I realize that this is going to sound like I'm putting politics in the place of religion, which is not my intent (apologies in advance), but man I have continued to think about the Benedict Option model as a model to preserve the unique American mode of self-governance as well. There are a few places in this country where you can still mostly be left alone to make what you will of your life - I'm thinking Alaska, Montana, rural New Hampshire, and a few other similar spots. The Free State Project originally wanted people to move to New Hampshire to bring outsized liberty-loving influence to bear in the state's politics, but now I see the participants as a rearguard, fighting to preserve what's left of the traditional idea of being an American.
Maybe there's some crossover here - classical liberals and Catholics/Orthodox Christians aren't natural allies, but they all believe that people should largely be able to choose how to live their life and have to face the consequences of those decisions.
When I talk to my friends from college and high school, they live in a totally different world from me, one where the idea of "a union of 50 states" seems like a quaint relic. I fear we're headed towards complete federal supremacy in all matters, and the extinguishing of difference and uniqueness.
We still have a constitution, and it is worth reaffirming. The other day, I read a post from someone quoting Elon Musk on why not require photo ID to vote. I showed my age by responding, because we're Americans and we appreciate personal liberty. Someone much younger asked, what are you talking about, I have to show photo ID everywhere -- at the bank to get into work etc. I responded, that's a very new development that has insinuated itself into our life. There was a senate hearing in 1962 where a state department rep was being grilled on whether the government in Saigon was really so democratic as our government had led us to believe. The exasperated reply was "Senator, I know Americans would never put up with having to carry photo ID, but its different over there." People have forgotten, and I suppose some younger people don't even dream such thinking every existed. A lot of people take it as a matter of course that the First Amendment only protects speech that the government finds worthy of protection -- which is of course setting the fox to guard the hen house. But its not a lost cause to try to turn things around.
Mollie Ivins wrote a great review of an American named Paglia. It was not complimentary. Personal liberty is, first and foremost, not restricted by "to do what" but is a right to be left alone. It is a right not to have to jump through a lot of hoops to do what we have a right to do, including vote. I don't know what country you are from, but we have always been proud that we don't have to check in with police and show our papers at every turn, unlike a good deal of European history. That's eroding, but its worth reaffirming. The fact is, there is no statistically significant cheating going on.
Showing that one is a citizen with a driver’s license or gov-approved ID, in order to vote, isn’t an onerous requirement. What method would you endorse, or do you believe there should be no method employed to ensure that only legal citizens vote in US elections?
It can be. In particular, many natural born citizens do not have a copy of their birth certificate, and their driver's license is not Real ID compliant. If they don't fly, that's not a problem, but if they can't vote without showing proof of citizenship, its an onerous burden. I have registered to vote on four occasions (each time because I moved). I did show a driver's license, and either it had my current address, or I showed a utility bill as proof of address. Showing proof when registering is almost essential, although old time laws allowed for two witnesses who were registered voters in the same municipality to swear to your identity, and I would be fine with that. I don't think there is any need for special measures to check whether a voter is a US citizen. Any large scale numbers will have one or two exceptions, but I recently read that non-citizens voting is an incidence of one ten-thousandths of one percent. Its a solution in search of a problem. We don't need to burden citizens with proving they are citizens to prevent non-citizens from voting. It actually takes a lot for a non-citizen to even try, and most of them are afraid they will be deported, so they don't even try.
What does worry me is wealthy Republicans with homes in two states who try to vote in both. I recall four prosecutions for that in my state after 2020. No, that's not statistically significant either. But it is a greater hazard.
The passport office has ways to verify citizenship for those who can't access a birth certificate, though that can be onerous. A friend of mine had to get a passport so he could get a Maryland DL since his NY birth certificate did not meet the standards of ReaID.
She occasionally turned a good phrase. Political humor shouldn't be tossed aside. And yes, we should be able to laugh over jests directed at politicians on "our" side too.
As I said, I'm drawing on traditions that have been part of American culture for most of our history. I'm being libertarian, rather than anti-immigrant. It is true that with a larger and denser and more anonymous population, we need more precautions. I'm less skeptical of cameras in public places than I used to be, because so many violent crimes are solved by piecing together footage from nearby cameras. But when it comes to voting, I am opposed to wrapping a fundamental right of citizenship in too much red tape and too many conditions. Our right to vote is fundamental, and should not be burdened by hoops to jump through. I have yet to read any claim of "election theft" in the past ten years that has legitimacy or merit. Its all laughably contrived. Plus, I am thoroughly familiar with the way elections are run, ballots provided to voters, what voters already have to go through, and how the numbers are tracked. "Election integrity" is a solution in search of a problem.
I couldn't write a more sardonic parody if I had a contract to produce dystopian fiction every month. Either this woman is lying, or she is delusional, probably the latter, which means, I suspect she believes her tale. I work at a polling site, I know the number of things that can go wrong, I know how they go wrong and how often they go wrong, and what if any impact they have on electoral results. That stuff is pure garbage.
Very interesting that you say that. She has published wackjob stuff. Recently, a commenter said succinctly," How does it feel? To be crazy?" which made me laugh hard, because I had had the same idea.
According to her, her mother was wrecked by MK - ULTRA. She believes that the ultrarich of the world keep themselves young by drinking the blood of children. I'm certainly ready to consider her a prime nutjob.
I would never pay for her Substack. But even the deranged can occasionally be correct. The article seemed possibly credible.
In Italy, when geography was taught seriously, we were told that the US social model was "communitarian", i.e., based on trust and mutual knowledge, rather than upon formal institutions. Of course, even back then (the '70s) that model was probably long gone in most of the Country. When a trust-based society dissolves, the State naturally sneaks in.
The idealism of that characterization produced a gross exaggeration. The US social model was rife with robbers of various sorts, who generally had to be brought to heel by either law enforcement, or vigilantes. Vigilantes of course are not always saints, they are often a lynch mob whether targeting blacks, Italians, or some innocent soul mistaken for the perpetrator of an actual crime.
I've been registered in five states (MI, OH, FL, MD and DE) . In every place I've received a voter's card (no photo on it, but name adress , a voter number, the location of my designated polling place.)
I guess, but if massive voter fraud is afoot, a given precinct couldn't care less about such a thing.
I'm sure you know that it's a little more than urban legend that John F Kennedy won Illinois in 1960 with some help from his friends in Cook County, IL.
Yes, Lyndon Johnson did steal the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate in 1948. Everything depended on a missing precinct box which was never found, and a pro Johnson judge declared LBJ the nominee.
In Volume Two of Robert Caro's neverending biography of Johnson ( The Years of Lyndon Johnson ), The Path to Power, there is one of the greatest photos in American political history, four or five grinning deputies from South Texas holding the legendary lost precinct box.
Ronnie Duggar founded and edited The Texas Observer in the early 1950s. It was the only liberal newspaper in Texas at the time, a good populist weekly. Duggar gave Johnson grief, particularly on civil rights, but he understood Johnson's political realities, so he went pretty easily on him. The two even became pals of a sort.
In the summer of 1968, with Johnson done in presidential politics, he invited Duggar to the White House for a weekend. The two men were drinking bourbon into the early morning hours in Johnson's bedroom.
Duggar: "Hey now, c'mon, Lyndon, whut the Hell did happen to that box? You know, now, you do, you know I'm not gonna snitch, whut happened to it?"
Duggar said that without a word, Johnson got up, went into his closet, rummaged a moment, and came out holding the legendary box like a father holding his newborn.
So I'm 58 and don't remember a time when I didn't need ID to do things like buy alcohol or drive a car. Or take money out of the bank or apply for a mortgage or any number of other things. I don't think banks ever operated on the honor system, okay maybe the credit union in my hometown (pop. 486) but only because everyone knows everyone else. To vote in Canada, where I voted in my first election 40 years ago, you must show ID at the polling station where your name is crossed off a list called a voter roll. Fat lot of good that does Canadians, given the state of their political leadership, but still.
You don't think very hard and haven't looked it up. Banks never allowed anyone whatsoever to walk into a bank and say "I'm John D. Rockefeller and I'd like to make a $10,000 withdrawal." But in the years when there was no ATM, my parents routinely stopped by the bank when they needed cash, during working hours, wrote a check, signed it, and obtained the cash. Now this wasn't exactly the honor system, because their check identified them by name and address, and while there were no computers small enough to fit one at each window, there was an efficient card system where the information could be looked up. But no, they did not have to show photo ID.
Ah, you're from Canada. No country that remained another century or more in the British Empire understands "liberty" the way we Americans do. You are all subjects of the crown, or were during the formative years of your nation. As recently as ten years ago, a little less actually, I could walk into the polling site for my address, recite my name and address, sign the poll book next to my name, and receive a ballot. No photo ID required -- it is a very recent innovation. I'm trying to recall if I even had a photo ID forty years ago. I guess I did -- I had moved to the totalitarian state of California by then.
I do sympathize about your political leadership. I despise Justin Trudeau. Like Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, Franklin Graham, Andrew Cuomo, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., he's just not one tenth the man his father was. You probably know the old saying, "Poor Canada... It could have had British government, French culture and American know-how. Instead it got French government, British know-how and American culture."
There are voters who come into the site I'm responsible for and try to show their photo ID in the first few seconds. We have to tell them to please hold onto their ID, because we are required by state law to first ask them to say their name aloud, then look them up in the book, then say their address aloud, confirm that is the same address that is in the book, and THEN we can ask for their photo ID, which is only about the image and the name, we don't even care if the ID has an up to date address.
This is because of two overlapping laws passed in two eras. The reciting aloud of the name and address was, in its time, the means to insure that this is a voter who is registered to vote. Any observer could, hearing the name and address, raised objections, such as, I know the person of that name at that address, and this isn't him/her, or I know that person, and they are not a citizen, or they are on parole for a criminal offense, or whatever. That is still in effect, and we are not allowed to simple look at the driver's license and then look the voter up in the poll book without hearing the name and address recited aloud.
There was a priest who prepared for a morning prayer service (Anglican) but no congregants showed up. So he turned to the other priest there and said, "Well, looks like it's just you, me, the angels and archangels and all the company of heaven!"
Opus Angelorum is a Catholic apostolate that promotes devotion to the Holy Angels. There is a lot of information on their website. www.opusangelorum.org
First, I agree with the author who suggested Tolkien and CS Lewis. Both of them present a world shot through with meaning, providence, and the struggle between good and evil. If you immerse yourself in their writings, it becomes easier to see the meaning and presence of God in the real world.
Beyond that, prayer is very important. One of the easiest ways to start is very short prayers throughout your day. When you go outside and the weather is beautiful, thank God as you enjoy it. When you are about to have a difficult task, ask God to be with you as you work on it. Say grace before meals and thank Him that you have good food to eat. When you wash the dishes afterward, if you don’t like doing it, ask Him to be with you then and offer your efforts as a sacrifice to Him. When it is hard to believe or pray, ask God to help you. It may not instantly be easier, but I have no doubt that God will send you the grace you need.
