Statues in the Lateran, Iconoclasts, and Islam

Constantine at the Lateran

The first time Dear Diane and I traveled to Rome, during the Holy Year of 2000, the first church we entered happened to be what is commonly called the "Basilica of St. John Lateran" or simply "The Lateran." It's full, official name is quite a mouthful: the "Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior and Saints John the Baptist and the Evangelist in the Lateran." I suspect the basilica's office receptionist uses one of the abbreviated versions when she answers the phone. The Lateran, though, probably deserves an especially long name; after all, it's the first church built for public worship in Rome, and perhaps in all of Christendom; hence, it is the mother of all churches. The original structure was built by the Emperor Constantine (306-337) in the early 4th century on land donated to Pope Miltiades (311-314). The archbasilica was officially dedicated by Pope Sylvester I in 324.

Lateran Facade

The Lateran, and not St. Peter's Basilica, is the pope's cathedral church, something many Catholics don't realize. As the cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, it is also the home of the pope's cathedra, or cathedral seat. The Lateran, therefore, takes precedence over the other three major papal basilicas of Rome: St. Peter's, St. Mary Major, and St. Paul Outside the Walls. 

Of course, the current church is very different from the church built by Constantine. Over the centuries fires and earthquakes, barbarians and wars, decay and neglect, renewal and reconstruction, and dramatic shifts in artistic expression all brought about major changes and gave us the church we see today. Anyway, I digress...

Statue of St. Peter in the Lateran

On that first visit back in 2000, I was almost knocked off my feet by the statues that line both sides of the Lateran's nave, statues of the twelve Apostles, each standing in its own niche and each larger than life. Indeed, these marvelous Baroque statues seemed almost alive, and as I moved toward the high altar from one Apostle to the next I realized how much I liked -- no, how much I needed -- a church filled with statues and other works of art. It suddenly dawned on me why I had never felt at home in those minimalist churches built back in the 1970s, buildings that tried to imitate so many bare-bones Protestant churches. To me they more closely resemble barns than churches. 

Minimalist Catholic (Cistercian) Chapel

The Baroque churches of Rome are in no way minimalist. They were constructed or renovated in a style that broke away from the classical, elegant styles of the Renaissance. In a sense they broke all the architectural rules and presented the world with an in-your-face richness designed to display the deep and varied theology of the Catholic Church. Patriarchs and prophets, archangels and cherubim, the Virgin and the Apostles, martyrs and saints, popes and bishops, friars and monks  -- all come alive and all point to Jesus Christ, leading the faithful more deeply into the church and to the altar on which the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered. It's enough to take your breath away. And I think that's exactly what the Jesuits hoped to achieve when they supported the spread of Baroque architecture in the Church. One need only visit the 16th-century Gesu, the mother church of the Society of Jesus where the Church Triumphant is on obvious display. When I first entered this church, I could do nothing but stand there agape in a vain attempt to take it all in. I simply did not know where to start, and so I didn't. I just sat down and let it fill me.

The Gesu (Jesuit Mother Church) in Rome

I give thanks to those many early popes who strongly resisted the iconoclasm of the Byzantine Empire, a movement influenced in part by the Muslims in the Middle East. In those dark days virtually all the worldly power was in the East, but the popes remained in Rome in the chair of Peter. Some, like Gregory VII and Innocent III, were powerful and influential, protecting the eternal Church from kingdoms doomed to disappear. Many others were weak, but even they resisted the attempts to strip the Church of its beauty, to make religious art something other than religious. 

Even today, some Protestant Christians still consider any religious images to be nothing more than idolatry. (A few years ago, in nearby Wildwood, Florida, a young lady working in a grocery store called me an "idol worshiper" because Catholic churches contain statues. Not particularly good public relations, but I gave her a pass.) And certain elements in Islam -- e.g., the Islamic State, the Taliban, and the religious leadership in Saudi Arabia -- have spent much effort destroying ancient historic structures, shrines, and other religious sites.

St. John Damascene, one of the last of the Early Church Fathers, lived his entire life under Muslim rule and wrote extensively against the iconoclasts. He saw iconoclasm as something indeed evil:

“Does anyone who has divine knowledge and spiritual understanding not recognize that [iconoclasm] is a ruse of the devil? For he does not want his defeat and shame to be spread abroad, nor the glory of God and his saints to be recorded.”

