Things to Come?

It's's been said that art which disturbs forces the partaker into a realm of solitude that is not entirely welcome, for it forces one to confront his innermost thoughts, to enter "a world of aloneness, ineluctably insisting on one’s attuning oneself to one’s self.”

And it's in that sense that I use the word "disturbing" to describe Assassinio nella Cattedrale, Ildebrando Pizzetti's 1958 operatic version of T.S. Eliot's (equally disturbing) verse play Murder in the Cathedral, the story of the martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket in 1170.  

Most of us know, or should know, the basic story of Thomas Becket: his early life as friend and close associate of King Henry II, becoming Lord Chancellor and Archbishop of Canterbury, and—finally and tragically—how a fatal rift developed between them over the authority of the State over the Church. Eventually, Henry is (supposedly) heard to utter the famous words "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?", whereupon four of his knights travel to Canterbury and there murder the Archbishop in his cathedral.

The question of man's relationship to authority, and the legitimacy of said authority, is timeless. Eliot's play, which premiered in 1935, was taken by many as a commentary on Nazi Germany and its growing oppression of religious freedom. However, it is difficult to view Assassinio today and not think of the growing religious oppression on the horizon in America, the disease of nihilism and threat of totalitarianism that envelopes the nation and the world.

As the opera opens, it is December 2, 1170. Becket has returned from exile in France. There is a truce between Becket and King Henry, but nobody expects it to last. Becket's congregation fears that the Archbishop's return can end only in tragedy, not only for him but them as well. Becket is unfazed by the prospect of martyrdom, but is it a measure of the man's spirituality—or ego? The answer is soon to come.

Becket (Ruggero Raimondi) faces the four Tempters

In a stunning first act confrontation, Becket meets four Tempters; manifestations of Becket's own intellect, they converse with him in a reflection of the inner dialogue tearing through the Archbishop. The first three offer the usual—safety (by running away); power (by compromising with the king); and rebellion (joining the barons against the king). Thomas is able to deal with those temptations easily; it is the fourth that gives him pause, for the fourth temptation is martyrdom itself, the chance for eternal fame and influence through giving up his life.

This one proves the most dangerous, for it is easy to convince yourself that you're dying to draw attention to a cause, when in reality it is you to which you draw attention. Is this why Becket returned to England? Does he look for the ultimate "I told you so" moment? As the tempter says, it would put everyone under Becket's heel: king, emperor, bishop, baron.

It is here that Becket must provide the ultimate measure of who he is and what he believes—and he does, defiantly casting aside the temper, saying "The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason." With this act, Becket finds a kind of peace; he comes to the knowledge that he is not looking for martyrdom, but is prepared to accept it as part of sharing Christ's Cross.

In his Christmas Day sermon, Becket gives us a profound meditation on the meaning of Christmas. Yes, it is a day to rejoice in the birth of the Savior, but also to realize the price that salvation will ultimately exact from Him*. It is in this spirit of unity—and love—that one embraces martyrdom, Thomas says, warning the congregation that "It is possible that in a short time you may have yet another martyr."

*I've always thought that the ideal Nativity set should somehow cast a shadow of a Cross over the crib where Christ lays. The Creed celebrates both His birth and death, and at no time is this more clear than at Christmas.

The denouement of Act Two is, at once, tragic, inevitable, and joyous. Four of Henry's knights, played by the same four singers of Act One's tempters, confront Becket, accusing him of disloyalty, and calling on him to surrender or face death at their hands. Becket refuses all attempts by his priests to protect him, either by locking the doors of the Cathedral or by fleeing; in so doing, Becket echoes the words of Pilate that "what has been written is written." He accepts the savage act of martyrdom with peace, and meets his death on December 29, 1170, vested for the liturgy, sprawled on the steps of the altar. 

So what does it all mean to us, and why should we care about Assassinio nella Cattedrale as anything other than a work of art? It has to do, I think, with a question we will have to ask ourselves, sooner or later: of what kind of stuff are we made? We may dare to hope that it doesn't come in as public a venue as it did for Becket, but in truth we don't know. And while we like to hope we'll know how we'll respond to such a moment of truth, as Joyce Carol Oates once wrote, "You won't know until it beckons. To you. So long as it temps others you can judge—can sneer—can express shock, disgust, outrage, and prim distain—the usual emotions of punitive people. But you won't know."

The Martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket,
by Michael D. O’Brien

It may be pessimistic to see in these days the twilight of America, if not the world, but then there are reasons to be pessimistic; we may be far closer to the times of Becket than we think. The late Francis Cardinal George, former Archbishop of Chicago, once said, "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square." While his incompetent succesor (no Becket he!) is more likely to wind up in prison due to corruption, Cardinal George's words should serve as a warning to us all.

The time is coming, I think, when we will find out what we're made of. It will beckon, as Oates says, and then we will find out. The battle is not merely fought among the high-ranking, the statesmen and prelates; its battlefields not confined to the ancient histories of centuries past. No, history is here and now, and each of us will be called upon to take up our own roles in this drama. And then we will find out, we will know.

Here is an superb performance of Assassinio nella Cattedrale from December 22, 2006, staged at the Basilica di San Nicola in Bari, Italy, with Piergiorgio Morandi conducting the Orchestra Sinfonica della Provincia di Bari. The grandeur and solemnity of the Basilica provides a unique but stunning location for the production (with the orchestra situated between the audience in the nave and the singers at the altar), compelling us to consider the story in an atmosphere that for once justifies the correct use of the word "awesome." 

