Evangelization is a hot topic. Should we evangelize? The biggest argument in favor is that Jesus sent out his apostle two by two to preach the Gospel.

Jesus summoned the Twelve and began to send them out two by two (Mk. 6:7).

Importance of Evangelization

Jesus sends his apostles out to evangelize, so it must be important in some way. What do we need to evangelize? Over the course of the centuries, the Church has grown and developed a certain bureaucracy. There are certainly some benefits to this. There are so many needs to which the Church responds daily. It would be a shame that our dedication to service and hospitality could rob from us a missionary drive. This missionary drive comes from a place of joy.

The joy of the gospel fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus. Those who accept his offer of salvation are set free from sin, sorrow, inner emptiness and loneliness. With Christ joy is constantly born anew (Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 1).

We can fall into three traps when we desire to evangelize. It is too easy to miss the point by preaching something that is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We can misunderstand the problems of the people to whom we are preaching, thus making our message irrelevant. Finally, we can forget the value of evangelical poverty as it places our trust wholly in God.

Missing the Point

When the disciples go forth, they leave with a mission to bring the Gospel. Why is it necessary to preach the Gospel? Should we not rather be living tolerance? Is this not the supreme Gospel value? No, it is not. Tolerance is not a Gospel value. It is an invention of our modern culture. We are called to live love, justice, fortitude, and so on but not tolerance. For example, we can never tolerate evil.

If we are going to meet those who are suffering and preach them the Good News of the Gospel, we must be convinced that we are really going to help them. We must be filled with joy and recognize that our joy can change the lives of those around us who are sad.

Forcing the Message

The difficulty I find is that so many people seem satisfied with an unchristian lifestyle. They are far from God and it does not seem to affect them in the least. These are the people whom it is most difficult to help. For 9 years of my life as a Legionary, I have worked with adolescents. One of the phrases that we reflected on was: “don’t give bread to someone who is not hungry.” Too often, it feels that our Church programs are an effort to give bread to people who are already satisfied with what they have.

To evangelize effectively, we have to remember the core message of the Gospel and understand our audience. Most of us are tempted to do one but forget about the other.

Trusting Totally in God

Today’s Gospel also invites us to examine how much we need to preach the Gospel. We can use material things for spiritual benefits. We can speak about rich temporal means and humble temporal means. Rich temporal means are things like committees, buildings, church architecture and decoration. They tempt us to believe in ourselves as the source of evangelization. The second type of means is humble means.

They are marked with the stigma of the Cross and express one of the most profound truths in the Gospel: “Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit” (Jn 12:24). In humble means, a true paradox of the dynamism of faith can be observed: the poorer they are – that is, the more destitute, the more insignificant in themselves, and the less visible – the more efficacious they are. As opposed to rich means, these humble means are not dependent on tangible success, and they do not have any internal need for temporal success. (Tadeusz Dajczer, The Gift of Faith, p. 126).

We have to remember to go back to what is simple and effective in preaching the Gospel. Pastoral programs should not get in the way of the fundamental task of letting others know the Good News that Jesus Christ has come to save them from their sins. We should learn to use humble means, since these are what began the great cultural revolution that was the Christianization of the Western world.

Subscribe to the newsletter to never miss an article.

One of the disturbing new trends on the diverse religious landscape of Brazil is Pentecostal intolerance and even persecution of its religious rivals. Over the past five decades Pentecostalism has mushroomed in the South American giant to the point that Brazil is now not only home to the largest Catholic population on the planet but also the most numerous Pentecostal one. Before the Pentecostal boom, it was the monopolistic Catholic Church that persecuted both Protestants and followers of Umbanda and Candomble, the two main Afro-Brazilian religions. 

On the vast sugar plantations of the Brazilian Northeast, enslaved Africans were forced to camouflage their devotion to the Orixas, or deities of Candomble, by associating them with Catholic saints. For example, Ogum, the warrior god, was syncretized with English patron, Saint George. Similarly, Pentecostals in the first decades of the 20th century were often forced to hold their river baptisms in remote areas under the cover of darkness lest Catholic mobs, incited by parish priests, pelt them with stones while screaming profanities at them for abandoning the “one true faith.”

But long gone are the days when Catholicism was the primary persecutor of religious rivals. Starting in the 1980s with the dramatic growth of Neo-Pentecostal denominations, most importantly the controversial Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) led by billionaire bishop, Edir Macedo, zealous young Pentecostals began to persecute followers of Umbanda and Candomble, raiding their terreiros (places of worship), desecrating altars and sometimes even physically assaulting the mothers and fathers of the saints, as the ritual leaders are known. 

During the 1980s and 90s Umbanda and Candomble were the main victims of Pentecostal persecution, but there were occasional assaults on Catholicism, such as the infamous “chute na santa” (kicking the saint) incident in which UCKG bishop, Sergio von Helde, drop-kicked and punched a statue of Brazilian patroness, the Virgin of Aparecida on live TV!