One book that many people have found helpful in this respect is “The Practice of the Presence of God,” by Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection. It is appreciated by many types/denominations of Christians. Below is a link to the book and a video discussion of it.
Finally (because I know this is getting long), I think that praying the Litany of Trust everyday would be very helpful (and even though it was written by the Sisters of Life it isn’t only applicable to Catholics):
They also have a wonderful publication called “Imprint” which has many stories and reflections you may find helpful. Many of them will be Catholic in nature, but others will be interesting to any Christian:
That book almost turned me into an atheist! The prose was charming, but I thought the arguments backfired. I know mine is a minority experience, but my priest's wife had the same reaction, so I know I'm not alone in this.
Thank you Rod! God used you today to deliver this message to me. I’ve been in my head too much recently around my faith. I’ll treasure this missive as one of God’s small miracles.
We don’t lose faith in Christ and the Sacraments. We *must* lose faith in clerics.
This is painful, difficult. But probably necessary. My own conclusion after many years watching this as a Catholic is as follows: 1) Any priest may be a good and holy man, certainly, but one must not expect it. And one must not assume the appearance of holiness is holiness. 2) A quite reliable sign that a priest is *not* in fact a good and holy man will be his promotion. The higher he rises in the hierarchy, the stronger the sign.
To those who might say this is unfair, unforgiving, etc., I will answer: We forgive when a sinner repents. We are all sinners. We must forgive, but that doesn’t mean we must trust. “Be as wise as serpents …”
Our hierarchy has deserved our practice of such wisdom. Serpent to serpent.
Certainly I believe there are Cardinals who deserve our respect. There are good men among them. But if it were true that there were fewer than five such men, I would not be at all surprised.
Rod writes, re: Orban’s government getting flack: “Naturally Orban’s political enemies are seizing on this to attack him, but it’s hard to see how the government should have known this about the priest, when his own bishop apparently did not.”
I think that word “apparently” is carrying way too much burden. Can we really assume the bishop didn’t know? Is it not even a safer bet that he did know?
Rod is of course doing the Christian thing by giving the benefit of the doubt. My principle on this is: “You’re the bishop over this priest. You deserve no benefit of the doubt. This is YOUR failure.”
The bishop should be raked over the coals by the Catholic faithful, uninvited to dinner parties for six months minimum.
Then we MIGHT see these clowns get more serious about the rot. At least the ones who aren’t lavender rotters themselves.
Well, you were right, Eric. The priest publicly apologized for his deeds today. It is reported that he went to his archbishop months ago and told him there might be these compromising videos coming out. The archbishop just told him to lay low for a while.
The archbishop told him to lay low, and the priest said: “Sometimes we lay low, sometimes we do it standing up.”
The archbishop chuckled, then pointed out that of course the videos were the real problem.
“None of them were filmed in my residence, I hope,” he added.
“Welll …” the priest hedged, knitting his brows, pretending to try to remember something.
The archbishop sighed.
It’s almost like clockwork. And the hierarchy itself knows the results. Hundreds of thousands whose faith has been undermined, many even losing faith in Christ. But the hierarchy dare not undertake the operation needed to remove this tumor from the Body of Christ. And the reason isn’t hard to see. Many of them *are* the tumor. And now the “scandal” of appearing to be “anti-sex” in the eyes of western liberals, it makes the operation even less likely. “Gay sex, gay porn—these are actually *healthy*!”
If only we had a pope who cared about the faithful half as much as he cares about his status with secular elites.
You can be quite blameless of the actual sins but still rush to defend the sinners of your tribe. And we do need to be wary of imputing sins to people when there is zero evidence to that effect.
In a limited sense, that is Protestant thinking. I say limited, because you can still practice Catholic liturgy, you can still practice seven sacraments, not two, you can still seek intercession from Mary Queen of Heaven and all the saints. But, you have rejected a fundamental point of Roman Catholic organization, if not theology -- that the hierarchy are Christ's representatives on earth, that the institutional church was established as such by Christ and his Apostles and carries their authority. That is not a criticism, I think its healthy. And I don't know of any reason you need to accept the thinking of John Calvin or Martin Luther to do that.
Even a cursory reading of Church history will show that its clergy were not all sinless saints.
Ancient Christians struggled with this cold reality too. Hence the blunt dogma that the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend on the state of the officiant's soul.
I certainly agree with the latter. Certainly history shows that clergy were not all sinless saints, in fact, it shows that most clergy sinned. Don't priests go to each other for confession? But, there have been times when priests were exalted as "the apple of God's eye" etc. or superstitiously regarded as above suspicion or darn near infallible in their pronouncements. That can be dangerous. Or, as in the case here, the bishop is more concerned with cover up than with purging and restoration.
I would not say that elevation in the hierarchy is a bad sign by itself, but certainly it depends on WHO is choosing: if the chooser is corrupt... but God can act surprisingly. In general, recommending to lose faith in clerics cannot be the last word, if the priesthood is instituted by Christ, as Catholics and Orthodox-es believe.
In the Catholic Church there's a thing called "ex opere operato": the sin of the priest does not invalidate the sacrament. This means, also, that the grace of God passes through the personal indignity of the cleric. But this is not to be accepted in a fideistic way, there are at least two points to be kept in mind:
First, we are looking for God's will, not the churchman's will, so we have to stay focused on that and see if we are led along what's said in the Gospel, which is not complicated and has a logic; in particular do NOT elevate a single priest to your idol, and in case of doubt refer to others.
Second, no one is infallible - not even the Pope except in very determined cases (thanks, Vatican I); you are responsible for your faith, the priest is called to be a guide, but can be a scoundrel: exercise your intelligence, there's no guarantee that some Judas are not in the lot.
One issue is which sins to take seriously. When looking at the corrupt priesthood, we tend to focus on sexual and financial wrongdoing, but what if they are self-righteous, or proud, or cruel?
I am not currently engaged in sexual sin, but I have plenty of other sins to struggle with. I wonder whether we are looking too much through worldly glasses?
Everyone loves to gossip about sex- it's the one truly glamorous sin. Complaining about sins of greed make us feel better about our own financial difficulties. Other sins are less popular as subjects of criticism- many of them cut too close to our own guilts.
I don’t think my “We most lose faith in clerics” is *the last word*. I hope it is not. But it is the word suited to this corrupted lavender status quo.
Easy enough to me—I've never thought of them at all. I would consider any faith premised on the integrity of the clergy to be un-Christian and totally insane.
It’s a good point, but the problem is that a corrupted clergy pushes away those who may otherwise come to the faith. And to be a Christian is to want the faith to grow.
So in this respect we *have to* think of them, even if we’d rather just accept their corruption.
I guess that I just don’t find it fruitful to dwell on things that I can’t affect or control or fix, and the corruption of the clergy is one of those things. It is what it is; we’ll have to find another way to draw people to the faith.
It’s a wise answer, I’d say. In my view we shouldn’t accept this status quo without pushback, just becoming passive about it. But on the other hand if we think the meaning of being a faithful Catholic is to bewail and seek to reform the clergy, we’re in error.
Father Dwight Longenecker wrote about the sexual abuse scandal some years ago in his then-blog (I forget the name). In summary, he posited that perhaps it's an attack on the Church by Satan in an attempt to undermine its authority and message.
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4)
Thank you, Jude, for naming names. Yes, me too, I believe it’s the work of Satan. And Satan is not, as current Superior General of the Jesuit Order Arturo Sosa claims, a merely “symbolic reality.”
He upheld the unanimous ancient teachings of her as Theotokos and ever-Virgin, and that's a hill I'm willing to die on, if it ever comes up in discussion.
It boggles the mind to think it's appropriate to discuss the sexual life of Mary, the mother of Our Lord. Name one context where it isn't, for a lack of a better word, perverse to discuss what another person did or did not do with his/her spouse? Furthermore, put yourself in the shoes of Jesus, would you be comfortable with other men discussing this subject about your own mother? If not, and I certainly would find it offensive if people were talking about my own mamma's, then it stands to reason Our Lord would also not be okay with you discussing his mother's private life.
Secondly, the premises of the "ever virgin" doctrine implies that sex between a married couple would defile them. But that would contradict scripture, for it is written: "the marriage bed is undefiled" (Heb 13:4) and 1 Corinthians 7:7 and render impure the commandment of God The Father:
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth.” Genesis 1:27-28.
This isn't a hill to die on, it really is a subject that shouldn't be discussed. Give Mary and Joseph some privacy. :)
It's funny, in these boxes at least Protestants are always taking potshots at Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, but it never goes the other way. I wonder why that is?
I thought I was making a rather mild observation. No outer darkness, you know? Just fallible humans trying to find the truth, like all the rest of us. At some point you'll notice I'm also perfectly wiling to defend veneration of Mary as intercessor, not because I believe it, but because it could be true for all I know, and, if not, if it brings someone closer to God, I'm sure that has divine approval.
Agreed. As a Protestant I think the intercession of Mary is possible, priests I respect pray to her, but it seems slightly "off". Why not skip the middleman and pray to Jesus or God? However, even if praying to her is not God's first choice, He is gracious and I don't think he rejects that prayer. And indeed those in heaven may very well have power to intercede for us.
I plead not guilty, sir. To this Protestant, it's obvious why demons have a special hatred for Mary: she is the person through whom God the Son became Incarnate.
I should have said "He upheld the unanimous ancient teachings..." Both phrases occur repeatedly in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. This unquestionably goes back to the time of the undivided Church, which the early Lutherans and Anglicans took great pains to demonstrate their continuity with.
Indirectly, at least, at the foot of the Cross, in John 19:26-27, when Jesus entrusted her to the apostle John's care. This would have made no sense, if Mary had had other children who could take care of her. Others may be able to think of other examples.
That's rather thin. Its like a woman who's daughter has just been married telling her daughter's husband, "You ARE one of my sons." Or, Jesus could have been welcoming John into the family, or reaffirming his previous teaching about "Who are my mother and my brothers?" My own thinking is that a lot of fixed doctrine was developed by Christians who wanted specific answers and to work out all conundrums and find certainty. That's not really what faith is about. We can't know all that with precision, and its not essential that we do.
There’s the passage in Ezekiel saying that no man would pass through that gate.
I have to admit to difficulty with the doctrine of perpetual virginity, but it was an undisputed doctrine of the Catholics, Orthodox, and early Protestants.
I think the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity goes back at least as far as the Protoevangelium of James. Dating to around 100 AD. Not Scripture, no, but once considered possibility scriptural, and endorsed as orthodox.