Bass Ruggero Raimondi delivers a dignified, powerfully moving performance as Becket, a man walking at the same time with both truth and death. The New York Times once described Eliot's play as "an opera libretto waiting to be set to music," and Pizzetti, working from an Italian translation of Eliot's play, is faithful to both the story and the underlying meaning. Events are condensed, as they often must be in opera, but at all times Eliot's message comes through without distortion. The music is clearly modern but never lacking in melody, and it creates an atmosphere that will stay with the viewer long after the opera ends. Let's all hope that it remains an entertainment, a history lesson—and not a preview of things to come.

Whatever happened to common sense?

In the seventh chapter of Joshua, the defeat of Joshua's troops at Ai led to the discovery of Achan's looting, where he admits he stole 200 shekels of silver, 50 shekels of gold, and others, hiding them in his jacket.  When discovered, Joshua asked why he had done such.  The consequence of the loss in battle, and Achan's looting, was death by stoning.  That warning was given over 2,500 years ago, and we are seeing the same consequence again after one incident in Minneapolis.

In the Minneapolis incident, we have a gentleman who comes to a convenience store, purchasing with a fraudulent $20 bill various sundries.  That's the first violation here.  As we learned in the indictment reports, he complied with police reports at first, but when officials uncovered the fraudulent scheme and had him handcuffed, the trouble began.  He acted in a manner that he did not want to be arrested.  As was exposed, we have a case of a habitual offender, and he started to act in his old manner when he refused to enter the police cruiser as warranted.  He had deliberately resisted arrest.  Why he did so is the question we must ask.  Meanwhile, Lt. Bob Kroll of the Minneapolis police department had an e-mail to fellow police with this position in the union that manages police.  He called the riots a "terrorist movement," and specifically called out leaders for reducing the size of police departments, and taking police funds to support anti-police community activists.  Lt. Kroll's letter also noted the repeat offender status of Mr. Floyd.  The only reason I am referencing this is that we must understand what happened according to official reports.  One little nudge that grew the officer suspicious was what happened.  But the ensuing riots and the activism of such "BLM" types is more disturbing, and that is what we are discussing.

But before we go further, I am reminded of what happened a generation ago in my hometown.  Two Alabama prisoners escaped and stole vehicles, crossing two state lines into South Carolina.  After that, they kidnapped a man, driving him just a few miles north of my home, shooting him to death, then throwing his body on the side of the road while they abandon the car, stealing a second car, this time with blank cheques ready for their next bit of criminal activity.  They follow their way to the local mall, using the fraudulent cheques to purchase köln and other toiletries.  The clerk at Belk was very suspicious, calling police as happened in Minnesota recently for the bogus currency.  Initially, officers centered the action on the accomplice of the two, freeing the two fugitives.  Sgt. Thomas C. Harrison Jnr questioned Thomas Ivey, who was one of the fugitives.  As that happened, Mr. Ivey's gun fired, hit the ground, and bounced into the policeman.  After that, Mr. Ivey shot Mr. Harrison five more times to death.  In 2009, Thomas Ivey sent executed with lethal injection for his antics in killing a policeman.  We remember total unity were we wore black and white ribbons for him (there was also a shooting a few months back involving a teacher who was a close friend of mine;  thankfully, she recovered and now runs a homeschooling Web site, and her oldest graduated from Upstate last year).  Sadly, activists would not allow such unity of community as was the case back in the day, and the modern-day BLM crowd would probably claimed they wanted justice for Mr. Ivey, disregarding his criminal behaviour and blaming it on race (as I remember one international amnesty organisation pushed).

The anti-police mentality, especially by the social justice warriors, is too reminiscent of rapper NWA's "Foxtrot the Police," the centrepiece of the 2015 movie Straight Outta Compton, a hit song where police are called "white bread, chicken sierra, mike foxtrot".  This type of bashing the police and attacking them for the faux currency ruse attacking police sadly forgets what happens when people steal and want to steal.  We see these riots as post-modern relativism, self-centredness, and the idea certain groups are "empowered" to have special rights most people do not have, such as the right to make our laws, policies, and rules that most people are not entitled to have.  This is why the Roy Cooper-Donald Trump battle over the Republican National Convention at the Spectrum in Charlotte is crucial.  Mr. Cooper's accomplishments were to use the courts in a "pocket veto" by refusing to defend a marriage definition passed by a clear supermajority in the Tar Heel State as the state's Attorney General and overturning the amendment himself, then activists followed by posting newspaper headlines showing Mr. Cooper's stance on Jesse Helms' grave to celebrate eliminating the Moral Majority and letting the immoral minority rule, showing regular America has no rights, on the Left's chosen social justice warriors who base the world on race, sex, and behaviour have rights nobody else has.

These "social justice warriors" are pushing for the abolition of bail where habitual offenders are booked, then are released to do more dirty deeds.  They also want certain groups to be empowered with rights others are not entitled to have.  We see that in every hearing in the United States Senate over a judicial or cabinet-level (or sub-cabinet level)  nominee, where Senators such as Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and others have questioned judges for being Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, or the like because they would end the party of the far-left that has coddled criminals, rewarded sexual perversion, promoted baby murder, and the ilk have had in being superior to others in policy making.  How is it the perverted can adopt children and promote their child abuse on the children by denying them a father or other, and how is it we can elevate lewd behaviour to a protected class when Americans oppose it 4:1?  If you have a Biblical worldview, you are disqualified from office, according to the Left's social justice warriors, where only those who believe in their worldview are allowed.  This also goes along with a push by some extremist activists that I heard locally say they want to :tax the white farmers out of existence," then impose a new tax on businesses so bad that they ejected television media trying to cover the meeting where the new tax passed.  We did not have talk radio to fight back, which we now have.

