published in a very handy size that I can take with me on my travels -- a wonderful little book.
____________________

That's the extent of the current "unsightly pile" of books. It will no doubt undergo major changes in the days to come.

God and Politics

I'm tired. I'm tired of the arguments, tired of defending the truth to people who should know better. Sometimes I just want to crawl into my tent, close the flap, and get away from it all. 

For example, the other day after Mass, a parishioner approached and, I guess, challenged me. I don't know why he came to me, but for some reason I was his target of opportunity.

"Religion and politics don't mix," he told me. "The Church should stay away from politics, and politicians should stay clear of religion." 

He had thrown down the gauntlet and I should have addressed the many errors in his statement, but the thought of another long argument...as I said, I'm tired. My reply? "I'm sure many people agree with you, but I'm not one of them. Maybe we can talk about it later, when I have the time." With that I turned and entered the safety of the sacristy, my tent.

As I removed my vestments I couldn't help but recall the words of St. Paul, who seems to delight in reminding me of my weaknesses:

"Do not grow slack in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, endure in affliction, persevere in prayer" [Rom 12:11-12].

In other words, "Keep going, pal. If you're not tired, you're probably not doing what you're called to do." And so I resolved to talk with that parishioner the next chance I get. 

Politics, of course, is just one of many human activities. It involves the how and why of governance, the practice of directing the affairs of human society, particularly public policy. 

Religion involves man's relationship with God, the Creator of all. And since that relationship must involve every aspect of human life, neither politics nor any other human activity can be divorced from religion. 

Some, of course, will wrongly argue that our Constitution's First Amendment is designed to do just that, to separate religion from politics. But that's not its intent. It merely tells citizens (and politicians) that the state may not favor one religious group over others by establishing a state religion. It also tells the state that it cannot prohibit its citizens from freely exercising their religious beliefs. Those who drafted our Constitution recognized the pervasive and beneficial role religion plays in regulating human activity, and sought to protect religion from those who would place unjust limitations on it.

Anyway, in the strange way my mind works, this got me thinking about World War One, and that brought to mind my Uncle Bill. He was my mother's half-brother -- I guess that makes him my half-uncle -- and was a Navy veteran of World War One. We will "celebrate" the 100th anniversary of that war's conclusion at 11 a.m. on November 11. The irony, of course, is that this "war to end all wars" and its aftermath brought us the even more devastating World War Two and all the other wars that followed. 

[By the way, if you're interested in a fascinating book about the end of World War One and the deadly and pointless fighting that continued right up to the final minute on that first Armistice Day, read Joseph Persico's fascinating book, Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour.]

I was just a teenager when Uncle Bill died, but I remember him talking about WWI and his pride in having served. On one of our visits I recall him saying something to the effect that, "But the politicians sure made a mess of things afterwards. Maybe if they'd been more Christian…" And with those words, Uncle Bill beautifully summed up the mess the politicians made of the 20th century.  

"...if they'd been more Christian…" We suffer today because human powers decided to remove God from the political decisions that formed our modern world. God's Word was ruled out 100 years ago at Versailles. Instead of forgiveness, the ruling word was "revenge." The victors sought retaliation and reparations at any cost, and the world paid a high price indeed. The desperation of the Central Powers also sent Lenin's train to Russia, an act that ultimately cost far more innocent lives than the war itself.

I am not a pacifist. I accept that nations have a right to defend themselves from those who would attack them. I am well aware that sometimes just action can include the waging of war in order to prevent even greater evil. But when men try to repair a broken world by forgetting God and following only man's faulty wisdom, more brokenness inevitably follows.

But how many politicians actually take the Sermon on the Mount seriously? How many of us...?

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" [Mt 5:43-44]. 

I know of no nation that has integrated this mandate of Jesus into its foreign policy. Is that what Jesus wants? Can we 
love our enemies and still defend ourselves from them? Yes, I believe so. But loving them still places demands on us, the kind of demands ignored by the victors at Versailles. And note Jesus' other command: "...pray for those who persecute you." In other words, at some point we must bring God into the picture, for that's what prayer is intended to do.