For me, endorsing orthodoxy is the problem. It is an attempt to define transcendent truths we cannot really know. Its not a problem for a given congregation or denomination to say, this is what we believe, or this is how we have agreed to do things when we approach God. We all have the right to do that. But a little humility about how much we really know is in order, and church councils earnestly debating what is True becomes an impediment. I know you don't endorse military means to resolve religious differences, but if something is really viewed as Orthodox, and something else as Heresy, it can lead to physical combat. Some scholars have said that the Greek word Paul used, translated into English as "heresy" has connotations of party or faction. I view orthodoxy as the heresy in power.
Mary is the spouse of The Holy Spirit. Also, she is the fruit of The Immaculate Conception. The Biblical norms that apply to sinners do not apply to her. She is unique among humans, and if you can't get past that "scandal of particularity" I don't know how to help you.
There is Nothing in scripture that even hints at an immaculate conception or particularity regarding Mary. She was blessed to be sure to be the mother of Jesus, but that is it. A blessing.
I believe Matthew contains specific reference to Mary saying, how can this be as I have never known a man, and an angel telling her that he Most High will overshadow her. I'm paraphrasing, and one could argue the meaning of the phrase, or even whether a Greek convert inserted some language to clarify a matter he didn't understand well, and muddied the waters. Theological debates are generated by such uncertainty. But there is certainly a hint of an immaculate conception.
Eh, the immaculate conception dogma that Catholics espouse doesn't relate to the conception of Christ (the fact that this happened by the Holy Spirit is, I believe, not controversial even for Protestants), but the conception of Mary. That is, her conception was free from original sin.
Orthodox do not accept that this is a "dogma", and most Orthodox are skeptical of it in substance because of its association with the Catholics and with the theology of St Augustine (which is viewed more skeptically in Orthodoxy, while the saint is still venerated), but it is a permitted "theolegoumenon", or personal religious opinion (ie, not heresy).
Agreed, and since it's not an essential article of faith I think people need to understand that others simply hold a different opinion and let that be.
Perhaps. I doubt that parsing these things is essential to salvation. If it helps you get there, I doubt that God begrudges you the paradigm, even if its not precisely true.
Oli, it does not imply that relations would defile them. It points to the unique nature of her giving birth to our savior. One that has done that cannot turn around and give birth to mortal beings. Joseph is not part of this and therefore his privacy is not invaded.
I always remember what an Orthodox priest once said. If you were in Joseph's place, and really believed that she had been, "overshadowed by the most High," as the angel said, the very idea of ever touching her would have been unthinkable. It would have been like entering the Holy of Holies in the Temple.
Joseph wasn't actually told that Mary had been overshadowed by the Most High. He was told, do not be afraid to take her as your wife, because what is in her is of the Holy Spirit. That could mean a lot of things.
There was a Roman slander against Jesus relying on a play on Greek words: parthenos,, virgin, was mangled into pantheros, panther, and Jesus was said to be the (bastard) son of a legionaire whose legionary emblem was a panther cat.
I think Luther is probably wrong, as are generations of Catholic hierarchs. I recently heard a Baptist minister point out that James and Jesus were only half-brothers, because they shared the same mother but a different father. I've heard an Ethiopian friend assert that
Biblical references to Jesus's brothers and sisters should be understood in the cultural context that cousins in many cultures are referenced as brethren. Once could perhaps parse the exact meaning of relevant Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and other words. But I suspect that Mary and Joseph had a happy married life, and no, its really not something any of us need to talk about further. As to those who consider her perpetual virginity a hill they are willing to die on, it is not a hill I am willing to kill for.
Charlie not believing in the ever virginity of Mary, or being agnostic about it, is pretty unremarkable for someone whose religious affiliation doesn't call for it in the first place.
True -- and entirely irrelevant to this conversation. Our starting point was, we disagree (in several different directions). I was merely commenting on what, if any, significance our various points of view have to what is true and what is essential to salvation. And yes, it is possible to disagree about that also.
You're missing an opportunity to learn here because you're not interested in learning why other people believe the ever-virginity of Mary is important. You're making your case for why it's not. And thus you are missing the tip of the iceberg of Mariology, which is pretty rich.
Well how can I learn anything when you haven't explained it? I know that other people DO believe the ever-virginity of Mary is important. I've already said I don't hold it against them. I have yet to see anyone explain why it is important, so I have inferred that they take it on faith and sincerely believe it.
Living with perpetual virginity is a special ascesis . But that doesn't mean sex is inherently sinful. One might take an ascetic vow never to eat meat, but that would not make everyone else sinful for doing so.
I think most rituals and sacrifices are less important for what is empirically given up than for the devotion each represents. I once read a commentary by a Catholic priest who said he would like to remain celibate as a sacrifice to God, and he resents the rule of celibacy because its not a sacrifice if its mandated. If you don't eat meat on Friday, as a sincere sacrifice to God, I think its likely that God accepts the sacrifice in the spirit in which it is offered. If you don't, I doubt that God holds it against you that "You broke a rule."
Yes, I've found that the Lutheran Church (LCMS) has much respect for Mary and many of us believe in her perpetual virginity.
This is not because married sex is in any way sinful or defiling. It's because God had a very special plan for Mary. One thing that rings especially true on this is that Jesus asked John to look after His mother as He was dying. I can't imagine that happening if there had been ( living) half brothers at least.
We don't have to believe this, and I am sure many at our church disagree. It's not anything to argue about. At very least, though, I believe that Mary is very deserving of recognition, study and discussion as much as any Biblical
author. Satan clearly does hate her with a special energy- look what he has don't to girls and women!
It is a blessing to be in a congregation that can speak intelligently about Mary and what we can learn from her, rather than some Protestant churches we have gone to that act awkward and nervous even bringing her up. I am thankful for that!
Rightly understood, Mary points us to Christ. I think it was Pope John Paul who was fond of quoting John 2:5, "Do whatever He tells you". She is grieved when she is elevated above her Son.
On the topic of dispiriting scandals, I have begun to wonder if the internet has become more of a liability on the human mind than an asset. Let me explain:
In the past, you lived in a small village or city, so daily news was mostly local (you may have a newspaper that covers select events from other parts of the world). A scandal was localized, and stayed primarily where it happened.
Now, any scandal that does happen is broadcast almost instantaneously, with the potential to reach billions across borders and cultures. Additionally, and this is a really pernicious effect, things are never "forgotten" in the age of the internet. Can there ever be forgiveness or reconciliation if every event or action performed is fossilized by social media?
I admit there are limitations to this argument (language may yet be the last barrier; could I, an American with only a smattering of Spanish, know the daily events of a rural Japanese town?) (Also the increasing structural decay of internet architecture, if my YouTube feed is to be believed).
Still, more and more, I've come to believe that humans are not meant to process the absolute deluge of information that is pumped into the waters, so to speak.
My wife says, “When we were in high school and college, we didn’t know what everyone thought about everything. We were friends with all kinds of people.”
Sadly, with Facebook et al., that is no longer true.
I deleted my FB account in 2020 and don't miss it one bit. No doubt, it is intolerable in this election year. To some extent, LinkedIn fills the gap in keeping up with people. I've been trying to persuade people to join me on MeWe, one of the more viable Facebook alternatives.
Even with Facebook, I'm still friends with all kinds of people. I've lost one or two who object to the way I stand up for some of the others, but that's been rare.
Up to a point. I think we see things through our cultural prism - our perception as RD calls it - where we don’t distinguish between the image and the reality. Ours is a superficial culture, where what we believe is influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the people we meet, social approval and psychological benefit. Maybe it was always like this, but maybe we were also better a bit of hypocrisy, where we sort of expected our rulers to be corrupt and have their lovers, but appear virtuous in public. Now we expect our rulers to be perfect in private, but they can be as corrupt and useless as they like in public.
I was thinking of someone - probably Louise Perry - who compared the Kennedys being corrupt in private but moral and even inspiring in private. Recent prime ministers are - as far as we know - not living scandalous lives, they are quietly quite conventional but promote a moral free for all. As well as being uninspiring.
No one promotes a "free for all". I don think even anarcho-libertarians go quite that far. That's hyperbolic beyond all sense. Maybe some things the ruling class tolerates shouldn't be but there are definitely limits, in some matters very strict ones.
Yes and no, we live in a libertarian culture, where all behaviors and lifestyles are equal and permitted, yet the higher the status the more conventional (by older standards) the lifestyle.
Or worse, the people running internet media are subtly (or not so subtly) feeding and pruning the information with the intent to rile to your attention and emotions.
Excellent post, Rod. In my long life as a Catholic, I’ve felt crucified by the institutional Church on a number of occasions. But the Church long ago gave me the antidote to ecclesiastical failures of all kinds - a deep personal relationship with God, the priority of which supersedes that of the Church. The lives of the saints reinforce this saving reality. God is in charge. I trust him. In a time and manner of his choosing, his grace will save us. We don’t feel things are rightly ordered when our chief pain is caused by the institutional Church. It’s a form of white martyrdom. But Jesus shed his blood as the result of his institutional Church’s leaders collaborating with Pilate to put him to death. He knows our pain. Our only chance is to hold on tightly to him and not to make an idol of the institutional Church.
I have sent this to my friends in SE Wisconsin, urging them to attend your presentation in Chicago. If I didn’t live and serve in the Amazon I would be there. This is an outstanding, important, well-articulated post. I would urge you Rod, to have your new - and past, your trilogy - work translated into Spanish.
I’m an 82-year-old Jew who was, in 1968, converted to Christ out of the American counterculture of the 1960s, and who ended up – after being in many churches – a Reformed Protestant, and presently a pastor and church planter in Cyprus.
I don’t have, as you, a “tradition”-based church to cleave to – though I do hold with your Benedict Option-style small community of cleaving to a living faith in Christ and teaching our members the foundation and ways of our sacred faith.
How do I do that? I am a Word-based believer. That is, although I live in the reality of this present physical world, I know that the words of God ARE the spiritual reality of both His Being and His kingdom. I can live by them. I am in Christ (baptised into Him by water and the Holy Spirit given to indwell us). I live by His promises.
So when He says, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20), and, “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5), I know – experientially – his presence is with me.
This presence first manifested when I was converted through a simple woman from Estonia telling me of Him, and His presence stunned me with His holiness, majesty, and love – it was Jesus, the crucified and risen One. I was His at first sight, and He was mine.
Been a long road since then, with many ignominious failures on my part along the way, but He is a faithful shepherd who keeps and cleanses His sheep. I wrote a book about the path of these last 56 years, A Great and Terrible Love. I don’t make any money from it, only what it costs Amazon to print it: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Terrible-Love-Visionary-Woodstocks/dp/0983519498/ Free digital versions on my Google Drive: https://bit.ly/3nQHBrB
Churches have failed me, and yet they have also sustained and nurtured me in their love. I know some very good pastors and saints (small “s”), and they are dear to me. Now, like you, am permanently in an EU country (Cyprus – with dual U.S.-Cypriot citizenship), and have a small Benedict-Option-style community I seek to nurture and care for.