Now we have these same social justice warriors working to push full Deconfederatisation, removing of Confederate history (including Fort Sumter and those who fought on the Gray side) and war history where Memorial Day would be replaced with the birthday of sexual perversion activist Harvey Milk, and following the ideal of 1984 where only the Party (left-wing activists) can dictate law, policy, and what is taught while nobody else is allowed a voice.

The looters that break into a Specialized bicycle store in Miami during this outbreak to steal $12,000 UCI Grand Tour or ITU-level bicycles, let alone those who break into any store to steal $1,000 televisions, clothes, and the incident just a few hundred metres from my friend Kimberly's restaurant where someone drove a stolen vehicle into a pawn shop that sells jewelry and guns to steal them all in the name of "social justice" are pushing relativism into a deeper state of mind.   The view of these Achans is that of moral relativism, and specialised justice where certain "oppressed" groups have rights that the majority are not entitled to anything.  These Aachans believe they have right to ransack a merchant's store and will not apologise, unlike Aachan.

The double standards are not just in stealing with these social justice warriors.  A very popular Asian descent ("sansei") motor racer nicknamed "Young Money," which is also used by a rapper, had his FIA competition licence suspended by ACCUS (selected national series among the member clubs require a driver carry an FIA competition licence) and fired by his team when, in an online incident with a friend, he dropped an N-bomb (nota bene:  World of Outlaws is not a member of ACCUS, and he has been winning recently on the Outlaws).  Meanwhile, rappers, R&B artists, and other such blast the same offensive word in their songs and on-air with MTV networks (MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, BET, et al), and they do nothing.  No wonder motorsport fans in the US have been angry at the double standard where a rapper uses the word and is praised, but a superstar driver uses the same word and has a virtual prison sentence.  What does it say when these groups have rights to write our laws, policies, education regulations to push "diversity and inclusion" (meaning to replace American history and Constitution with feelings of these activists) that have led to 58% of college graduates into saying there is a legitimate reason to legalise mob mentality with riots that block streets where social justice warriors can overrule everyone else.

And this type of mentality is now hurting our boys.  While city-owned ball fields are staying closed because of the pandemic, you can see thousands of girls doing dance classes outside and they are able to participate in activities, while boys with no rights to play ball because their fields are closed are left to the sidelines.  Our county just spend millions in tax hikes to build six new ball fields behind Walmart and Prep -- and they are configured for girls fastpitch.  While girls cannot do football or fastpitch, the girls doing dance are happily able to participate in summer activities, while boys are left behind with no activities available -- the perfect storm for social justice warriors that are working to demand the women's national football team be paid more than the men, without regards for the fact men's players play in Europe in 34-38 game seasons in the world's most prestigious leagues, while women play on streaming services and very few games on television.  Some area are dictating new schools can only offer girls' sport, and the future is to use social justice warriors to eliminate boys events where Friday Night Lights is futbol for girls and boys are sent to nothing, just as envisioned by Christina Hoff Sommers' The War Against Boys, where she notes girls have a football team as role models and boys only have criminals.

What is next in this social justice?  Are we going to see school chorus, now prohibited from singing Bach, Händel, and Haydn, because of religious overtones, singing the latest Beyoncé Knowles, Melissa Jefferson, or Janelle Monae hit song from the charts?  What type of lesson does that teach except it follows the "diversity and inclusion" agenda of the Left, while we ignore reading Shakespeare and singing Mozart.

We have to beware.  Social justice warriors are erasing common sense.  There are consequences for violating the law.  The consequences are even worse for resisting arrest, especially when you're gloating over your heinous crime.

Wish I'd written that: How religion dies with a whimper

T

here was no fanaticism or intolerance in [Pastor] Lund. Like a long line of Lutheran ministers I had known before him, he was well-meaning if somewhat narrow in his views and comfortable in his faith without being smug. At the same time, it had always impressed me that in the hands of men like Lund, the strange, bloody, and wonderous Christian story inevitably turned rather drab.”

Siri Hustvedt, The Sorrows of an American

Wish I'd written that: reflections on Earth Day

The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate. This gives to the typically Christian pleasure in this earth a strange touch of lightness that is almost frivolity. Nature was a solemn mother to the worshipers of Isis and Cybele. Nature was a solemn mother to Wordsworth or to Emerson. But Nature is not solemn to Francis of Assisi or to George Herbert. To St. Francis, Nature is a sister, and even a younger sister: a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as loved.”

- G.K. Chesterton

Good Friday with Bishop Sheen, 1956

I often make the point on these pages of how much things have changed over the years, not only in television but culture in general.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen's Life Is Worth Living ran on DuMont, ABC and in syndication from the early 1950s through the late 1960s.  Blessed with a sharp mind, a whimsical sense of humor and a gift of gab, Bishop Sheen brought his ecumenical message to millions of viewers each week; as Brooks and Marsh put it in their Complete Guide to Prime Time Programming, the word "homily" would be strong for the friendly, accessible talks from the good Bishop.

A half-hour of religious programming in prime time on a national broadcast network would be unthinkable today - that pretty much goes without saying.  And while that is one measure of the change in television between then and now, it's actually another point that I'm thinking of: the idea of a "talking head" as entertainment programming.

There were no fancy graphics, no special effects, on Life is Worth Living; the closest thing being the invisible "angel" (actually a stagehand) responsible for erasing the blackboard Sheen used to illustrate his points.  People watched and enjoyed that, week after week.  As someone wrote not long ago about the Dick Cavett shows, it hearkens back to a day when conversation was actually considered entertainment - and by that I mean actual, you know, talking, rather than shouting, interrupting, declaiming, insulting, offending, and what have you. Of all the changes we've seen in television over the years, I think this is one of the most underrated and underappreciated.