We cannot expel God from politics, war, economics, or any other human activity. He simply won't let us, and will insert Himself as He wills. He is, after all, the Lord of History. But to include Him in all we do as a nation involves far more than an annual prayer breakfast at the Capitol or the occasional speech-ending "God Bless America."  No, it means struggling to be imitators of God, to live up to our creation in His image and likeness, to strive to do what is impossible for man.

"Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Jesus concludes His teaching on loving our enemies with a  command impossible to obey, at least on our own: 

"So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect" [Mt 5:48].

To strive for this perfection that God desires of us means we must turn to Him in all things, and that even includes politics. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to vote for a politician who was striving for the perfection of our heavenly Father?

Get Educated...Get a Life

Get religion, get smart. According to a study conducted at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University, young people who practice and are committed to their faith perform at a higher level academically than those who are less religious.

llana Horwitz

Ilana Horwitz, the doctoral candidate who conducted the study, interviewed almost 2,500 public schools students aged 13-17 placing them into five categories based on the depth of their religious life. She named the categories from most to least religious as follows: abiders, adapters, assenters, avoiders and atheists. (It seems she has a preference for "a" words.) Her study concluded that the more religious had a significantly higher grade point average than the less religious. For example, the "abiders" -- described by Horwitz as those who attend religious services, pray on a regular basis, feel close to God, and emphasize the role of faith in their daily lives -- earned an average GPA of 3.22. In contrast the "avoiders" -- those who believe God exists but avoid religious involvement in their lives -- earned an average GPA of 2.93.

Horwitz attributes the difference to two key factors: conscientiousness and cooperation. She went on to conclude that "church attendance and doing well in school require commitment, diligence, and routine...The ritual practice of rising and going to church or mass, and so forth – whether compelled by one’s own faith or one’s parents’ demands – commits a youth to a practice and routine, a skill that translates into tools needed for academic success.”

It seems, then, an active religious faith can make a difference in both this life and the next. Get religion and get smart; or you can follow the road most taken and...

Get a relativistic education. I was taught, in both school and at home, that if I knew little or nothing about a subject, I should remain quiet for fear of revealing my ignorance and sounding like a complete fool. When it comes to all those important, earth-shaking topics, I've tried to follow this advice, although those who know me well might disagree.

Usually, though, if I'm interested in a subject, I read about it, study it, and relying on my common sense, listen to the arguments of more knowledgeable people. Only then do I feel comfortable to form an opinion. Even then I'm ready to change that opinion as I learn more about the subject and the motives of those making the arguments. The sought-after end is always the truth.

Apparently, in a world dominated by relativistic thinking, comprehending the truth is no longer the desired goal. How can it be, when your truth and my truth and their truth, all very different from one another, all become acceptable? The true relativist accepts all of these "truths" as valid because no knowledge, no beliefs, are truly objective; all is subjective. Indeed, he rejects the very idea of objective truth and, like Pontius Pilate, can turn to the Source of Truth itself and sneer those words, "What is truth?" Remarkably, he can do so without any embarrassment whatsoever.

Today, however, political correctness has led to a strange, illogical twisting of relativism. Now only some "truths" are acceptable. Those that support the ideological left are fine regardless of their relationship to objective reality. Any other truth must be attacked and discarded. The lie, then, becomes a truth if it furthers the desired ideological ends. This is why so many of our politicians and their elitist fellow travelers can knowingly tell obvious lies and not be taken to task by a media driven by the same ideology. As Lenin is reported to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

I encountered a beautiful example of this a few months ago. Supposedly intelligent college students didn't hesitate to offer their opinion on the president's State of the Union speech several days before he delivered it. Assuming he had already delivered the speech, they willingly aired their opinions of what he supposedly said. What fun to listen to their comments on the content of a speech as if they had actually listened to it. In other words, they lied, but that's okay because their lies support the ideology. They have been so completely indoctrinated that their opinions before and after the speech would be virtually identical. This is what ideology does. It brainwashes. Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up. Or, perhaps more accurately, the ideology has captured my mind and dictated my thoughts.