The latest act of Pentecostal persecution has targeted both Catholics and practitioners of Umbanda and Candomble in Rio de Janeiro. Pentecostal drug lord Álvaro Malaquias Santa Rosa, aka Peixão (Big Fish), ordered the closure last weekend of Catholic churches and the worship centers of the Afro-Brazilian religions of Umbanda and Candomble in Complexo de Israel, a district of Rio de Janeiro composed of five favelas with under his control.

Catholic churches in the Brás de Pina and Parada de Lucas favelas, in the north of the city, were prohibited from holding masses and church activities, last Saturday by order of Peixão. According to complaints from residents, armed gangsters descended on the parish churches and forced them to close.Despite the reports and confirmation that the churches are shuttered, the state government of Rio de Janeiro denied the information and stated that the Military Police “guarantee the safety of the faithful.”

In statements on social media at least three churches in the region reported the temporary suspension of services: the Parish of Nossa Senhora da Conceição and São Justino, in Parada de Lucas; the Santa Edwiges Parish and the Santa Cecília Parish, both in Brás de Pina. The reason for the suspension was not disclosed.

“Jesus, Mary, Joseph, beloved brothers, an important announcement: Parish activities (masses, meetings, secretariat, etc.) are suspended until further notice. We ask for the collaboration and understanding of all the faithful, and we will soon update you on the resumption of activities,” stated the Parada de Lucas church.

In Santa Edwiges, the festival of Saint John, which was scheduled for this weekend, had to be postponed. The parish reported the cancellation but deleted the publication hours later. “We inform you that our festival is suspended this weekend. We will not have Holy Mass and activities in our parish either. Church closed. We will return soon with more information,” explained the statement. A resident of the region, who asked not to be identified, said that, despite the normal street traffic in the affected communities, the churches were closed. According to residents, there was no celebration of mass this past Saturday.

The Israel Complex was named by Peixão, who like many Latin American and American Pentecostals, have appropriated symbols of Judaism, such as the Star of David. The drug lord is identified as the leader of the Third Pure Command Puro ( Terceiro Comando Puro orTCP) cartel and is infamous for his persecution of practitioners of Umbanda and Candomble.

Peixão has expelled residents from the TCP’s areas of influence simply for practicing their Afro-Brazilian religions, and has ordered his foot soldier to destroy and desecrate Umbanda and Candomble house of worship.There are nine outstanding arrest warrants against him, most of them for drug trafficking, murder and hiding a corpse.

The symbols used to mark the territories that Peixão controls are the flag of Israel and the Star of David. These symbols are usually placed at high elevation in the communities. An example is in Cidade Alta, where a Star of David was installed and can be seen from more than a mile away.

In July of last year, the Military Police located three of the drug lord’s luxurious residences in the Para-Pedro community. In one of the houses, a large recreation area was found, with a swimming pool, artificial lake, pedal boat and artificial turf. In another residence, discovered by the Civil Police two years ago, agents came across a huge mural next to the pool depicting the city of Jerusalem, with images of soldiers and the symbol of the Star of David, alluding to the Israel Complex. Inside the house there was a gym equipped with the latest equipment, a bathroom with jacuzzi and a kitchen with brand new appliances.

Over the past couple decades Neo-Pentecostal gangsters in the notorious favelas (slums) of Rio de Janeiro have largely replaced older gangs that identified more with Afro-Brazilian religions. Conversions to the Pentecostal gang, “Bandits of Jesus,” have allowed gangsters to develop a more positive image among residents of the favelas, and they are welcomed into the churches in part for their ability to provide protection services for members and especially church staff. 

In this way the Pentecostal identity of gangsters can be beneficial for their illicit business. The bonds formed in the churches afford mutual protection in which the code of silence on the part of members helps protect the Neo-Pentecostal narcos from law enforcement and rival gangs. Neo-Pentecostal discourse, rooted in Prosperity Theology, focuses on attacking religious rivals, most importantly Umbanda, Candomble, and Catholicism.

In the case of Afro-Brazilian religions, Neo-Pentecostal discourse is particularly aggressive, feeding off the Brazilian imaginary in which they are viewed as demonic faiths and as such must be combatted and destroyed. Church members must be divine agents who destroy terreiros and Afro-Brazilian “idols.” In this Holy War the narco-converts are the powerful foot soldiers expanding their criminal networks. 

Among the Neo-Pentecostal criminal groups “the Jesus Gang” of Rio has made recent headlines for conducting a campaign of religious terrorism against Candomble terreiros in the Rio district of Duque de Caxias. 21 members of the Jesus Gang were arrested with 8 being jailed and one killed by Rio police. The leader of the Jesus Gang, known as `Peixão´ (Big Fish), is also an influential member of the Pure Third Command (Terceiro Comando Puro [TCP]), a powerful Rio crime syndicate.