What we have here is either from Good Friday, 1956; It was sponsored (as I recall from the version I have) by Progresso, and presented without commercial interruption.

Thoughts as we mourn those lost to baby murder

Over sixty million have died at the "convenience" called "abortion".  Yet elites forced down a Congress where all finances are lead by the same activists that want to force us to fund killing children.  It made me ponder the attendance in our own state at the Women's Marches when it seemed they outdrew our March for Life every year in all three years.  What gives?  (Of course, I have one of the most liberal legislators pushing for baby murder representing me.)  In fact, this year, our politicians were not at our rally as they were at a celebration that has cost me $10,000, my car, my college ring, my dignity, and even forcing me to wear symbols of the enemy, even signing my checks in enemy colours.

Hirono and The Bay Area Giant.  Our annual March for Life has the Knights of Columbus helping us lead the event, as I've noticed for all 22 years I've been associated with the movement.  But two Senators representing elite enclaves (Honolulu and San Francisco) decided to attack President Trump's nominees for judicial positions over being members of the Knights.  And yet there's also a "Personhood" legislator in our state that denounced the March for Life because the majority of marchers for being Catholic.  They know that they could not have won Roe, Doe, Windsor, Obergefell, Lawrence, or other major leftist victories without their judges.  They fear their arrogance is overturned by common sense of the people.

25 Years of Holly.  Former journalist Holly Gatling has led our state's National Right to Life Committee chapter for the past 25 years.  This year, in fact, the National Right to Life Convention is being held near the Charleston airport in celebration of her 25 years.  Attorney General Alan Wilson held a mock trial to celebrate her 25 years at our annual banquet.

The New York City-State.  Sen. Dirksen's warning of the city-state holds true.  New York City is its own city-state (actually three states in the Senate) but they singlehandedly passed a law that makes baby murder legal through all nine months, decriminalises baby murder, and more.  Gov. Cuomo then lit up the Freedom Tower in pink to celebrate -- but why are we celebrating this?  I've seen this month every ugly celebration being done on every New York building with the celebration that cost me everything above.  The Founding Fathers would be angry at seeing one city dominance.  One NFL  player in anger responded, "It is a sad and evil day when the murder of our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming exuberance."

Covington.  The attacks on parochial school are sad but a byproduct of today's humanist education.  In some ways I wish my parents never pulled me out of The City based on stereotypes.  I learned the hard way parochial school was the best because everyone was respected based on the standards of God's Word, not as the old Don Koch and Mark Harris song said, "the newest rage is to reason it out" and "man is a god and God is no longer alive".  Those that attack the Catholic school students have no respect of those who are in parochial education.  Of course, considering Stephani Germanotta's attack on Vice-President Pence as she has worked to advance propaganda, what do you expect from those that attack Biblical worldviews?  Now we hear one of the parties that tried to attack the Catholics tried to crash a mass.

Having been the victim of too many aggressors who lied about me and wanted me dead in classic Saul Alinsky style, I sympathise with the students.  National Review has an article about the lying "MSM" attacking.
 
You Attack Them Because Many are Catholics?  Notorious Libertarian Party candidate Steve Lefemine, who has pushed for a Personhood Bill in our state legislature, has blatantly attacked the local March for Life because Catholics are involved, even though Protestants are just as involved in the rally as Catholics.  This is a petty shame because he has fallen to a trap reminiscent of the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland wars.

Please DO NOT Push Heresy!  A college "praise team" sang at our March for Life, and it was set to karaoke.  As the event ended and we walked back to our cars, that group of vocalists sang some doctrinal malpractice that was heavily offensive -- but sadly, too many churches have failed to see the discerning ear.  The man-centred worldview of the song in question from an Australian Pentecostal NAR-affiliated denomination is troubling.  Maybe I've gone over the top but when you've sung Händel's "Israel in Egypt" and find more in sacred classics of 300 years ago while seeing nothing from modern pop music, and you've paid musicians at recitals in a karaoke world, it is jarring.  But to sing a tunes of a denomination that refuses to answer Biblical truths and ministers that refuse to speak Biblical truth, as Hillsong leaders refuse to condemn sexual perversion or baby murder is a warning to all of us that Albert Mohler stated Beethoven's songs are not suitable for worship because of his pantheism.   Likewise, the affirmation and not calling sin what is sin by this denomination whose songs that college group sang is a serious disturbance.

WORKS CITED
Mark R. Harris and Donald A. Koch, "The Basics of Life," Universal Music Publishing Group, 1992.

Cameron Buettel and Jeremiah Johnson, "Hillsong & Worship," Grace to You, November 28, 2016. 

The View, October 30, 2017.  American Broadcasting Company. 

Flashback Friday: The fatherless church

From time to time I’ve had occasion to talk with friends about what life was like in our families while growing up. I myself grew up without a father, my parents having gone their separate ways prior to my birth, but that is not quite the same thing as having a father who shirked his responsibility, which is the case with several of my friends.

The culprits were the usual ones, booze being at the top of the list. And so while the father was around, his presence was almost spectral; there but not there. Depending on the strength of the mother, the family was held together with varying degrees of success, but what remained the same in all cases was that a spectral father left a void every bit as gaping as having no father at all. The children managed, for the most part, adapting to their circumstances (as children often will), and with few exceptions they turned out to be stellar adults, though they also bore the wounds of childhood. But one thing that they almost all agreed on was that something was lacking, that even though they managed without an active dad, there were some gaps that could not be filled, some absences for which there was no compensation. And almost all of them were filled with regret, to one extent or another, at the things they missed, the memories that never were, the guidance that should have been but wasn’t. Life may have turned out exceedingly well for them, but it was still incomplete.  In the drama that was their lives, there was a role that had been cast, but had not been filled. There was something missing.