Many of the people who have come through our community – most as asylum-seekers whose applications have eventually been rejected – have returned to their home countries. But they have been given the understanding that they should join or form small like communities as we have been to them. Small families, part of the larger family of God’s children in Christ, born anew by His Spirit (John 3:3). As the current darkness spreads, very small churches will be the norm.
At some point the Gospel will be outlawed, and we – globally – will be persecuted. And then our Saviour will come, and shall bring us into His Paradise on New Earth, after the great Judgment.
Thanks again for your words and sharing your own life.
You point to the problem I have had with Rod's whole enchantment project. An inversion of my objection is the moment in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge, who is appalled by the apparitions, tries to ascribe them to a piece of poorly digested food.
The angelic is real, and throughout their lives as believers, any number of things might impair Christians' perception of it, not least of which may be that if The New Testament is authoritative, angels must be understood to be given temperamentally - or perhaps structurally - to self effacement.
Hebrews 13:2.
What if God doesn't wish a particular believer to ever have an experience of an angel? To me, the most brilliant part of The Screwtape Letters is the section in which Screwtape, the senior demon, instructs his apprentice, Wormwood:
( Paraphrase, paraphrase, paraphrase alert )
"Do not be mistaken. Our cause is never in greater danger than when your subject ( in this case, a Christian who is going through sustained misery ), looking around for signs of God's presence and finding nothing which suggests He hasn't abdicated, nonetheless says, 'Thy will be done'."
In other words, we walk by faith, not by sight. I can think of many, many verses in the Bible which tell us to hide The Word in our hearts, but not one thing which tells us to try to generate feelings.
Of course, Rod is right about beauty: great literature, great music, great art. Heck, yes, I am a Distributist. Whatever it is, burn the sumbitch down, I say.
In these dark times where it seems the Church is being attack from all sides and from within, remember Peter.
After the the Devil had entered Judas, at the Last supper, Jesus told Peter:
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” -Luke 22: 31-32.
We are being sifted and some might have even turned away (talking about myself) but He was prayed for us that our faith may not fail.
It's wonderful to see that this is exactly what Our Lord did with Rod, and that Rod responded by strengthening us.
I know I’m beating a dead horse, but the weight of evidence against an institutionalized clergy is pretty strong. I’m implementing the BenOp myself, thank you Rod, and sincerely believe the way of the organic house church is most conducive to a return to what you call enchantment. Because all the formal leadership and traditions become a crutch, and a rotten one that surprises us unawares like Catholic priest you shared today.
A smaller community lends itself to a truer and more natural spiritual family, and removes any barrier like a priest or pastor from representing (and disappointing) God to us.
“Shouldn’t you at least consider that you are wrong?” Ha! In our current generations, that’s a hard ask for many even within the church. I ask that rhetorically all the time too. I know the answer.
Yes, but, there are good priests and they need us and we need them. We just need to be discerning, find the good ones but make your own faith as watertight as you can.
Yes, I agree. I will never question when there is sincerity in service to God. In big and small churches, there are many faithfully serving. I just encourage people to see that the small form of Microchurch and an elder led spiritual family increases the odds of a healthier Christian life.
There's much to be said about a smaller community being closer to the Truth but we should also recognize that a neighborhood-size flock can be led astray by those with distorted views of the Gospel. The more sensational examples are Jim Jones and David Koresh but there are countless others.
Of course we can all be led astray, and you share extreme examples on the cultish side. But the institutional church has them beat by centuries. How much corruption, abuse, etc. has been done that’s left hidden scars that we’ll never hear about? I’d wager it’s the iceberg under the water.
And I think there’s a difference when an abusive Christian leader is given the blessing of speaking for God that holds people captive and trapped. I’ve seen friends who attend church, but it’s more box checking and their faith is feeble because they’ve relied on the church to say they’re good Christians. Again, not all are good or bad. It’s just the current form leads to poor function.
RE: "That is, if we Christians, whatever our confession, are going to keep the faith through this long dark winter, we are going to have to take more responsibility in our personal lives, our family lives, and in our local church community."
Reading that sentence, particularly the "whatever our confession" phrase is amazingly similar to statements made by people after Near Death Experiences (NDEs) as discussed in the John Burke interview link Rod posted recently. People with NDE experiences convey the message that God is "beyond" any specific religious faith. Not surprisingly, God's interest is that we live our lives in accordance with the 10 commandments, particularly love your neighbors as ourselves. That appears to be what is important, rather than what church we attend. God wants us to help and love our neighbors as ourselves. That's easy to believe, since Jesus said that's the most important commandment!
Yes, I know many people write off NDE's as untrue. Burke's interview and reading his recent book provide intriguing details (validated by medical professionals) that support the validity of NDE's.
It gets better (slowly) with age. I'm 70 now, and the night comes when no man can work, right? Dr. Johnson had that verse inscribed in Greek on the inside of his pocketwatch lid. The outside, he said, would be bragging.
Thank you Rod. I’m always encouraged with your writings. I have preordered your book.
Beauty is all around us and I need to be reminded of that in these days. We must make an effort to not make beauty an idol and remember the creator of beauty, beauty can be a distraction if we’re not careful and we must pray for discernment.
Do you have favorite music, art, books you find beautiful and resonates the glory of God? I hope your readers can share their favorites.
I pasted that Amazon page in haste. The spelling is modernized in the Penguin. All that stuff--Donne, Ben, Herbert--is much better in original spelling. For what it's worth.
Please also check this out, and Helios is one record label: Ralph Vaughn Williams’ Five Mystical Songs—an orchestral setting of some of Herbert’s most loved poems.
BTW, one of these, The Call, with organ only, was part of my wedding liturgy, forty six years ago last month. The two of us, still alive, still married, and one of us now in dementia care, could never have imagined on our wedding day the joys, the losses, the griefs we would know. God is ever merciful to us, sinners all. (Time will tell whether I, too, belong in care. I’m a pretty new reader and not up to much commenting.)
About THIS post, in which the lead story was Clergy misconduct in Hungary, I will bury my response here in this comment.
It pierced my heart. I am a very new Catholic. Several of the few friends and family who knew I would convert, made their little protests. They warned me of the history and likelihood of Catholic clergy scandals. I didn’t go in with eyes closed.
Plus, the issue of clergy scandal has dimensions I don’t yet know how to talk about responsibly as I meet fellow congregants, or talk to other converts. For one thing, I am former Protestant clergy myself. Also, in my seventy years of life I have known and loved individuals who were credibly accused of sixth commandment sins while in ministry. Some were held accountable, some reports were not formally adjudicated. I will get spiritual guidance about what I should say. But the issue is personal, intensely so. I wish I didn’t have this baggage, this vulnerability to my own hurt, in part because I don’t yet know how to channel wisely these feelings and energies. (Of course, I also have the baggage my own sins and departures from tradition and the sacred order.)
So, reading this post as one who has been hurt, and is not without sin, I felt heartened by Rod’s recap of what clergy scandal did to him twenty years ago and the perspective he has grown into more recently. I found the candor and examination of life, which I’m sure longtime readers of the blog and Substack are used to, very welcome. This account, though not making immediate sense to his suffering Orthodox friend, whose hurt is still raw, is a witness to growth, to healing, to grace. And rumors of angels. For that witness I am grateful.
One last thing on Herbert. Weil’s contemplative reading of George Herbert’s “Love” suggests how God draws us through beauty. At other times it seems God called her through excruciating trials and suffering. By not fleeing these trials, God drew her closer than ever. I forget the exact words she used. (Auto correct wanted me to say “by not feeling…God drew her)…That is the exact opposite of what I learned from Weil!!
If we refuse to feel the pain, we will flee. If we flee the pain, we are also fleeing our creator. On the other hand, as I have learned in my own anxiety, fear, and grief, if I refuse to flee, I will feel the pain, but God will draw me even closer to Himself. And to think I used to balk at test of faith talk—now I think Rod is right (and it’s also quite Catholic.)
I realize that this is going to sound like I'm putting politics in the place of religion, which is not my intent (apologies in advance), but man I have continued to think about the Benedict Option model as a model to preserve the unique American mode of self-governance as well. There are a few places in this country where you can still mostly be left alone to make what you will of your life - I'm thinking Alaska, Montana, rural New Hampshire, and a few other similar spots. The Free State Project originally wanted people to move to New Hampshire to bring outsized liberty-loving influence to bear in the state's politics, but now I see the participants as a rearguard, fighting to preserve what's left of the traditional idea of being an American.
Maybe there's some crossover here - classical liberals and Catholics/Orthodox Christians aren't natural allies, but they all believe that people should largely be able to choose how to live their life and have to face the consequences of those decisions.
When I talk to my friends from college and high school, they live in a totally different world from me, one where the idea of "a union of 50 states" seems like a quaint relic. I fear we're headed towards complete federal supremacy in all matters, and the extinguishing of difference and uniqueness.
We still have a constitution, and it is worth reaffirming. The other day, I read a post from someone quoting Elon Musk on why not require photo ID to vote. I showed my age by responding, because we're Americans and we appreciate personal liberty. Someone much younger asked, what are you talking about, I have to show photo ID everywhere -- at the bank to get into work etc. I responded, that's a very new development that has insinuated itself into our life. There was a senate hearing in 1962 where a state department rep was being grilled on whether the government in Saigon was really so democratic as our government had led us to believe. The exasperated reply was "Senator, I know Americans would never put up with having to carry photo ID, but its different over there." People have forgotten, and I suppose some younger people don't even dream such thinking every existed. A lot of people take it as a matter of course that the First Amendment only protects speech that the government finds worthy of protection -- which is of course setting the fox to guard the hen house. But its not a lost cause to try to turn things around.
Personal liberty to do what? cheat?
Show the damn ID and stop the fraud in your country, brother.
Mollie Ivins wrote a great review of an American named Paglia. It was not complimentary. Personal liberty is, first and foremost, not restricted by "to do what" but is a right to be left alone. It is a right not to have to jump through a lot of hoops to do what we have a right to do, including vote. I don't know what country you are from, but we have always been proud that we don't have to check in with police and show our papers at every turn, unlike a good deal of European history. That's eroding, but its worth reaffirming. The fact is, there is no statistically significant cheating going on.
Showing that one is a citizen with a driver’s license or gov-approved ID, in order to vote, isn’t an onerous requirement. What method would you endorse, or do you believe there should be no method employed to ensure that only legal citizens vote in US elections?
It can be. In particular, many natural born citizens do not have a copy of their birth certificate, and their driver's license is not Real ID compliant. If they don't fly, that's not a problem, but if they can't vote without showing proof of citizenship, its an onerous burden. I have registered to vote on four occasions (each time because I moved). I did show a driver's license, and either it had my current address, or I showed a utility bill as proof of address. Showing proof when registering is almost essential, although old time laws allowed for two witnesses who were registered voters in the same municipality to swear to your identity, and I would be fine with that. I don't think there is any need for special measures to check whether a voter is a US citizen. Any large scale numbers will have one or two exceptions, but I recently read that non-citizens voting is an incidence of one ten-thousandths of one percent. Its a solution in search of a problem. We don't need to burden citizens with proving they are citizens to prevent non-citizens from voting. It actually takes a lot for a non-citizen to even try, and most of them are afraid they will be deported, so they don't even try.