Yes, we can all thank the popes and saints like St. John Damascene for holding the line against the iconoclasts and allowing art to thrive in the Church. Without it, we would be much poorer and certainly much duller.

Chuck Smiley: Mentor and Friend

As we age it seems our thoughts more often turn to the past than to the future. The past, after all, represents a far greater percentage of our lives than does the future which, quite honestly, could be very brief indeed. And as we settle into a kind of quasi-retirement, our plans and hopes tend to focus on a less distant horizon. I also believe that, because our extensive pasts are brimming over with a lifetime of experiences, our thoughts naturally turn in that direction when we encounter something new. We measure the new by placing it alongside that which we have experienced and evaluate it accordingly. But it's not just our own experiences that enter into the mix, but the experiences of the special few who have had a major influence on us. 

If one is fortunate his life will be blessed by a few people who have freely offered not only their wisdom but also their encouragement, their advice, and their hope. And if one is extremely fortunate, that wisdom will always be timeless, that encouragement always positive, that advice always sound, and that hope ever fulfilled. I for one have been extremely fortunate.

My father, John McCarthy, is certainly at the very top of the list of those who changed my life, who changed me, always for the better. But there were others -- just a few others -- and right up there on that same list with my father was Captain Charles Boone Smiley, United States Navy, Retired.

Chuck and I cutting cake 1970

Several days ago I was going through some boxes filled with old documents and photos when I came across a photo taken back in 1970. It's a photo of my commanding officer and me cutting a cake celebrating our helicopter squadron's return to our home base at then Naval Air Station Imperial Beach in Southern (very Southern) California. The Navy has traditionally celebrated important events with cakes and since we had just completed the recovery operation for the Apollo 13 ill-fated lunar mission, I suppose a cake was in order. 

That commanding officer, Chuck Smiley, then already a mentor, eventually became a lifelong close friend. Interestingly, Chuck's wife, Sally, filled the same role for my young wife, Diane. Indeed, whenever Diane uttered the words, "Well, Sally said...", I knew that further discussion was unnecessary; all was settled; Sally had spoken. 

Sally & Chuck (2008)

Anyway, after finding that photo, I picked up the phone and called Chuck. He and Sally have made their home in San Diego for decades and I hadn't spoken to them for several months. As I punched in their number I felt a bit guilty for calling so infrequently. The phone was answered by their son, David, who informed me in a broken, grief-filled voice that Chuck had died only days before. He was 85 years old. At first I was heartbroken and could think only of the many lives, including my own, that would be emptier with Chuck gone. But then, after a wonderful, long chat with Sally, I realized that all those lives had been blessed by Chuck's presence, and that Chuck Smiley was still with us because he had influenced so many people in so many wonderful ways. Our lives weren't emptier; rather, they had been filled by this remarkable man.

Did two people share a greater love?

Chuck had suffered from multiple myeloma for a dozen years, which in itself was remarkable. I suppose I had simply concluded that he was indestructible, and would go on forever. But on those few occasions when he spoke about his illness with me, he revealed that he knew it would likely take his life at some point. In the meantime, though, he fought it tooth and nail. That was just the way he was. Simply to be in his presence was an ongoing learning experience.

C. B. Smiley: 1930-2016

For me personally, however, Chuck's most instructive traits were his deep Christian faith and his remarkable humility. The former ruled every aspect of his life and led Diane and me to ask Chuck and Sally to be the godparents of  two of our children. The latter taught all who served with him what it meant to be a naval officer. He never placed his personal ambition above the needs of the country, the Navy, and those under his command. Unlike many who "serve" today, Chuck Smiley was no careerist. And I suppose, from the point of view of some, he paid a price for that. Chuck, of course, would disagree.

A wonderful husband, father and grandfather, a friend like no other, a patriot, and a faithful servant in the Lord's vineyard -- how we will miss him! 

May The Lord bless you and keep you, Chuck. May His face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May He look upon you with kindness and give you peace.

Rest in peace, Chuck. If I could bake a cake, I would.

Homily: Saturday, 14th Week of Ordinary Time (Cycle II)

Readings: Is 6:1-8 • Psalm 93 • Mt 10:24-33

-------------------
In the gospels, and it’s especially noticeable in Matthew’s Gospel, we encounter two major threads that weave their way through the proclamation of the Good News, two timelines if you will.