Which brings me to the state of the Catholic Church today.

We’ve just passed the first anniversary of the election of the current pope, and it’s a fair assessment that he’s thrilled some, angered others, and confused many. Depending on who one talks to, he’s either Machiavellian in his cleverness, Christ-like in his gentleness, or Ted Baxter-ish in his cluelessness. Even now I’m not sure which of the three he is, though I haven’t ruled out the possibility of them all being valid.

As I’ve written before, I would not consider myself to be a “fan” of this pope. I’ve ceased reading much about him, for the choices often seem to be either fawning obsequiousness or slanderous contempt; either one would be enough to make my blood pressure rise. In the event, I try to avoid much about him whenever possible, lest I expose some latent, simmering rage.  I still avert my eyes whenever his picture scrolls into view - again, an effort to avoid a proximate cause of sin. (Like many, I found something disturbing about his initial appearance on the balcony, a feeling which remains with me still.) As you may have noticed, it’s still an effort for me to even use his name – an effort I generally don’t try to mount. It would be very wrong to think that I hate him; that's too personal a feeling for me to have toward him.  Indifference, however, can be just as damning.

A commenter at another blog mentioned that after a year he still mourned the end of Benedict’s pontificate.  “Mourned” seems a strong word to me, not the kind of word I generally use, but also it doesn’t quite summarize my attitude.  It’s too gentle, too sentimental.  Were I to select a word of my own, it would perhaps be “bitter.”*

*Putting me in mind of one of my favorite poems, Stephen Crane’s “In the Desert”:

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.

I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter—bitter,” he answered;
"But I like it
“Because it is bitter,
“And because it is my heart.”

***

The origin of bitterness, if such exists, is because in converting to the Catholic faith it sometimes seems as if, in Whittaker Chambers’ words, I’ve joined the losing side. What makes this more frustrating is that this side – the Church – has all the correct answers. What it lacks is someone to articulate them.

Someone has pointed out that prior to last year’s Conclave, it would have been inconceivable to suggest that it “didn’t matter” who the pope was. Yet for many Catholics, it seems that this is exactly what is called for today. And when the best way to avoid anger is to ignore the pope and what he says, that’s not a good thing. It’s true that the faith of the Church is constant and unchanging – the truth, after all, is the truth – and in that sense it’s also true that when the tracks run straight and true, it isn’t that important who the engineer is. But the pope also has a role with regard to the faithful – to care for their souls, to instruct them, to correct them when necessary, to lead them.  Just as the father is head of the family, the pope is head of the Church’s family. And what we have today is a fatherless Church.

It operates; Mass is said, confessions are heard, souls are saved, the Eucharist is received. The Catechism spells out exactly what the Church believes, and why.  It functions, as the fatherless households of my friends functioned.  But there is something missing.

Think of the paternal figure teaching a young boy how to be a man. There is the wise comforter wiping tears from a daughter's eyes. There is the husband who is the rock of the family, who helps out when help is requested - and, even as important, when it isn't. This is what the father provides a family, what my friends were unable to experience.

Think of the tireless advocate for the unborn who hears from her pontiff that she may be "obsessed" with single issues. Think of the defender of the Church's teachings who feels dismissed with not even a how-do-you-do to show for it, while his pontiff lavishes attention on those who don't even seek it. Think of the believer of tradition, the unbroken line of some two thousand years that unites the Church militant to the Church triumphant, only to see those beliefs under attack, while the pontiff scarcely raises his voice. Abortion. Euthanasia. Homosexual marriage. The authority of the Magisterium.  Precisely the kinds of things that a father stands up for within his own family.

Crickets.

***

I'm reminded of another poem*, this one by T.S. Eliot, an Anglican who likely would have converted to Catholicism had he lived to see the meaninglessness into which his church has descended, a meaninglessness of doctrine, a lack of teaching, a foundation that looks like nothing more sound than quicksand.

*I don't mean to turn this into Poetry Corner, by the way.

According to the always-reliable Wikipedia, "The Hollow Men" deals with post-World War I Europe under the Treaty of Versailles, the difficulty of hope and religious conversion, and possibly his own failed marriage.

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass<
In our dry cellar

The Bishop of Rome assures us that he is a loyal "son of the Church." A son, of course, suggests a father, and I've no doubt that the pope draws great strength and comfort from his Heavenly Father; but he must also know the importance of an earthly father. After all, Christ's earthly father, St. Joseph, is the protector of the Church.

It is time for the Holy Father to be an earthly father to that Church. Let's not forget how "The Hollow Man" closes, with one of the most famous stanzas in literature, lines that even those who don't read poetry are likely familiar with:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Today we are The Fatherless Church, and though we continue to function it is often without a hand on the tiller, and even if we keep on course we are acutely aware of what we are missing. We are The Fatherless Church, and we fear that we're being led by Hollow Men, headpieces filled with straw. We wonder when the father will start to act like a father, to fill the gap that only he is capable of filling - indeed, which he has been charged with filling.

Will it be too late? Or will it all end, not with the banging of the doors of nearly empty churches, but with whimpering from their nearly empty pews?


Originally published March 14, 2014

"The Easter Gift"

From April 1, 1956, General Electric Theater presents "The Easter Gift," the story of a family coming together at Easter, starring Macdonald Carey. Pretty common for G.E. to show a program like this for a religious holiday.