What does worry me is wealthy Republicans with homes in two states who try to vote in both. I recall four prosecutions for that in my state after 2020. No, that's not statistically significant either. But it is a greater hazard.
The passport office has ways to verify citizenship for those who can't access a birth certificate, though that can be onerous. A friend of mine had to get a passport so he could get a Maryland DL since his NY birth certificate did not meet the standards of ReaID.
Not to be unduly argumentative, but it's hard to care about anything Ivins wrote.
She occasionally turned a good phrase. Political humor shouldn't be tossed aside. And yes, we should be able to laugh over jests directed at politicians on "our" side too.
In your mind, no doubt. I consider her one of my American heroes.
Charlie, there's a Substack with the wonderful name, "Welcome to Absurdistan." Read yesterday's installment about election theft.
I think you're being needlessly difficult in objecting to something as sane as legitimate identification in order to be permitted to vote.
As I said, I'm drawing on traditions that have been part of American culture for most of our history. I'm being libertarian, rather than anti-immigrant. It is true that with a larger and denser and more anonymous population, we need more precautions. I'm less skeptical of cameras in public places than I used to be, because so many violent crimes are solved by piecing together footage from nearby cameras. But when it comes to voting, I am opposed to wrapping a fundamental right of citizenship in too much red tape and too many conditions. Our right to vote is fundamental, and should not be burdened by hoops to jump through. I have yet to read any claim of "election theft" in the past ten years that has legitimacy or merit. Its all laughably contrived. Plus, I am thoroughly familiar with the way elections are run, ballots provided to voters, what voters already have to go through, and how the numbers are tracked. "Election integrity" is a solution in search of a problem.
Read the “Welcome to Absurdistan” Substack installment I suggested.
I couldn't write a more sardonic parody if I had a contract to produce dystopian fiction every month. Either this woman is lying, or she is delusional, probably the latter, which means, I suspect she believes her tale. I work at a polling site, I know the number of things that can go wrong, I know how they go wrong and how often they go wrong, and what if any impact they have on electoral results. That stuff is pure garbage.
Very interesting that you say that. She has published wackjob stuff. Recently, a commenter said succinctly," How does it feel? To be crazy?" which made me laugh hard, because I had had the same idea.
According to her, her mother was wrecked by MK - ULTRA. She believes that the ultrarich of the world keep themselves young by drinking the blood of children. I'm certainly ready to consider her a prime nutjob.
I would never pay for her Substack. But even the deranged can occasionally be correct. The article seemed possibly credible.
Please explain why it isn't, Charlie.
I agree that the point where enhanced security is needed is registration, not so much the actual in-person voting.
In Italy, when geography was taught seriously, we were told that the US social model was "communitarian", i.e., based on trust and mutual knowledge, rather than upon formal institutions. Of course, even back then (the '70s) that model was probably long gone in most of the Country. When a trust-based society dissolves, the State naturally sneaks in.
The idealism of that characterization produced a gross exaggeration. The US social model was rife with robbers of various sorts, who generally had to be brought to heel by either law enforcement, or vigilantes. Vigilantes of course are not always saints, they are often a lynch mob whether targeting blacks, Italians, or some innocent soul mistaken for the perpetrator of an actual crime.
Doesn’t every jurisdiction issue voter cards?
I never heard of such a thing.
I've been registered in five states (MI, OH, FL, MD and DE) . In every place I've received a voter's card (no photo on it, but name adress , a voter number, the location of my designated polling place.)
I guess, but if massive voter fraud is afoot, a given precinct couldn't care less about such a thing.
I'm sure you know that it's a little more than urban legend that John F Kennedy won Illinois in 1960 with some help from his friends in Cook County, IL.
Yes, Lyndon Johnson did steal the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate in 1948. Everything depended on a missing precinct box which was never found, and a pro Johnson judge declared LBJ the nominee.
In Volume Two of Robert Caro's neverending biography of Johnson ( The Years of Lyndon Johnson ), The Path to Power, there is one of the greatest photos in American political history, four or five grinning deputies from South Texas holding the legendary lost precinct box.
Ronnie Duggar founded and edited The Texas Observer in the early 1950s. It was the only liberal newspaper in Texas at the time, a good populist weekly. Duggar gave Johnson grief, particularly on civil rights, but he understood Johnson's political realities, so he went pretty easily on him. The two even became pals of a sort.
In the summer of 1968, with Johnson done in presidential politics, he invited Duggar to the White House for a weekend. The two men were drinking bourbon into the early morning hours in Johnson's bedroom.
Duggar: "Hey now, c'mon, Lyndon, whut the Hell did happen to that box? You know, now, you do, you know I'm not gonna snitch, whut happened to it?"
Duggar said that without a word, Johnson got up, went into his closet, rummaged a moment, and came out holding the legendary box like a father holding his newborn.
JFK would gave in 1960 without Illinois, albeit by a very narrow margin.
So I'm 58 and don't remember a time when I didn't need ID to do things like buy alcohol or drive a car. Or take money out of the bank or apply for a mortgage or any number of other things. I don't think banks ever operated on the honor system, okay maybe the credit union in my hometown (pop. 486) but only because everyone knows everyone else. To vote in Canada, where I voted in my first election 40 years ago, you must show ID at the polling station where your name is crossed off a list called a voter roll. Fat lot of good that does Canadians, given the state of their political leadership, but still.
You don't think very hard and haven't looked it up. Banks never allowed anyone whatsoever to walk into a bank and say "I'm John D. Rockefeller and I'd like to make a $10,000 withdrawal." But in the years when there was no ATM, my parents routinely stopped by the bank when they needed cash, during working hours, wrote a check, signed it, and obtained the cash. Now this wasn't exactly the honor system, because their check identified them by name and address, and while there were no computers small enough to fit one at each window, there was an efficient card system where the information could be looked up. But no, they did not have to show photo ID.
Ah, you're from Canada. No country that remained another century or more in the British Empire understands "liberty" the way we Americans do. You are all subjects of the crown, or were during the formative years of your nation. As recently as ten years ago, a little less actually, I could walk into the polling site for my address, recite my name and address, sign the poll book next to my name, and receive a ballot. No photo ID required -- it is a very recent innovation. I'm trying to recall if I even had a photo ID forty years ago. I guess I did -- I had moved to the totalitarian state of California by then.
I do sympathize about your political leadership. I despise Justin Trudeau. Like Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, Franklin Graham, Andrew Cuomo, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., he's just not one tenth the man his father was. You probably know the old saying, "Poor Canada... It could have had British government, French culture and American know-how. Instead it got French government, British know-how and American culture."
The tellers at my small hometown bank don't ask for my Identification but I give it to them anyway.
There are voters who come into the site I'm responsible for and try to show their photo ID in the first few seconds. We have to tell them to please hold onto their ID, because we are required by state law to first ask them to say their name aloud, then look them up in the book, then say their address aloud, confirm that is the same address that is in the book, and THEN we can ask for their photo ID, which is only about the image and the name, we don't even care if the ID has an up to date address.
This is because of two overlapping laws passed in two eras. The reciting aloud of the name and address was, in its time, the means to insure that this is a voter who is registered to vote. Any observer could, hearing the name and address, raised objections, such as, I know the person of that name at that address, and this isn't him/her, or I know that person, and they are not a citizen, or they are on parole for a criminal offense, or whatever. That is still in effect, and we are not allowed to simple look at the driver's license and then look the voter up in the poll book without hearing the name and address recited aloud.
My voting precinct has 600 voters. To vote, all voters must provide a photo identification(driver's license) and sign the register with our name.
Thank you, Rod. I hope you will venture further West, ideally to southern California, to give a talk. Your thoughts on religion & culture are spot on.
yes, me too!
How about really going out on a limb and coming to Seattle.
There was a priest who prepared for a morning prayer service (Anglican) but no congregants showed up. So he turned to the other priest there and said, "Well, looks like it's just you, me, the angels and archangels and all the company of heaven!"
Cultivating an awareness of angels… where does a recovering, near-totally disenchanted person start?
Ask God to open your vision and understanding.
Maybe, as Rod did, read Dante.
Or Milton, whose “darkness visible” appears above in Rod’s post.
C.S. Lewis is great, as is Tolkien.
Maybe Cormac McCarthy, whose THE ROAD shows hope in the direst of circumstances imaginable.
Or… Beethoven, Chopin, Bach.
Lean into the beauty of things, as Rod says. It’s an opening, and it will reveal wonders.
Paul Simon’s SEVEN PSALMS is a rather remarkable piece—a meditation on things spiritual.
None of these may ultimately get you where you’re going, none is a perfect answer, but even asking the questions is an act of faith, seen rightly.
And just in time, the Dante Project is doing 100 Days of Dante again. So I’m doing it again too
Opus Angelorum is a Catholic apostolate that promotes devotion to the Holy Angels. There is a lot of information on their website. www.opusangelorum.org
This is a wonderful question.
First, I agree with the author who suggested Tolkien and CS Lewis. Both of them present a world shot through with meaning, providence, and the struggle between good and evil. If you immerse yourself in their writings, it becomes easier to see the meaning and presence of God in the real world.
Beyond that, prayer is very important. One of the easiest ways to start is very short prayers throughout your day. When you go outside and the weather is beautiful, thank God as you enjoy it. When you are about to have a difficult task, ask God to be with you as you work on it. Say grace before meals and thank Him that you have good food to eat. When you wash the dishes afterward, if you don’t like doing it, ask Him to be with you then and offer your efforts as a sacrifice to Him. When it is hard to believe or pray, ask God to help you. It may not instantly be easier, but I have no doubt that God will send you the grace you need.
One book that many people have found helpful in this respect is “The Practice of the Presence of God,” by Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection. It is appreciated by many types/denominations of Christians. Below is a link to the book and a video discussion of it.
https://www.icspublications.org/products/the-practice-of-the-presence-of-god?_pos=1&_sid=bcd5a4876&_ss=r
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14wqBI4d40
Finally (because I know this is getting long), I think that praying the Litany of Trust everyday would be very helpful (and even though it was written by the Sisters of Life it isn’t only applicable to Catholics):
https://sistersoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mobile-Litany-of-Trust.pdf
They also have a wonderful publication called “Imprint” which has many stories and reflections you may find helpful. Many of them will be Catholic in nature, but others will be interesting to any Christian:
https://sistersoflife.org/resources/?resourceForm=imprint
C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity is a tremendous book for seekers. It sure helped me
If an atheist ever asked me what book to read to understand Christianity, I would recommend Mere Christianity. Simple, muscular prose.