The most obvious focuses on Jesus Himself: His ministry as He proclaims the Good News, a ministry that ultimately leads to His sacrificial act of redemption, His Passion, Death and Resurrection.

But the other major thread focuses on His disciples: how Jesus formed them over time, how they gradually, often in fits and starts, came to understand their vocation, exactly what Jesus expected of them. Their formation continued all the way to the first Pentecost and beyond, but it began right here with Jesus.

In today’s Gospel passage Jesus shared with the newly chosen Apostles some of the elements of good discipleship. He began with the basics:

“No disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master” [Mt 10:24].

He cuts right to the heart of it, doesn’t He?  Far better than any psychologist, Jesus understood what lies in the depths of the human heart. He recognized that these disciples of His, especially the Twelve -- those few He personally singled out -- He knew of their human desire to exceed, to outdo others, to become something special. He also knew that they were as yet unformed, that they hadn’t accepted, or even recognized, the core truth of real discipleship.

Your see, brothers and sisters, Jesus revealed something very un-human, so un-human it’s Divine, a Divine paradox. He revealed to the Apostles that they could grow as disciples only by remaining as they were!

Sounds impossible, doesn’t it? And yet, that’s exactly what Jesus told them: that as disciples, if they are to grow in discipleship, they must remain exactly what they are: servants. If we strive to become something greater, we cease to be disciples.

This is the great paradox of true Christian discipleship: that in order to advance upwards into the very presence of God, we descend to the lowest human level; we must be servants. The world tells us to advance in the eyes of others, to become someone great, but Jesus says, “No!” He takes all our human desires, all our human hopes, and upends them, turns them completely around. 

He emptied Himself...

And He reveals this through His own person. How did St. Paul put it in his great hymn to the Philippians?

“…He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave…” [Phil 2:7]

Is it even possible to wrap our minds around that truth? …that God Himself, the Creator of all that is, not only became one of us, but in the deepest humility accepted even death, at our hands. But out of that – this act of humility beyond comprehension – out of that, God raised Him up so that 

“…every knee should bend…and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…” [Phil 2:10-11]

It’s a glorification in which we, too, will share, because it has been promised.

It’s also important to realize that He’s not telling the Apostles, or us, to debase ourselves, to become something lower than human. He doesn’t want His disciples to be weak and oppressed, existing in some kind of blind subservience. Not at all; for He tells us:

“It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, for the slave that he become like his master” [Mt 10:25].

To become and remain His disciples, then, we must become like Him. We must allow God to cure us of our pride; to replace it with the humility of Jesus Christ, with the same kind of sacrificial love that brought us our redemption.

Earlier, in our first reading, we encountered Isaiah who, in his humility, was purged of his sinfulness and, like an apostle, sent out as God’s messenger, as God’s disciple [Is 6:7-8].

In the same way, we must empty ourselves and meet Jesus in His humility, sharing our sufferings with Him and each other as we go about the disciple’s task of building up the Kingdom.

Hilary and Classified Material

Back in my Navy days I held several positions that demanded daily, indeed almost constant, access and use of highly classified material. Most of it was classified either "Secret" or "Top Secret" and some, because it related to special circumstances that I still cannot discuss, was given a special classification. That said, I have no doubt that if I, or any of my colleagues in similar circumstances, had done what Hilary Clinton did, I would have spent many years in Leavenworth or another similar federal facility. At best, if my superiors and others were especially kind, my naval career would have come to a rather abrupt end without future access to classified material. This, in fact, is what happened to an acquaintance who neglected to lock both his office door and a safe containing Top Secret material before he left for lunch. Unfortunately for him, his Executive Officer happened to stop by his empty office and noticed the unlocked safe. To make matters worse, several civilian workers were in the area doing electrical work. Borrowing the words of FBI Director James Comey, this officer was "extremely careless in...handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." and paid a dear price for it.

FBI Director James Comey, looking concerned

When it comes to the handling of such material, carelessness, therefore, is never an excuse (at least it hasn't been until now). In other words, it shouldn't matter that the individual (whether he or she is a naval officer or a Secretary of State) didn't intend to share classified material with the bad guys. What matters is that carelessness (i.e., incompetence) created a situation in which those same bad guys could gain access to the material.