This year, ABC's annual showing of The Ten Commandments is Saturday night rather than Sunday; I've always been curious as to why an Old Testament story is shown at Easter, but we'll let it go for now. NBC's showing "Jesus Christ Superstar" live this Sunday evening, and I have an opinion on that, but not having seen the musical in any format, it's probably a good idea that I don't share it. TCM has their traditional movie marathon over the week, including Ben-Hur, King of Kings, and Easter Parade. At any rate, at least television is doing something to acknowledge the day    TV  

Billy Graham, R.I.P.

I s it possible to know someone not by who they are, but by who they aren't? Billy Graham wasn't the faith-healing huckster Oral Roberts, who lived lavishly and once told people God was holding him hostage to get them to contribute more money. He wasn't the Elmer Gantry-life Jimmy Swaggart, who married a 15-year-old and dallied with hookers; he made it a point to never be in a room alone with a woman with the door closed. He wasn't Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker; he never served time in federal prison, nor was he associated with industrial-strength cosmetics. He wasn't Joel Osteen, preaching the prosperity gospel in a megachurch that used to be a professional basketball arena; in fact, he never pretended to be a pastor at all. He was a preacher, who always sought advice from his own pastor. He didn't run for president like Pat Robertson; instead, he counseled them. He didn't have his own television network, he didn't live in a mansion, he never was implicated in personal scandal. That was who Billy Graham wasn't.

Who Billy Graham was was a man who appeared 60 times on Gallup's list of the world's most admired men, who integrated his own crusades in 1953, who preached with Martin Luther King Jr. and once bailed him out of jail, who sold out Madison Square Garden in New York for 16 consecutive weeks 1957, who understood the power of radio and television and used it successfully in a way few ever have. (His radio program, Hour of Power, continued for 60 years.) As a dynamic speaker who could mesmerize television audiences as well as those viewing him in person, he was rivaled - perhaps - only by another evangelist, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.

Let's talk a bit more about Billy Graham and television. Those sold-out crusades in New York City in 1957 were telecast on ABC, Saturday nights from 8:00-9:00 p.m. Today, it would be unthinkable to see such programming on a national broadcast network, but it was the first of four times Graham would appear regularly with his crusades on ABC over a two-year span. Later, when the networks banished such programs from their their regular lineups, Graham would appear on syndicated broadcasts carried by massive numbers of network affiliates; those stations, who would gladly preempt network programming in order to gain advertising revenue, carried Graham's crusades commercial-free. Granted, the time was bought by Graham's organization so it wasn't as if the stations were being totally altruistic, but neither were they ignoring that which appealed to their viewership.

I don't know how many people came to Billy Graham through television, who found their way to a relationship with Christ that changed their lives; I think you could plausibly argue that he had a greater direct impact on his viewers than any other star of any other television program that has ever been shown. Although he didn't preach my particular brand of Christianity, I would sit mesmerized listening to the man speak, and seldom heard anything I could disagree with. Watching the young Graham preaching from the Garden, there is a power, a magnetism, a fire, to his words that is almost astounding - if you've only heard Graham in his later years, even in the '70s when he'd become somewhat less the revivalist preacher, you owe it to yourself to look up one of his sermons online; his own website has many of them, and be reminded of the power of speech.

For many years, Graham was associated with the Twin Cities, his headquarters being in Minneapolis, and he appeared here with his crusades several times, but I saw him in person only once, in the '90s when he was older and more frail. So unassuming was he that when he took to the podium to speak, not everyone realized it at once. But when he did speak, it was as if time had stood still, perhaps even wound its way back a decade or two. Standing there preaching about Christ and salvation, his face was animated, his voice strong and clear, and it was obvious that during a half a century of preaching, the externals may have changed - the celebrities who appeared with him, the hairstyles, the clothing - but the message never changed.

After his death last week, The Wall Street Journal asked rhetorically whether or not there would ever be another Billy Graham. The answer, of course, is no; there is never a second version of a one-of-a-kind. The question, I think, is whether or not this medium, present as it is in today's culture, will ever see anyone like him again. Forget the message, think only of the man and the way he penetrated the camera lens and met the viewer wherever he or she happened to be, physically or emotionally. The answer to that, without doubt, is also no.

Cross-posted to It's About TV!

St. Stephen, the First Martyr

THE STONING OF ST. STEPHEN BY REMBRANDT

This second day of Christmas is called St. Stephen Day, and whom do we celebrate on this day?  He was the first martyr of Christianity, as seen in Acts 6-7.  (Because of copyright restrictions, we are posting only a Public Domain version of the Bible.  There are other versions out there, but we cannot post them without hitting copyright infringement issues.)

Acts 6

1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.

12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,

13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

Chapter 7

1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?

2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.

4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.

5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.

7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.

8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

9 And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him,

10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

11 Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance.

12 But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first.

13 And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.

14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.

15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,

16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.

17 But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt,

18 Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.

19 The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.

20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father's house three months:

21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.

22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.

23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.

24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian:

25 For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.

26 And the next day he shewed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?

27 But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?

28 Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday?

29 Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons.

30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.

31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,

32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.

33 Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.

34 I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.

35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

36 He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.

37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

47 But Solomon built him an house.

48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

"Joy to the World" and the Second Coming

We understand Advent comes before Christmas.  Albert Mohler, a sage of American conservatism as well as Protestant faith, recently spoke at the seminary where he leads at their graduation.  In his commencement speech, he discussed the history of the 298-year old "Joy to the World," as written by Isaac Watts.