That book almost turned me into an atheist! The prose was charming, but I thought the arguments backfired. I know mine is a minority experience, but my priest's wife had the same reaction, so I know I'm not alone in this.
Thank you, Jenny
An excellent answer. I was actually going to ask Rod about "prayer disciplines"...
"You will seek me and find me, when you seek me a with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13
Look at the experience of the saints, read about their life and try to imitate their attitude.
Then, after you live for some time paying attention to the presence of the angel at your side, verify if your life is going deeper.
You couldn't do better than to read The Gospel of John and The Acts of the Apostles.
If you understand that Jesus is Lord God Incarnate, and Resurrected, everything else falls into place in time.
Thank you Rod! God used you today to deliver this message to me. I’ve been in my head too much recently around my faith. I’ll treasure this missive as one of God’s small miracles.
We don’t lose faith in Christ and the Sacraments. We *must* lose faith in clerics.
This is painful, difficult. But probably necessary. My own conclusion after many years watching this as a Catholic is as follows: 1) Any priest may be a good and holy man, certainly, but one must not expect it. And one must not assume the appearance of holiness is holiness. 2) A quite reliable sign that a priest is *not* in fact a good and holy man will be his promotion. The higher he rises in the hierarchy, the stronger the sign.
To those who might say this is unfair, unforgiving, etc., I will answer: We forgive when a sinner repents. We are all sinners. We must forgive, but that doesn’t mean we must trust. “Be as wise as serpents …”
Our hierarchy has deserved our practice of such wisdom. Serpent to serpent.
Certainly I believe there are Cardinals who deserve our respect. There are good men among them. But if it were true that there were fewer than five such men, I would not be at all surprised.
Rod writes, re: Orban’s government getting flack: “Naturally Orban’s political enemies are seizing on this to attack him, but it’s hard to see how the government should have known this about the priest, when his own bishop apparently did not.”
I think that word “apparently” is carrying way too much burden. Can we really assume the bishop didn’t know? Is it not even a safer bet that he did know?
Rod is of course doing the Christian thing by giving the benefit of the doubt. My principle on this is: “You’re the bishop over this priest. You deserve no benefit of the doubt. This is YOUR failure.”
The bishop should be raked over the coals by the Catholic faithful, uninvited to dinner parties for six months minimum.
Then we MIGHT see these clowns get more serious about the rot. At least the ones who aren’t lavender rotters themselves.
Very wise.
Well, you were right, Eric. The priest publicly apologized for his deeds today. It is reported that he went to his archbishop months ago and told him there might be these compromising videos coming out. The archbishop just told him to lay low for a while.
How long, O Lord, how long?
The archbishop told him to lay low, and the priest said: “Sometimes we lay low, sometimes we do it standing up.”
The archbishop chuckled, then pointed out that of course the videos were the real problem.
“None of them were filmed in my residence, I hope,” he added.
“Welll …” the priest hedged, knitting his brows, pretending to try to remember something.
The archbishop sighed.
It’s almost like clockwork. And the hierarchy itself knows the results. Hundreds of thousands whose faith has been undermined, many even losing faith in Christ. But the hierarchy dare not undertake the operation needed to remove this tumor from the Body of Christ. And the reason isn’t hard to see. Many of them *are* the tumor. And now the “scandal” of appearing to be “anti-sex” in the eyes of western liberals, it makes the operation even less likely. “Gay sex, gay porn—these are actually *healthy*!”
If only we had a pope who cared about the faithful half as much as he cares about his status with secular elites.
You can be quite blameless of the actual sins but still rush to defend the sinners of your tribe. And we do need to be wary of imputing sins to people when there is zero evidence to that effect.
😩
In a limited sense, that is Protestant thinking. I say limited, because you can still practice Catholic liturgy, you can still practice seven sacraments, not two, you can still seek intercession from Mary Queen of Heaven and all the saints. But, you have rejected a fundamental point of Roman Catholic organization, if not theology -- that the hierarchy are Christ's representatives on earth, that the institutional church was established as such by Christ and his Apostles and carries their authority. That is not a criticism, I think its healthy. And I don't know of any reason you need to accept the thinking of John Calvin or Martin Luther to do that.
Even a cursory reading of Church history will show that its clergy were not all sinless saints.
Ancient Christians struggled with this cold reality too. Hence the blunt dogma that the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend on the state of the officiant's soul.
I certainly agree with the latter. Certainly history shows that clergy were not all sinless saints, in fact, it shows that most clergy sinned. Don't priests go to each other for confession? But, there have been times when priests were exalted as "the apple of God's eye" etc. or superstitiously regarded as above suspicion or darn near infallible in their pronouncements. That can be dangerous. Or, as in the case here, the bishop is more concerned with cover up than with purging and restoration.
I would not say that elevation in the hierarchy is a bad sign by itself, but certainly it depends on WHO is choosing: if the chooser is corrupt... but God can act surprisingly. In general, recommending to lose faith in clerics cannot be the last word, if the priesthood is instituted by Christ, as Catholics and Orthodox-es believe.
In the Catholic Church there's a thing called "ex opere operato": the sin of the priest does not invalidate the sacrament. This means, also, that the grace of God passes through the personal indignity of the cleric. But this is not to be accepted in a fideistic way, there are at least two points to be kept in mind:
First, we are looking for God's will, not the churchman's will, so we have to stay focused on that and see if we are led along what's said in the Gospel, which is not complicated and has a logic; in particular do NOT elevate a single priest to your idol, and in case of doubt refer to others.
Second, no one is infallible - not even the Pope except in very determined cases (thanks, Vatican I); you are responsible for your faith, the priest is called to be a guide, but can be a scoundrel: exercise your intelligence, there's no guarantee that some Judas are not in the lot.
One issue is which sins to take seriously. When looking at the corrupt priesthood, we tend to focus on sexual and financial wrongdoing, but what if they are self-righteous, or proud, or cruel?
I am not currently engaged in sexual sin, but I have plenty of other sins to struggle with. I wonder whether we are looking too much through worldly glasses?
Everyone loves to gossip about sex- it's the one truly glamorous sin. Complaining about sins of greed make us feel better about our own financial difficulties. Other sins are less popular as subjects of criticism- many of them cut too close to our own guilts.
I don’t think my “We most lose faith in clerics” is *the last word*. I hope it is not. But it is the word suited to this corrupted lavender status quo.
On your other points: Yes.
"This is painful, difficult."
Easy enough to me—I've never thought of them at all. I would consider any faith premised on the integrity of the clergy to be un-Christian and totally insane.
It’s a good point, but the problem is that a corrupted clergy pushes away those who may otherwise come to the faith. And to be a Christian is to want the faith to grow.
So in this respect we *have to* think of them, even if we’d rather just accept their corruption.
I guess that I just don’t find it fruitful to dwell on things that I can’t affect or control or fix, and the corruption of the clergy is one of those things. It is what it is; we’ll have to find another way to draw people to the faith.
It’s a wise answer, I’d say. In my view we shouldn’t accept this status quo without pushback, just becoming passive about it. But on the other hand if we think the meaning of being a faithful Catholic is to bewail and seek to reform the clergy, we’re in error.
Father Dwight Longenecker wrote about the sexual abuse scandal some years ago in his then-blog (I forget the name). In summary, he posited that perhaps it's an attack on the Church by Satan in an attempt to undermine its authority and message.
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4)
Thank you, Jude, for naming names. Yes, me too, I believe it’s the work of Satan. And Satan is not, as current Superior General of the Jesuit Order Arturo Sosa claims, a merely “symbolic reality.”
Martin Luther's views on Mary:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=788
https://resources.lcms.org/history/luthers-love-for-st-mary-queen-of-heaven/
He upheld the unanimous ancient teachings of her as Theotokos and ever-Virgin, and that's a hill I'm willing to die on, if it ever comes up in discussion.
Darrel,
It boggles the mind to think it's appropriate to discuss the sexual life of Mary, the mother of Our Lord. Name one context where it isn't, for a lack of a better word, perverse to discuss what another person did or did not do with his/her spouse? Furthermore, put yourself in the shoes of Jesus, would you be comfortable with other men discussing this subject about your own mother? If not, and I certainly would find it offensive if people were talking about my own mamma's, then it stands to reason Our Lord would also not be okay with you discussing his mother's private life.
Secondly, the premises of the "ever virgin" doctrine implies that sex between a married couple would defile them. But that would contradict scripture, for it is written: "the marriage bed is undefiled" (Heb 13:4) and 1 Corinthians 7:7 and render impure the commandment of God The Father:
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth.” Genesis 1:27-28.
This isn't a hill to die on, it really is a subject that shouldn't be discussed. Give Mary and Joseph some privacy. :)
Well, that casts Catholics and Orthodox into the outer darkness, dunnit?
No, it just means their doctrines have at times become obsessed with matters best left alone, that are not essential to faith.
It's funny, in these boxes at least Protestants are always taking potshots at Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, but it never goes the other way. I wonder why that is?
I thought I was making a rather mild observation. No outer darkness, you know? Just fallible humans trying to find the truth, like all the rest of us. At some point you'll notice I'm also perfectly wiling to defend veneration of Mary as intercessor, not because I believe it, but because it could be true for all I know, and, if not, if it brings someone closer to God, I'm sure that has divine approval.
"I thought I was making a rather mild observation"
You weren't.
Agreed. As a Protestant I think the intercession of Mary is possible, priests I respect pray to her, but it seems slightly "off". Why not skip the middleman and pray to Jesus or God? However, even if praying to her is not God's first choice, He is gracious and I don't think he rejects that prayer. And indeed those in heaven may very well have power to intercede for us.
I plead not guilty, sir. To this Protestant, it's obvious why demons have a special hatred for Mary: she is the person through whom God the Son became Incarnate.
I should have said "He upheld the unanimous ancient teachings..." Both phrases occur repeatedly in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. This unquestionably goes back to the time of the undivided Church, which the early Lutherans and Anglicans took great pains to demonstrate their continuity with.
It is found in anywhere in the New Testament?
Indirectly, at least, at the foot of the Cross, in John 19:26-27, when Jesus entrusted her to the apostle John's care. This would have made no sense, if Mary had had other children who could take care of her. Others may be able to think of other examples.
That's rather thin. Its like a woman who's daughter has just been married telling her daughter's husband, "You ARE one of my sons." Or, Jesus could have been welcoming John into the family, or reaffirming his previous teaching about "Who are my mother and my brothers?" My own thinking is that a lot of fixed doctrine was developed by Christians who wanted specific answers and to work out all conundrums and find certainty. That's not really what faith is about. We can't know all that with precision, and its not essential that we do.
I do think we should be more cheerful about uncertainty in a lot of areas
There’s the passage in Ezekiel saying that no man would pass through that gate.
I have to admit to difficulty with the doctrine of perpetual virginity, but it was an undisputed doctrine of the Catholics, Orthodox, and early Protestants.