In my day, before the internet and email and web sites, security concerns were primarily physical; i.e., locked doors and safes, encrypted radio transmissions, basic computer security, etc. The internet changed everything. Back in the mid-seventies, when I taught a course in computer security at the U. S. Naval Academy, I would show my students how easy it was to gain access to a variety of computer systems via a network called ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), the foundational network from which today's worldwide internet evolved. In my 1975 classroom, using a regular commercial phone line, portable terminal, and acoustic coupler, I could easily enter this network and peek into many different computer systems. These included systems at military sites, DOD corporate contractors, and educational and research institutions. My point was that we needed more than mere physical security to keep the bad guys out.

Today, virtually every computer, including every smart phone and tablet, is connected to the internet. Of course the federal government maintains a few closed systems, but just about every other machine is vulnerable to cyber attack by either independent hackers or agencies of foreign governments. For this reason the federal government takes serious steps to safeguard the information stored on its systems and to ensure the safe transmission of classified material. For a Secretary of State to bypass these safeguards and completely ignore the real dangers of using a private server for her emails is almost beyond comprehension.

Director Comey, during today's televised monologue, seemed to realize all this as he laid out an almost perfect case for prosecuting Secretary Clinton for gross negligence in her handling of classified material. And then he tossed his case into the waste basket and recommended, well, nothing at all.

Bill and Hilary

I find it incredible that a Secretary of State would be this careless in her handling of highly classified material. But I find it even more incredible that there will be no legal consequences. Does this mean that other government employees can be equally lax in such matters and not worry about prosecution? Or perhaps Secretary Clinton is a "special case."

It's also evident, based on the FBI's investigation, that Secretary Clinton was less than honest when addressing such issues as the classification of her emails. A family trait, perhaps? Her husband, after all, to avoid a perjury conviction accepted a plea agreement, paid a $90,000 fine, and gave up his law license for five years. Today his wife was far more fortunate.

Happy Independence Day!

Two-hundred and forty years have passed since the Declaration of Independence was signed by the members of the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. That's a very long time; indeed, I can think of few other nations that have existed under the same form of government for so many years. Compared to many other nations, we may be a young country, but we have prospered under one of the oldest, most successful forms of government the world has ever seen. While so many nations have experienced radical changes in government from revolution, coup d'état, uprising, and seizure of power, we have continued under the government defined by the Founders in the Constitution.

Signing of the Declaration of Independence

Whether this uniquely successful form of government will continue is questionable. Instead of supporting the Constitution that has been the bulwark of our freedom, far too many of our politicians consider it an obstacle to the realization of their ideological ends. And so, ignoring the Constitution and the law, they focus on self-aggrandizement and the attainment of power. We have afflicted ourselves with dictatorial executives who usurp the power of other branches, ideological justices who legislate rather than judge, and weak legislators who abdicate their responsibilities.

These dishonorable men are able to continue in power because too many of our citizens are completely ignorant of their own nation's political roots. History is rarely taught in our schools, or it is so distorted by political correctness and leftist ideology that the truth is buried out of sight. Can we turn this around and stop what Constitutional scholar Judge Robert Bork called our Slouching Towards Gomorrah? I'm not very optimistic.

Writing about this I'm reminded of a wonderful little book written almost 60 years ago. My copy was a gift from my father when I was in high school. They Signed for Us offers brief descriptions of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, who in their own words mutually pledged "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It's a good read and would make a nice gift to any young person on this Fourth of July.

Here in The Villages, patriotism runs high and our street is lined with hundreds of American flags. Here's a photo I took this morning as Maddie and I returned home from her early walk. Maddie's patiently waiting for me in the lower left of the photo.

Our Street in The Villages - Fourth of July

And my favorite patriotic photo (below) is one I took of our son-in-law, Airton, an immigrant from Brazil, on the day he became an American citizen in 2008. The ceremony took place at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. Airton's rather remarkable hat was a gift from our other daughter, his sister-in-law, who plopped it on his head once he was officially a citizen.

Airton Santa Ana - American Citizen

Pray for our nation and pray for those we have elected to do the people's work. 

God bless you and your families on this Independence Day.