At Advent, we celebrate the anticipation that he comes, and many churches today, including the one headed by the brother of our state National Right to Life Chapter president, forgets the Advent tunes and are singing the latest in Universal's Christmas tunes, we rarely hear any Advent tunes.  (I visited Sunday because of a little incident the previous week.)  We celebrate his birth during the twelve days from December 25 to January 5 (when our 2018 State March for Life dinner happens this year), but in Dr. Mohler's speech to graduates, he notes Mr. Watts developed the English hymnody of the era drawn from the book of Psalms, and this hymn in question is from Psalm 98 when Christ will come to rule and judge. His primary commentary of the song relates to the third verse and the Second Coming of Christ referenced in Paul's letters to Corinth, Philippi (now Kavala, Greece), and Thessaloniki, his letters to Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews, in addition to epistles by Peter, John, Jude.  Dr. Mohler makes a reference in the song to Genesis 3, where Eve commits the first sin known to man, causing serious harm that we still have to this day, and yet some churches have performed blasphemous work violating this.

Take a look at this commencement speech where a well-loved Christmas song is found to be not just Christmas, but too, as we've learned in Händel's Messiah written 43 years later, is regarding the time that is to be.  This hymn and the third motet of Messiah go well together.  However, too many have ignored the simplicity of such.

It's not just a Catholic problem

Father Dwight Longenecker's column on "America's Two Catholic Churches," as we've noted with the current problems with Pope Francis, seems to draw a line that I've seen is not just a problem in the Catholic Church.  In the column, he notes a group he calls the "liberal Catholic elites" that run their own publishing arms and institutions of higher learning, pushing the Left's social justice with illegal aliens and sexual perversions.  They focus on advancing their career in academia, and fellow leaders of such have the same background.  He specifically calls out the "politically correct, essentially humanistic and rationalistic agenda using the usual mass media channels where they have friends and allies."  He also notes the Deism of such and the audience that has pushed leaving tehir faith, attacking demographics as the reason for their decline.  What they are not seeing is the same principles as what we have seen in numerous other denominations.

Liberal Protestantism has driven churches out of schools once known for affiliation with churches, such as (Richard) Furman University, where Richard Furman's push for the Baptist faith has given way to a humanist school that beat the public universities to sexual perversion acceptance, and the church that once sponsored it is now falling into the same line as the Catholic churches of elites that Father Longenecker is referencing.  We are seeing that in Belmont in Nashville also, as a post-Obergefell attitude demands perversion has rights and nobody else can run the nation except these elites and their sympathisers.  Note the ties to liberal Protestantism with Wake Forest University (where Sean Hannity's son attends, he is on a partial tennis scholarship) in Winston-Salem and Mercer University in Macon (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship material is printed at Mercer), the University of the South in Sewanee (Episcopal Church), Presbyterian College in Clinton (PCUSA), Baylor University in Waco (CBF), and other such universities -- but very few people identify the correlation between these places and the similarities they have to the liberal elite churches that Father Longenecker referenced.

The Anglican churches in our area belong to a Diocese that left The Episcopal Church, which consists of the liberal elites and social justice, in 2012 and joined African primates that run the Anglican Church in North America following a June meeting.  Some churches that may be part of conservative groups that follow the Bible are wanting to defect to the dark side, as we've seen through the music that is rampantly heretic and ambiguous, as they are using the music of the latest pop stars in churches known for content of the song, a lack of understanding church doctrine, and style over substance, reminiscent of a certain Presidential Administration that one well known radio host often referenced has the same problem.  When I read that column, I saw Antonin Scalia's Obergefell commentary on how the Catholics and Jews had exclusive authority over the court (there is one Episcopal judge, but still lacking the Conservative Protestants or Evangelicals, which Justice Scalia specifically stated created the bad decisions), since it seems the liberal majority consists of the same elite institutions.

In a similar vain to what Americans know after the elections, the elite enclaves lack an understanding of the rest of nation Catholics that support ETWN, the Right to Life, and other conservative groups.  The elites misunderstand and intentionally advance what the original article states are left-wing leadership in line with prosperity teachers.

So this is not a Catholic problem, I see it with many faiths where there is a split between conservative and liberal denominational leaders.  Are churches not seeing the problem with Big Entertainment taking control of church music and advancing prosperity teachers?

A repeat of 500 years ago? Francis 2017 and Leo X 1517

Our blog primarily started in Catholicism, and although we have many Protestants and Catholics that both read this blog for its numerous other issues, we have to reflect on the corruption of the Catholic Church under Pope Francis and our articles we've posted regarding his corruption of the Church itself.

Damon Linker noted the current Pope wants to liberalise church doctrine on the sanctity of marriage and the family, lacking support and institutional power, so he attempts to sow seeds of change by undermining doctrinal enforcement.  The way the Pope is attempting to do so is reminiscent of the 19th century Anglicans in the United States, as Anglican Church in North America minister Frank Larisey has referenced when liberal professors were teaching in Episcopal Church seminaries.  What Rev. Larisey noted could be a repeat of what we'll see in Catholic schools to bring such liberal seminaries, hiring more liberal professors, and develop the faith and also the mind of future clergy.

The Catholic Church's splintering now could be a repeat of the exact circumstances that led to a Theology professor at the University of Wittenberg to release a statement which its quincentennial is being observed October 31, after a series of incidents with Pope Leo X, including sales of indulgences to pay for the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.   You could pay money for forgiveness of sin, and that infuriated Mr. Luther, who noted people were no longer worried about sin since they could pay for forgiveness instead as part of this fund-raising scheme.  That, of course, led to a major schism in the Catholic Church 500 years ago.  Could the actions of the Pope create a repeat of this legendary document at Wittenberg's All Saints Church sent to Archbishop Albert of Brandenburg?