I think the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity goes back at least as far as the Protoevangelium of James. Dating to around 100 AD. Not Scripture, no, but once considered possibility scriptural, and endorsed as orthodox.
For me, endorsing orthodoxy is the problem. It is an attempt to define transcendent truths we cannot really know. Its not a problem for a given congregation or denomination to say, this is what we believe, or this is how we have agreed to do things when we approach God. We all have the right to do that. But a little humility about how much we really know is in order, and church councils earnestly debating what is True becomes an impediment. I know you don't endorse military means to resolve religious differences, but if something is really viewed as Orthodox, and something else as Heresy, it can lead to physical combat. Some scholars have said that the Greek word Paul used, translated into English as "heresy" has connotations of party or faction. I view orthodoxy as the heresy in power.
Mary is the spouse of The Holy Spirit. Also, she is the fruit of The Immaculate Conception. The Biblical norms that apply to sinners do not apply to her. She is unique among humans, and if you can't get past that "scandal of particularity" I don't know how to help you.
There is Nothing in scripture that even hints at an immaculate conception or particularity regarding Mary. She was blessed to be sure to be the mother of Jesus, but that is it. A blessing.
Educate yourself, GNXMan. Start by googling Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.
I believe Matthew contains specific reference to Mary saying, how can this be as I have never known a man, and an angel telling her that he Most High will overshadow her. I'm paraphrasing, and one could argue the meaning of the phrase, or even whether a Greek convert inserted some language to clarify a matter he didn't understand well, and muddied the waters. Theological debates are generated by such uncertainty. But there is certainly a hint of an immaculate conception.
Eh, the immaculate conception dogma that Catholics espouse doesn't relate to the conception of Christ (the fact that this happened by the Holy Spirit is, I believe, not controversial even for Protestants), but the conception of Mary. That is, her conception was free from original sin.
Orthodox do not accept that this is a "dogma", and most Orthodox are skeptical of it in substance because of its association with the Catholics and with the theology of St Augustine (which is viewed more skeptically in Orthodoxy, while the saint is still venerated), but it is a permitted "theolegoumenon", or personal religious opinion (ie, not heresy).
A lot of people, even Catholics, think ‘immaculate conception’ means ‘virgin birth’.
Agreed, and since it's not an essential article of faith I think people need to understand that others simply hold a different opinion and let that be.
The Immaculate Conception is a late Western doctrine. The Orthodox do not accept it. It also has nothing to do with Mary's virginity.
Perhaps. I doubt that parsing these things is essential to salvation. If it helps you get there, I doubt that God begrudges you the paradigm, even if its not precisely true.
Oli, it does not imply that relations would defile them. It points to the unique nature of her giving birth to our savior. One that has done that cannot turn around and give birth to mortal beings. Joseph is not part of this and therefore his privacy is not invaded.
I always remember what an Orthodox priest once said. If you were in Joseph's place, and really believed that she had been, "overshadowed by the most High," as the angel said, the very idea of ever touching her would have been unthinkable. It would have been like entering the Holy of Holies in the Temple.
Joseph wasn't actually told that Mary had been overshadowed by the Most High. He was told, do not be afraid to take her as your wife, because what is in her is of the Holy Spirit. That could mean a lot of things.
I think Jesus would be a tad more offended that people would doubt his Mom's virginity tbh
There was a Roman slander against Jesus relying on a play on Greek words: parthenos,, virgin, was mangled into pantheros, panther, and Jesus was said to be the (bastard) son of a legionaire whose legionary emblem was a panther cat.
I think Luther is probably wrong, as are generations of Catholic hierarchs. I recently heard a Baptist minister point out that James and Jesus were only half-brothers, because they shared the same mother but a different father. I've heard an Ethiopian friend assert that
Biblical references to Jesus's brothers and sisters should be understood in the cultural context that cousins in many cultures are referenced as brethren. Once could perhaps parse the exact meaning of relevant Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and other words. But I suspect that Mary and Joseph had a happy married life, and no, its really not something any of us need to talk about further. As to those who consider her perpetual virginity a hill they are willing to die on, it is not a hill I am willing to kill for.
Charlie not believing in the ever virginity of Mary, or being agnostic about it, is pretty unremarkable for someone whose religious affiliation doesn't call for it in the first place.
True -- and entirely irrelevant to this conversation. Our starting point was, we disagree (in several different directions). I was merely commenting on what, if any, significance our various points of view have to what is true and what is essential to salvation. And yes, it is possible to disagree about that also.
You're missing an opportunity to learn here because you're not interested in learning why other people believe the ever-virginity of Mary is important. You're making your case for why it's not. And thus you are missing the tip of the iceberg of Mariology, which is pretty rich.
Well how can I learn anything when you haven't explained it? I know that other people DO believe the ever-virginity of Mary is important. I've already said I don't hold it against them. I have yet to see anyone explain why it is important, so I have inferred that they take it on faith and sincerely believe it.
Cousins, or step-siblings from a previous marriage. I regularly refer to my stepsister as my "sister" and she calls me her "brother"
Yup, those are possibilities in many cultures. Not definitive though. Just a possibility.
Living with perpetual virginity is a special ascesis . But that doesn't mean sex is inherently sinful. One might take an ascetic vow never to eat meat, but that would not make everyone else sinful for doing so.
I think most rituals and sacrifices are less important for what is empirically given up than for the devotion each represents. I once read a commentary by a Catholic priest who said he would like to remain celibate as a sacrifice to God, and he resents the rule of celibacy because its not a sacrifice if its mandated. If you don't eat meat on Friday, as a sincere sacrifice to God, I think its likely that God accepts the sacrifice in the spirit in which it is offered. If you don't, I doubt that God holds it against you that "You broke a rule."
Yes, I've found that the Lutheran Church (LCMS) has much respect for Mary and many of us believe in her perpetual virginity.
This is not because married sex is in any way sinful or defiling. It's because God had a very special plan for Mary. One thing that rings especially true on this is that Jesus asked John to look after His mother as He was dying. I can't imagine that happening if there had been ( living) half brothers at least.
We don't have to believe this, and I am sure many at our church disagree. It's not anything to argue about. At very least, though, I believe that Mary is very deserving of recognition, study and discussion as much as any Biblical
author. Satan clearly does hate her with a special energy- look what he has don't to girls and women!
It is a blessing to be in a congregation that can speak intelligently about Mary and what we can learn from her, rather than some Protestant churches we have gone to that act awkward and nervous even bringing her up. I am thankful for that!
"done", not "don't"
Rightly understood, Mary points us to Christ. I think it was Pope John Paul who was fond of quoting John 2:5, "Do whatever He tells you". She is grieved when she is elevated above her Son.
On the topic of dispiriting scandals, I have begun to wonder if the internet has become more of a liability on the human mind than an asset. Let me explain:
In the past, you lived in a small village or city, so daily news was mostly local (you may have a newspaper that covers select events from other parts of the world). A scandal was localized, and stayed primarily where it happened.
Now, any scandal that does happen is broadcast almost instantaneously, with the potential to reach billions across borders and cultures. Additionally, and this is a really pernicious effect, things are never "forgotten" in the age of the internet. Can there ever be forgiveness or reconciliation if every event or action performed is fossilized by social media?
I admit there are limitations to this argument (language may yet be the last barrier; could I, an American with only a smattering of Spanish, know the daily events of a rural Japanese town?) (Also the increasing structural decay of internet architecture, if my YouTube feed is to be believed).
Still, more and more, I've come to believe that humans are not meant to process the absolute deluge of information that is pumped into the waters, so to speak.
This is a great point.
My wife says, “When we were in high school and college, we didn’t know what everyone thought about everything. We were friends with all kinds of people.”
Sadly, with Facebook et al., that is no longer true.
I deleted my FB account in 2020 and don't miss it one bit. No doubt, it is intolerable in this election year. To some extent, LinkedIn fills the gap in keeping up with people. I've been trying to persuade people to join me on MeWe, one of the more viable Facebook alternatives.
Even with Facebook, I'm still friends with all kinds of people. I've lost one or two who object to the way I stand up for some of the others, but that's been rare.
Up to a point. I think we see things through our cultural prism - our perception as RD calls it - where we don’t distinguish between the image and the reality. Ours is a superficial culture, where what we believe is influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the people we meet, social approval and psychological benefit. Maybe it was always like this, but maybe we were also better a bit of hypocrisy, where we sort of expected our rulers to be corrupt and have their lovers, but appear virtuous in public. Now we expect our rulers to be perfect in private, but they can be as corrupt and useless as they like in public.
I may steal that last notion.
I was thinking of someone - probably Louise Perry - who compared the Kennedys being corrupt in private but moral and even inspiring in private. Recent prime ministers are - as far as we know - not living scandalous lives, they are quietly quite conventional but promote a moral free for all. As well as being uninspiring.
No one promotes a "free for all". I don think even anarcho-libertarians go quite that far. That's hyperbolic beyond all sense. Maybe some things the ruling class tolerates shouldn't be but there are definitely limits, in some matters very strict ones.
Yes and no, we live in a libertarian culture, where all behaviors and lifestyles are equal and permitted, yet the higher the status the more conventional (by older standards) the lifestyle.
Or worse, the people running internet media are subtly (or not so subtly) feeding and pruning the information with the intent to rile to your attention and emotions.
But of course. Attracting readers or listeners or watchers pays, both monetarily and egotistically. It's a pity that the Internet was commercialized.
Excellent point.
Excellent post, Rod. In my long life as a Catholic, I’ve felt crucified by the institutional Church on a number of occasions. But the Church long ago gave me the antidote to ecclesiastical failures of all kinds - a deep personal relationship with God, the priority of which supersedes that of the Church. The lives of the saints reinforce this saving reality. God is in charge. I trust him. In a time and manner of his choosing, his grace will save us. We don’t feel things are rightly ordered when our chief pain is caused by the institutional Church. It’s a form of white martyrdom. But Jesus shed his blood as the result of his institutional Church’s leaders collaborating with Pilate to put him to death. He knows our pain. Our only chance is to hold on tightly to him and not to make an idol of the institutional Church.
Is there a club for Catholics who have come to the same conclusion?
I think it might be termed the Roman Liturgy Congregational Union. But I haven't heard that it has been constituted as yet.
It will come!
I have sent this to my friends in SE Wisconsin, urging them to attend your presentation in Chicago. If I didn’t live and serve in the Amazon I would be there. This is an outstanding, important, well-articulated post. I would urge you Rod, to have your new - and past, your trilogy - work translated into Spanish.
Look for these: La opción benedictina: Una estrategia para los cristianos en una sociedad postcristiana
Vivir sin mentiras: Manual para la disidencia cristiana
Good words, Rod!
I’m an 82-year-old Jew who was, in 1968, converted to Christ out of the American counterculture of the 1960s, and who ended up – after being in many churches – a Reformed Protestant, and presently a pastor and church planter in Cyprus.