The Somme Redux

After Friday's post in which I wrote less than flattering things about the British commander, Sir Douglas Haig, and his role in the Somme offensive, I heard from a friend, a retired Marine officer and amateur historian, who took me to task. The Somme, he argued, was a significant learning experience for the allies, in particular for Douglas Haig, and led to major changes in tactics that ultimately bought about the allied victory in 1918. He thought I was entirely too hard on Haig, whose development as a commander and increased understanding of the demands of modern warfare proved that he was the hero and not the villain of the allied cause in World War I.

My friend was more than surprised when I agreed with him, at least in essentials. But my earlier post was not about Haig's overall role as allied commander, but his role as commander during the Somme offensive. I agree that he and other allied commanders learned much from the Somme, but why did it take them so long, and at such a horrendous cost in lives, to learn their lessons?

The realities of modern warfare, particularly the effectiveness of machine guns on slow-moving, heavily burdened infantry moving forward in ranks, should have been evident after the first ten minutes of the offensive. It was certainly evident to the German soldiers who manned the machine guns. Afterwards, one German soldier described the scene as he and his comrades climbed out of their underground dugouts and turned their attention and their guns to the oncoming British troops:

"...the shout of the sentry, ‘They are coming,’ … Helmet, belt and rifle and up the steps … there they come, the khaki-yellows, they are not twenty metres in front of our trench. They advance slowly, fully equipped … machine-gun fire tears holes in their ranks.” 

British Troops Advance into German fire

It was evident as well to the British troops as they faced the withering fire of the German guns. One private, a fortunate survivor of that first day, recalled the events:

“We strolled along as though walking in a park. Then, suddenly, we were in the midst of a storm of machine gun bullets and I saw men beginning to twirl around and fall in all kinds of curious ways as they were hit.”

Additionally, Haig and his commanders should have realized rather quickly that the week-long artillery bombardment -- an estimated 1.7 million shells, including many duds -- had failed to destroy the German underground bunkers and dugouts, a failure directly responsible for the deaths of ten of thousands of his men. Not only did the bombardment fail to kill many Germans, it also didn't accomplish another of its prime objectives: the destruction of the enemy's barbed wire defenses. Another survivor, a corporal of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, described what he experienced:

“[The artillery barrage] hadn’t made any impact on those barbed-wire entanglements. The result was we never got anywhere near the Germans. Never got anywhere near them. Our lads was mown down. They were just simply slaughtered.” 

British Artillery at the Somme

As I mentioned in Friday's post, it was the worst day in British military history with 20,000 dead and 40,000 wounded. As it continued for months the Somme became a kind of British Verdun, a tragic meat grinder that resulted in very little gain. Haig was certain it would lead to a major breakthrough. Instead it became nothing more than a war of attrition. One of the reasons for these failures by the allied command structure was the simple fact that senior commanders rarely visited the trenches especially during major offensive operations. Because they hadn't observed first-hand the results of their plans and decisions, they saw no reason to alter them.

Tank and infantrymen at the Somme

Haig should also have recognized sooner and taken advantage of the effectiveness of the allies' newest weapon, the tank, but he was unable to discard the traditional infantry tactics that had been made obsolete by the technology of rapid-firing weapons. The tank was used to great effect in one of the least costly victories of the Somme offensive, but Haig seemed unimpressed by what he called a "desperate innovation."

The allied command also tried to hide the devastating carnage from the British people behind headlines celebrating a "Great Day on the Somme." But once the hospitals began to fill up with the wounded and the names of the dead were published, the people were horrified.

As I told my friend, good commanders learn from their failures, and so I suppose we can grant that Haig ultimately learned from the mistakes of the Somme. But great commanders anticipate what they may face before they send their troops into battle. They realize the likelihood of Murphy's Law appearing when one least expects it, and they plan accordingly. There's little evidence that Haig was that sort of commander.

The Somme: A Sad Anniversary

I've long been interested in World War One, the global conflict that did much to create the confusing and troubled world we face today. As a part-time student of the war and by no means an expert, I'd like to share a few thoughts on the anniversary of one of this war's major battles.

Today, July 1, is the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of the Somme, an allied offensive that began on this date in 1916 and continued for almost five months until November 18. 