And what is the document that angered Catholics 500 years ago, but the hatred has somewhat softened in recent years?  Furthermore, Luther's anger at Leo X could be similar now to many Catholics' anger with Francis.  Let's observe this all important document from a half millennium ago.

I don't think "pride" means what you think it means

You've probably heard it said before that "pride goeth before a fall." Pride is a tricky thing; it's one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and yet one hears and uses it constantly. We're proud of our children, our nation, our accomplishments. Most of all, we're proud of ourselves.

There's a pride festival going on this weekend in the city in which I live, and quite frankly, I'm not really sure what there is to be proud about. We all know what it is that one is supposed to be "proud" about, so I'm sure I don't need to provide any further explanation there. There are many things about it that puzzle me, though. For example, if it is true that homosexuality is genetic, as many seem to believe, then what is there to be "proud" about? It's not as if you've done anything yourself; you might as well hold a festival to celebrate your pride in being tall, or having five fingers, or being born with blond hair. You can't do anything about being tall - it's all in the genes - and unless you're willing to do some messy work with a table saw, you're stuck with five fingers as well. And while it's true that you can change the color of your hair, you can't change what its natural color is.

Ah, there's a point. If you can change your hair color, then it doesn't matter that you were born with blond hair; it all becomes a matter of personal choice. You can choose to identify as a redhead or brunette, to use the vernacular of the day. You can be whatever you want to be - it's a simple case of free choice. But if that's the situation, then it goes without saying that you can also be taught not to make that choice, and once you go down that road you're sure to get caught up in more ideological brawling, as is the case in California. And if homosexuality is something that is freely decided, then it opens one up to the unwelcome possibility of having to suffer the moral consequences for one's actions. I suppose you can have it both ways - that does seem to tie in to our desire to have freedom without having to pay the piper.

At any rate, pride. C.S. Lewis called pride "the anti-God," Jonathan Edwards linked pride to the Fall in the Garden of Eden. The ancient Greeks called it "hubris," and rated it as one of, if not the greatest, crimes. Alexander Pope once wrote that "What the weak head with strongest bias rules, Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools." As you might have gathered from the syllogism above, this whole "pride' thing seems to me to rest on emotions rather than logic, which is what makes it so hard to discuss, let alone debate. Dante saw pride as "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor," which certainly seems to describe the reaction that these proud citizens have to anyone who disagrees with them, so maybe the phrase fits after all.

Regardless of how one feels about the subject, it seems to me as if pride is entirely the wrong attitude to have. If pride is as bad as the philosophers and the theologians say, then we ought to avoid it at all costs. Pride invariably leads to boasting, and this continued hammering away about being proud of the homosexual lifestyle; an old Jewish proverb says that "pride is the mask of one's own faults." After all, nothing undercuts a proud crusade more quickly than self-doubt. (Although self-doubt can lead to self-reflection, which can turn you toward the truth - and if that isn't the direction you want to go in, you're sure not going to engage in that.) It's all easier said than done; Benjamin Franklin wrote that "even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome [pride], I should probably be proud of my humility."*

*Humility being one of the Seven Virtues, along with Chastity.

Even if one agreed with the aims of the pride movement, the use of the word "pride" (which has now been corrupted in the same sense as the word "gay") would seem to be the wrong way of going about it, and I've gotten sick to death of seeing it spring up around the city over the last couple of weeks. One can say that in truth there is nothing in which one should take pride, for fear that such pride will wind up reflecting back on you (directly or indirectly) rather than the focus of your attention. The Book of Sirach speaks of honor rather than pride, and contemplates who is worthy of honor, so that would seem a more appropriate feeling than pride. (Of course, in this case, is the homosexual lifestyle really honorable?) The author of Sirach goes on to say that "The beginning of pride is sin. Whoever perseveres in sinning opens the floodgates to everything that is evil." One might note, in this case, that the end result of pride is also sin.

Lust is another of the Seven Deadly Sins, and this would seem to go rather well with the type of pride we're talking about at the moment. Again, just a personal observation, but it's bad enough to be mixed up with one Deadly Sin; to be involved with two seems to be a bit too much tempting fate. After all, things are bad enough as is; do we really need to compound it by celebrating one sin with another?

They call that a "worship experience"?

Seen inside a church bulletin:

"The worship experience will be led by (various rock bands and singers' names have been removed)."

Seriously, churches call a rock concert a "worship experience". I cannot see how this is a "worship experience" after noticing this video with music louder than a fighter jet taking off at the Air Reserve Base just a few miles down up US 178 from our home. Listen to the above and ponder: is this a worship experience or is it just another rock concert?  This has all the marks of the latter.

I cannot see any "worship experience" from people who stand up to loud rock music for three hours. Compare that to singing sacred music of a didactic nature, primarily from an organ or piano.

Bach's Christmas Oratorio: Day 12 - Adoration of the Wise Men

Epiphany is traditionally observed on January 6. However, since 1969 in Catholic and 1976 in Protestant denominations, the day is celebrated either on January 6 or on the Sunday that falls between January 2 and 8. Similarly, around the same time, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act was also adopted in the United States for movable holidays (Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Columbus Day). Such is why the Boston Marathon is no longer held on April 19 and the Indianapolis 500 is no longer on May 30, as they were prior to the rule change.

Bach's Christmas Oratorio, Day 10: The Journey of the Wise Men

Bach's Christmas Oratorio: Day 8 - The Circumcision and Naming of Jesus (Luke 2:21)

Bach's Christmas Oratorio: Day 3 - The Adoration of the shepherds

Bach's Christmas Oratorio: Day 2 - The Annunciation to the shepherds