I don’t have, as you, a “tradition”-based church to cleave to – though I do hold with your Benedict Option-style small community of cleaving to a living faith in Christ and teaching our members the foundation and ways of our sacred faith.
How do I do that? I am a Word-based believer. That is, although I live in the reality of this present physical world, I know that the words of God ARE the spiritual reality of both His Being and His kingdom. I can live by them. I am in Christ (baptised into Him by water and the Holy Spirit given to indwell us). I live by His promises.
So when He says, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20), and, “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5), I know – experientially – his presence is with me.
This presence first manifested when I was converted through a simple woman from Estonia telling me of Him, and His presence stunned me with His holiness, majesty, and love – it was Jesus, the crucified and risen One. I was His at first sight, and He was mine.
Been a long road since then, with many ignominious failures on my part along the way, but He is a faithful shepherd who keeps and cleanses His sheep. I wrote a book about the path of these last 56 years, A Great and Terrible Love. I don’t make any money from it, only what it costs Amazon to print it: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Terrible-Love-Visionary-Woodstocks/dp/0983519498/ Free digital versions on my Google Drive: https://bit.ly/3nQHBrB
Churches have failed me, and yet they have also sustained and nurtured me in their love. I know some very good pastors and saints (small “s”), and they are dear to me. Now, like you, am permanently in an EU country (Cyprus – with dual U.S.-Cypriot citizenship), and have a small Benedict-Option-style community I seek to nurture and care for.
Many of the people who have come through our community – most as asylum-seekers whose applications have eventually been rejected – have returned to their home countries. But they have been given the understanding that they should join or form small like communities as we have been to them. Small families, part of the larger family of God’s children in Christ, born anew by His Spirit (John 3:3). As the current darkness spreads, very small churches will be the norm.
At some point the Gospel will be outlawed, and we – globally – will be persecuted. And then our Saviour will come, and shall bring us into His Paradise on New Earth, after the great Judgment.
Thanks again for your words and sharing your own life.
God bless you in your work and also your spiritual community. Thank you for sharing.
You point to the problem I have had with Rod's whole enchantment project. An inversion of my objection is the moment in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge, who is appalled by the apparitions, tries to ascribe them to a piece of poorly digested food.
The angelic is real, and throughout their lives as believers, any number of things might impair Christians' perception of it, not least of which may be that if The New Testament is authoritative, angels must be understood to be given temperamentally - or perhaps structurally - to self effacement.
Hebrews 13:2.
What if God doesn't wish a particular believer to ever have an experience of an angel? To me, the most brilliant part of The Screwtape Letters is the section in which Screwtape, the senior demon, instructs his apprentice, Wormwood:
( Paraphrase, paraphrase, paraphrase alert )
"Do not be mistaken. Our cause is never in greater danger than when your subject ( in this case, a Christian who is going through sustained misery ), looking around for signs of God's presence and finding nothing which suggests He hasn't abdicated, nonetheless says, 'Thy will be done'."
In other words, we walk by faith, not by sight. I can think of many, many verses in the Bible which tell us to hide The Word in our hearts, but not one thing which tells us to try to generate feelings.
Of course, Rod is right about beauty: great literature, great music, great art. Heck, yes, I am a Distributist. Whatever it is, burn the sumbitch down, I say.
Have the book now. Thank you, Steve.
Bought your book. Thanks.
For those in Christ,
In these dark times where it seems the Church is being attack from all sides and from within, remember Peter.
After the the Devil had entered Judas, at the Last supper, Jesus told Peter:
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” -Luke 22: 31-32.
We are being sifted and some might have even turned away (talking about myself) but He was prayed for us that our faith may not fail.
It's wonderful to see that this is exactly what Our Lord did with Rod, and that Rod responded by strengthening us.
He is a great man of God.
I know I’m beating a dead horse, but the weight of evidence against an institutionalized clergy is pretty strong. I’m implementing the BenOp myself, thank you Rod, and sincerely believe the way of the organic house church is most conducive to a return to what you call enchantment. Because all the formal leadership and traditions become a crutch, and a rotten one that surprises us unawares like Catholic priest you shared today.
A smaller community lends itself to a truer and more natural spiritual family, and removes any barrier like a priest or pastor from representing (and disappointing) God to us.
“Shouldn’t you at least consider that you are wrong?” Ha! In our current generations, that’s a hard ask for many even within the church. I ask that rhetorically all the time too. I know the answer.
Yes, but, there are good priests and they need us and we need them. We just need to be discerning, find the good ones but make your own faith as watertight as you can.
Yes, I agree. I will never question when there is sincerity in service to God. In big and small churches, there are many faithfully serving. I just encourage people to see that the small form of Microchurch and an elder led spiritual family increases the odds of a healthier Christian life.
Like the idea of the Microchurch, it has the earthy taste of the catacomb.
There's much to be said about a smaller community being closer to the Truth but we should also recognize that a neighborhood-size flock can be led astray by those with distorted views of the Gospel. The more sensational examples are Jim Jones and David Koresh but there are countless others.
Of course we can all be led astray, and you share extreme examples on the cultish side. But the institutional church has them beat by centuries. How much corruption, abuse, etc. has been done that’s left hidden scars that we’ll never hear about? I’d wager it’s the iceberg under the water.
And I think there’s a difference when an abusive Christian leader is given the blessing of speaking for God that holds people captive and trapped. I’ve seen friends who attend church, but it’s more box checking and their faith is feeble because they’ve relied on the church to say they’re good Christians. Again, not all are good or bad. It’s just the current form leads to poor function.
RE: "That is, if we Christians, whatever our confession, are going to keep the faith through this long dark winter, we are going to have to take more responsibility in our personal lives, our family lives, and in our local church community."
Reading that sentence, particularly the "whatever our confession" phrase is amazingly similar to statements made by people after Near Death Experiences (NDEs) as discussed in the John Burke interview link Rod posted recently. People with NDE experiences convey the message that God is "beyond" any specific religious faith. Not surprisingly, God's interest is that we live our lives in accordance with the 10 commandments, particularly love your neighbors as ourselves. That appears to be what is important, rather than what church we attend. God wants us to help and love our neighbors as ourselves. That's easy to believe, since Jesus said that's the most important commandment!
Yes, I know many people write off NDE's as untrue. Burke's interview and reading his recent book provide intriguing details (validated by medical professionals) that support the validity of NDE's.
Here's the interview link for those interested. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH3eVf0C1QY
It gets better (slowly) with age. I'm 70 now, and the night comes when no man can work, right? Dr. Johnson had that verse inscribed in Greek on the inside of his pocketwatch lid. The outside, he said, would be bragging.
Thank you Rod. I’m always encouraged with your writings. I have preordered your book.
Beauty is all around us and I need to be reminded of that in these days. We must make an effort to not make beauty an idol and remember the creator of beauty, beauty can be a distraction if we’re not careful and we must pray for discernment.
Do you have favorite music, art, books you find beautiful and resonates the glory of God? I hope your readers can share their favorites.
Have you ever encountered the poetry of George Herbert? He was a "metaphysical", an Anglican parson.
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Poetry-George-Herbert/dp/0141392045/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1U50D0ZAVH40Y&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Q-rSyTMMmscSefEkF54QON3vl8zVltjMgq_n2TbIlbzsNw03n32mbd5uc5QtdD58Ake4A84HDYsR-9GNVCJLoFn2M7gdXWbiHpA1YLlmgEPO-2RXj6SW4NMLoY_5xpvPe9JLEAeZKNJyv4-sTveZHUHMPE5taiv_R7qkO8bQz4jbJcDAc5rr0uPMuCK-HZ7lX-4UDZYzZmYb-75aWday9FVx4Sfjs9InKFBmVIOEk5A.TVSZWk65ePIZaiidlF3-SIznZFCbhmzb3XNf82q7wCc&dib_tag=se&keywords=george+herbert+poetry&qid=1725810965&sprefix=George+Herbert%2Caps%2C77&sr=8-1
I have not and will gladly check him out. Thanks!
I pasted that Amazon page in haste. The spelling is modernized in the Penguin. All that stuff--Donne, Ben, Herbert--is much better in original spelling. For what it's worth.
Or Gerard Manley Hopkins. My personal favorite is As Kingfishers catch fire.
Oh, yes.
Yes important to Simone Weil.
Some of his poems have been set to music as hymns
Beauty is one way God calls us to Himself.
Please also check this out, and Helios is one record label: Ralph Vaughn Williams’ Five Mystical Songs—an orchestral setting of some of Herbert’s most loved poems.
BTW, one of these, The Call, with organ only, was part of my wedding liturgy, forty six years ago last month. The two of us, still alive, still married, and one of us now in dementia care, could never have imagined on our wedding day the joys, the losses, the griefs we would know. God is ever merciful to us, sinners all. (Time will tell whether I, too, belong in care. I’m a pretty new reader and not up to much commenting.)
About THIS post, in which the lead story was Clergy misconduct in Hungary, I will bury my response here in this comment.
It pierced my heart. I am a very new Catholic. Several of the few friends and family who knew I would convert, made their little protests. They warned me of the history and likelihood of Catholic clergy scandals. I didn’t go in with eyes closed.
Plus, the issue of clergy scandal has dimensions I don’t yet know how to talk about responsibly as I meet fellow congregants, or talk to other converts. For one thing, I am former Protestant clergy myself. Also, in my seventy years of life I have known and loved individuals who were credibly accused of sixth commandment sins while in ministry. Some were held accountable, some reports were not formally adjudicated. I will get spiritual guidance about what I should say. But the issue is personal, intensely so. I wish I didn’t have this baggage, this vulnerability to my own hurt, in part because I don’t yet know how to channel wisely these feelings and energies. (Of course, I also have the baggage my own sins and departures from tradition and the sacred order.)
So, reading this post as one who has been hurt, and is not without sin, I felt heartened by Rod’s recap of what clergy scandal did to him twenty years ago and the perspective he has grown into more recently. I found the candor and examination of life, which I’m sure longtime readers of the blog and Substack are used to, very welcome. This account, though not making immediate sense to his suffering Orthodox friend, whose hurt is still raw, is a witness to growth, to healing, to grace. And rumors of angels. For that witness I am grateful.
One last thing on Herbert. Weil’s contemplative reading of George Herbert’s “Love” suggests how God draws us through beauty. At other times it seems God called her through excruciating trials and suffering. By not fleeing these trials, God drew her closer than ever. I forget the exact words she used. (Auto correct wanted me to say “by not feeling…God drew her)…That is the exact opposite of what I learned from Weil!!
If we refuse to feel the pain, we will flee. If we flee the pain, we are also fleeing our creator. On the other hand, as I have learned in my own anxiety, fear, and grief, if I refuse to flee, I will feel the pain, but God will draw me even closer to Himself. And to think I used to balk at test of faith talk—now I think Rod is right (and it’s also quite Catholic.)