Going "over the top" at the Somme

The Somme is one of those tragic events in human history that should never have happened. Planned and executed by the French and British, it achieved virtually nothing except the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Indeed, on just that first day of July a hundred years ago, the British suffered 58,000 casualties, including 20,000 deaths. This was and remains a one-day record in British warfare. 

French Chief of Staff Joffre

The battle plan was originally conceived by French Chief of Staff Joffre, a man beloved by his countryman who referred to him as "Papa Joffre". But Joffre was also a man of questionable strategic decisions. His pre-war Plan 17 for the invasion of Germany neglected to anticipate that the Germans would attack first, and would do so by invading France via neutral Belgium. As a result, the French were caught off-guard and were ill-equipped to offer an effective defense. Making things even worse, before the war Joffre had been responsible for ridding the French army of officers possessed of a defensive mindset. He was also ill-prepared for the German offensive at Verdun in early 1916, the longest battle of the war. Verdun also generated nearly a million casualties -- half of these were deaths -- giving the world a foretaste of what was to come later that year at the Somme.

Sir Douglas Haig

The Somme battle plan conceived by Joffre was accepted by the British commander Sir Douglas Haig. The date of the offensive was moved up from August 1 to July 1 to draw off German forces from Verdun. This change also shifted the alignment of forces, turning what was originally conceived as a mostly French offensive into a largely British one. 

Haig ultimately took over the planning for the offensive which was preceded by a week of massive artillery bombardment of German positions. This not only eliminated the possibility of surprise, but also failed to achieve its objective of destroying the German fortifications. Once the artillery stopped, the Germans left their well-fortified underground bunkers, set up their machine guns, and began their slaughter of the attacking British infantry.

Haig, a leader of great inflexibility and stubbornness, continued the offensive along a 20-mile front in fits and starts until he eventually called it off on November 18. At the cost of well over one-million allied and German casualties, the Somme offensive resulted in the allies gaining less than eight miles.

Today is not a day to celebrate, but rather a day to mourn the loss of the youth of so many nations who perished during this war. These young men, needlessly sacrificed on a host of altars dedicated to greed, pride, stupidity, ideology, and blind nationalism, fought courageously while trusting that their military and political leadership would not abandon them. Sadly, too many of these leaders, on both sides, viewed the war quite simply as a war of attrition which would be won by the army that suffered fewer losses than its enemy. The result was carnage on a scale never before experienced.

I've included a remarkable 11-minute video that tries to describe what the Somme was like for the troops who fought there.

Saints Peter and Paul

I wasn't assigned to preach today. Father John, our parochial vicar, had that honor; and he delivered a wonderful homily on this Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. But I thought a few of my readers might like to revisit a homily I preached on this date five years ago. Here this link:

Homily: Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (2011)

God's peace...

Happy Birthday, Mom

Mom

Today is my mother's birthday. The daughter of Irish immigrants, Martha Catherine (Cavanaugh) McCarthy was born 107 years ago on June 28, 1909 in Bridgeport, Connecticut. She died on March 12, 1977 at the age of 67.

Interestingly, on Mom's birth certificate her name was entered simply as Martha Cavanaugh, with no middle name; and yet on her baptismal certificate she was given the name Catherine Martha Cavanaugh. Since she was always called Martha, I had assumed this was her first name and Catherine was her middle name. Now I'm not so sure.

Thinking about my mom today brought to mind others in her family: her sisters Margaret, Rose, Mae, and Lu, and her brother, Bill. These weren't Mom's only siblings, but the others died young, long before I was born; and so I never knew them. It also reminded me that I know so little about my ancestors. 

Martha & John McCarthy-1930s

I never knew my maternal grandparents. Mom's mother, Julia, died when Mom was still a young girl of about 10, and her father, Thomas Cavanaugh, died within a few years of my folks' marriage in 1935, years before my birth in 1944. I suspect I would have liked my grandfather because my father thought highly of him and always spoke kindly of him. I know almost nothing about my grandmother, since my Mom rarely mentioned her and my father never knew her. But her name is also the source of some confusion. On Mom's baptismal certificate, my grandmother's maiden name is listed as "Julia Soye", which my mother always claimed was Scottish. But on Mom's birth certificate, the last name is spelled "Soier", which to me seems rather French. Which is correct? I have no idea.