Here's a video of these NYU students:

Uncovering and highlighting the ignorance of those claiming to be educated would be great fun were it not so sad.

Lenin and Hitler: Little Difference

Should you visit a college campus and have the bad fortune to experience an up close and personal encounter with a violent leftist of the Antifa movement, just ask him to define fascism, the ideology he claims to oppose. Ask him to describe the kinds of policies fascist governments have historically imposed on their populations. Ask him to do the same for communism and communist governments. The answers (or lack thereof) will amaze. Indeed, there is little difference between Antifa activists and the true fascists they condemn -- just as there was little difference between the tactics of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Marxists. Truth, understanding, and knowledge are of no importance. Only the ideology counts. It results, of course, in the enslavement of the ignorant, the very "useful idiots" the ideologues call on to do their dirty work.

Ben Garrison Cartoon

Yes, indeed, there's an element of slavery here. Too many have become so complacent in their ideological servitude that they are unable to think. I fear it has begun to affect the nation as a whole. As Americans we probably enjoy more physical comforts than those living elsewhere and yet at the same time we are losing our mental freedom. Even more strange is the infantization of college students who must be protected from any thoughts that might possibly disturb them.

Protect me...please, please protect me

Of course, far too many colleges and universities encourage all this by eliminating required, foundational courses in history, philosophy, literature, and the development of civilization. In 1962, as a freshman at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, I was required to take a course in logic. (I still have both the textbook and workbook, to which I have referred many times over the years.) I suspect very few college students could even define "logic" today. And I still fall back on what I learned that same freshman year in the legendary Carroll Quigley's course on the Evolution of Civilizations. Professor Quigley was the kind of liberal that no longer exists, one who would graciously listen to other points of view and engage in the give and take of good argument. 

Carroll Quigley

Without an understanding of the human condition -- the knowledge offered by the foundational studies mentioned above -- no person is truly educated. But even where such courses continue to be taught, their content is too often distorted by the prevailing leftist ideology. Argument and open discussion of contrary views -- the means to seek out the truth -- are not just discouraged but even prohibited.

Yes, it's a sad truth that most college graduates today depart these institutions woefully uneducated. Some have acquired the basic technical skills demanded by a chosen career field and go on to accept entry-level positions in industry, government, education, or health care. But they have been trained rather than educated. No doubt many will succeed as the world measures success, but are they prepared to answer, or even ask, life's great questions?

Others, having focused on politically correct areas of study, graduate with few marketable skills and find themselves working at what are essentially unskilled jobs and living in mom's basement.

Mom's Basement Ain't So Bad

Still others choose to enter professions that require the increasingly specialized knowledge and skills taught in  graduate schools. Brandishing advanced degrees and professional success they are viewed as experts to whom the world should listen. In truth, their expertise and knowledge are often so specialized, so narrow, that they are less likely to offer the answers so many seek.

A young person today must make a choice. If the goal is wealth and worldly success, and nothing more, then by all means do what must be done to attend one of the elite institutions. Accept the indoctrination and be prepared to live a narrow, meaningless life.

I've already, probably too often, offered my opinion on the quality of higher education at most colleges and universities. To the young person of faith, I offer the following advice. First, listen to St. Paul and what he told the Philippians:

I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God’s upward calling, in Christ Jesus [Ph 3:14].

In other words, don't sweat the small stuff, and that includes how you earn your living in today's world. Focus instead on the eternal "prize of God's upward calling." Be a person of faith, one who sees beyond this life to eternity.

My most recent advice to the average high school student is to learn a useful trade, the kind that will always be in demand, or enlist in one of the military services, while at the same time pursuing higher education online. And then read. Read and re-read the works of those whose thoughts formed humanity's great civilizations. 

That advice hasn't changed. 

A Marine in Afghanistan - Learning About Life

Life, in fact, is the best educator. And I really believe that the average 20-year-old Marine with combat experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere has a deeper understanding of the human condition and the state of the world than most recent college graduates.