According to that same birth certificate, both of my grandparents were born in Ireland, but no city or county is given, just the country. Perhaps my son, Ethan, who has been doing a bit of genealogical digging can uncover some of the hidden Irish roots of our family tree.

Mom - RN

Mom was the youngest in her large family. According to Mom's birth certificate, her mother had nine children, although I can account for only eight. She had several children from a previous marriage that ended with her first husband's death. His last name was Dorley, but I know nothing more about him. My grandmother then married Thomas Cavanaugh, seven years her junior, with whom she had several more children, Mom being the last. Like many families of that era, the death of a spouse and the need to remarry created stepmothers, stepfathers, half-brothers, and half-sisters, all thrown together into a complex family mix. If my recollection is correct, this "second family" was all girls, while the first included both girls and boys. I could have the numbers wrong, though, since Mom seldom differentiated between sisters and half-sisters and infant death was far more prevalent in those days. Indeed, I'm certain that one of the boys in that first family, whose name I never knew, died in infancy. The other boy, my uncle, Bill Dorley, was a Navy veteran of World War One and a life-long bachelor. Uncle Bill was quite the character, and as a youngster I was especially impressed by his 1954 Cadillac Eldorado convertible. It's remarkable, isn't it? -- the things we remember. I was quite fond of this uncle of mine and was saddened when he died in 1959.

After my grandmother's untimely death, my grandfather, Tom Cavanaugh, remarried. All in the family agreed that this second wife, Bridey, was a less than pleasant stepmother. I can recall my father speaking about her only guardedly when my brother and I were present. I got the impression that she was very unkind to my mother who was still quite young when her father married Bridey. I'm pretty certain that as a young boy I met her at least once, but the meeting was apparently unremarkable; however I do remember accompanying my parents to her funeral in Bridgeport.

Mom and her sister, Edna (c. 1920)

Mom's closest sibling was her sister, Edna, who died while still in her early teens. As I recall, the cause of death was rheumatic fever (perhaps scarlet fever) but I might well be wrong. The two girls, however, were very close and Edna's death affected Mom deeply. The above photo was taken not too long before Edna became ill. Mom once told me that her sister's illness influenced her decision to become a nurse. And it was during her time as a nurse that Mom met Dad. The rest is history...family history.

Mom continues to speak to me, to guide me even now forty years after her death. T. S. Eliot said it pretty well...

And what the dead had no speech for, when living,
They can tell you, being dead: the communication
Of the dead is tongued with fire beyond the language of the living.

Happy Birthday, Mom. Thank you for your goodness and for all you did for me and Diane. We love you and miss you.

Just Obeying (Politically Correct) Orders

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” - John Adams

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams

_______________

I spent a good portion of my life wearing the uniform of the United States Navy: four years as a Midshipman at the U. S. Naval Academy; 12 years as a regular Navy officer; and then 15 years as an officer in the Naval Reserve. It wasn't always a bed of roses, but I wouldn't trade a minute of it for anything else. As you might expect, out of this experience I developed tremendous respect for those who serve our country and willingly risk their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms enumerated by our Constitution. And keep in mind, when they enlist, it is that Constitution the members of our military swear to "support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic...[and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same." In that same oath of allegiance the enlisted service member also agrees to obey the orders of the President and superior officers, but always "according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Commissioned officers take a similar oath, in which they too swear to "support and defend the Constitution." In other words, the Constitution and the law demand first allegiance, the orders of people second. As John Adams reminded his countrymen we are “a government of laws, and not of men.” (Click here to read the oaths administered to enlisted service members and military officers.)

This is why I am more than disturbed by the rapidly spreading plague of political correctness that has infected our military in recent years. Not only is this infection destroying morale, it is also destroying readiness, something about which we should all be worried. Every segment of the military is being restructured by the social engineers of the left who could not care less about the role of the military as guardians of our national security. Achieving their ideological ends trumps everything else, including our survival as a free nation. Indeed, freedom and that pesky Constitution are abhorrent to them because these are the most obvious barriers to their plans. 

The military is, of course, an easy target for a Commander-in-Chief who can order his compliant service secretaries, chiefs of staff, and other senior officers to obey his commands. It began during the Clinton presidency but has been rapidly advanced by the current administration's social engineers determined to transform a military manned by warriors into an army committed to radical cultural change. Feminism, LGBT radicalism, multiculturalism, enforced atheism, sensitivity training, and a host of other touchy-feely theories have been dumped into a cauldron of weirdness from which the troops are required to feed. Although every service has been infected, the Army has perhaps suffered the most. Of one thing you can be sure: the Army that Norman Schwarzkopf led to rapid victory in 1991 no longer exists.

Sometimes this political correctness is so bizarre it's hard to believe. For example, at Arizona State University, Army ROTC male cadets were allegedly pressured by leadership to walk around in high heels to "raise awareness of sexual violence against women." I suspect it did nothing but humiliate the cadets and destroy what little morale they might have had.

And just this past week we saw the video of retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez, who had been asked to speak during the flag-folding ceremony at the retirement of another master sergeant. When Rodriguez mentioned God in his comments he was physically dragged from the retirement ceremony by several enlisted members of the command who were following the orders of their commanding officer, Lt. Col. Michael Sovitsky. And this is especially disturbing because retirement ceremonies are very personal affairs and what is said during the flag-folding is up to the retiree, not the Air Force. Oh, yes, when you read those oaths of office you'll notice the last four words in each: "So help me God." Don't you just love the hypocrisy inherent in political correctness?

I've included a video about Oscar Rodriguez below.

These are not isolated incidents but just two of thousands of similar events in which the PC is forced down the throats of our military. But perhaps my greatest concern is the silence of our senior officer corps, a cowardly bunch concerned more with their perks and retirement than with the nation's security and the welfare of their troops. Their excuse? "Oh, I can do more by working quietly behind the scenes doing what I can to obstruct the most egregious changes." This is, of course, garbage because they have done absolutely nothing. "By their fruits you will know them." 

Perhaps what we need is the mass resignation of a few dozen flag officers. That just might wake up the nation.

Pray for the United States of America and pray for all who serve our country in the military.

Brexit: the "Leaves" Win!

Unlike some Americans I'd hesitated to express my opinion in advance of yesterday's historic Brexit vote in the UK. A few of my British friends indicated they strongly resented our president's instructing the British people how they should vote (to stay in the EU) and then threatening to place the UK at the "back of the queue" when it comes to trade agreements. And so, although I was a leave supporter, I thought it best to keep my opinion to myself. But now that the results are in and the people of the United Kingdom have decided to leave the European Union, I can happily say, "Congratulations, Brits!"

Queen Elizabeth II may be the presumed constitutional sovereign of the UK, but yesterday the people openly declared their true sovereignty. By their vote they rejected the authoritarian rule of distant, non-elected bureaucrats and reclaimed both their independence from the EU and the freedom to govern themselves.

The markets, of course, will undergo a short-term panic because Wall Street and its overseas equivalents are populated largely by hand-wringing wimps. Too many of these lovers of the Obama/Clinton style of big government-big business cronyism would rather live in an authoritarian world of imaginary stability than in the messy, less predictable world where freedom reigns. And lest you think that I am overly partisan, many in the Republican establishment are just as committed to perpetuating this cronyism.

The vote in the UK mirrors the support among US voters for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, two men whose campaigns have focused largely on criticizing the existing political establishment. Their criticism may come from very different ideological directions, but the support both have received reveals a high level of dissatisfaction among the electorate. 

Sanders, of course, gathered the support of the Woodstockian sentimentalists of my generation, but I'm pretty sure many of Sanders' youthful followers haven't a clue when it comes to socialism. Their political ignorance, abetted by a Marxist-friendly educational establishment, may have led them to enter the Sanders' camp, but I suspect many are more strongly anti-establishment than pro-socialist. How many will support Clinton, an entrenched establishmentarian, how many will support Donald Trump, and how many will simply stay home and play video games? Trust me, even the pollsters can't answer these questions.

Unlike Obama and Clinton, Trump is on the winning side in the Brexit vote. Whether this has an impact on his presidential prospects remains to be seen, but I think he should pay attention to the successful "leave" campaign led by former London mayor, Boris Johnson, who focused on the economy and the nuts and bolts of EU authoritarianism. We'll see if Mr. Trump can make this kind of transition.

How did the ancient Chinese curse go? May you live in interesting times.