The TCP ranks as the third most powerful crime syndicate in Rio and has a strong Pentecostal imprint. It seems the TCP was born of a split with the Red Command (Comando Vermelho) in the 1980s. Fernando Gomes de Freitas, aka Fernandinho Guarabu, is one of the most prominent leaders of the gang. Rio police estimated in 2007 that he was earning at least $36 million a month from drug trafficking and other illicit activities headquartered on Ilha do Governador, close to Rio’s international airport. That same year Fernandinho converted to Pentecostalism and as proof of being born again he had “Jesus Cristo” tattooed in big print on his forearm.

Unfazed by their own demonic activities, the TCP and Jesus Gang have been carrying out a terrorist campaign against Umbanda and Candomble terreiros in the barrios under their control. In the prisons, where many narcos convert to Neo-Pentecostalism, pastors demonize Afro-Brazilian religions preaching that the Exus (liminal trickster spirits) of Umbanda, for example, are the cause of their suffering. 

Once out of prison, the new converts join the Jesus Gang and others that raid the terreiros with the goal of chasing them out of the barrios under their control. The Holy War against the priestesses and priests of Umbanda and Candomble isn’t only aimed at extirpating the ‘evil spirits’ from the barrio but also fortifying Pentecostal dominion by imposing their evangelical faith as the hegemonic one in the barrios under their control.

Even though Pentecostal gangs have been persecuting followers of Umbanda and Candomble for more than a decade now, there’s been an uptick in raids and desecrations of terreiros in Rio since the recent presidency of Jair Messias Bolsonaro (2019-22). The “savior” of Brazilian Evangelicals, Bolsonaro was elected with 70% of the Evangelical vote and undoubtedly with at least 80% of the Pentecostal electorate who constitute 75% of all Brazilian Protestants. Despite the current administration’s declared intolerance of religious persecution, Peixão and his Pentecostal gangsters have been able to continue their harassment of Catholics and practitioners of Umbanda and Candoble in the five favelas that constitute the Israel Complex.

Co-authored by Dr. Ana Keila Mosca Pinezi* and Dr. Andrew Chesnut

*Dr. Ana Keila Mosca Pinezi is Professor at the Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM) in Brazil where she researches matters of religion and society. She is the author of several books and articles, such as`A vida pela ótica da esperança: um estudo comparativo entre a Igreja Presbiteriana do Brasil e a Igreja Internacional da Graça´, Editora da UFABC, 2015. Follow her on Twitter.

Special thanks to Dr. John Sullivan for alerting me to the latest round of persecution.

1. For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

Some people retreat to the world inside books in order to escape the ordinary and sometimes depressing world in which they live. Bastian Balthazar Bux escapes into a antique bookstore in order to escape three bullies who want to throw him in a trash dumpster. Once inside he meets the mysterious owner Mr. Koreander. He is reading a big book with a weird symbol on the cover called ‘The Neverending Story’. Bastian the bookworm’s eyes are drawn to this new piece of literature as a hungry bear is drawn to a camper in a tent. When asked if he can soak up the words of this new story, he is denied by the owner.

The reason for the denial is that the book is not a safe one to read. In ordinary books you become the character your reading about, Tarzan, Captain Nemo, Peter Pan, but when the book is over, you get to go back to the real world and lead your normal life. Not so with “The Neverending Story.” Despite the warning to keep the book cover closed, Bastian borrows the book and absorbs himself in its pages, literally.

The main crux of the story involves the magical land of Fantasia which is being ravished by terrible force called the Nothing. The Nothing sweeps through the land wiping out of existence anything it touches. Along with the Nothing matters, is the sickness of the ruler of Fantasia, the Childlike Empress. A young warrior named Atreyu is sent on a mission to find a cure for the Childlike Empress and to possibility find a way to defeat the Nothing.

As Bastian reads along he begins to slowly realize that the characters inside the book are aware of his presence. They hear him when he shouts in fear. When the hero Atreyu looks into the Magic Mirror Gate, he sees Bastian reading the book that he is a character in. What freaks him out the most is when The Childlike Empress tells Atretyu, “He is listening to every word we say.” Through reading the book, Bastian has become a permanent part of the Neverending Story.

It's just a STORY. It isn't REAL!-Bastian

If the Neverending Story is a dangerous book to read the Bible is most certainly very lethal. The Bible contains living words that attach it self to the human soul like a leech. It sucks out all the bad sin tainted blood and leaves its life giving spirit in place of it. It sucks up the Nothing in our souls and leaves Someone who fills it with His all-embracing presence.

As the characters in the Neverending Story are aware of its reader, the principal character of the Bible, the Lord Jesus, is aware of its reader. When we read Scripture, if our spiritual hearing aid is working properly, we can hear God’s word speaking to us personally. He doesn’t speak to us in a vague general sort of way as normal human authors speak to people in books, but speaks specifically to us in that very moment we are reading it. The Holy Spirit who permeates the pages of the scriptures interacts with the reader and makes God’s story a permanent part of his inner being.

Unlike the characters in the Neverending Story, we are not always aware of the one who is reading our lives or that we are even in a story. Our lives are an open book to God who is also the author of the book. God is an active reader who becomes part of our stories and invites us to actively participate in it along with him. God wants us to give ourselves totally to Him in freedom so that our story will be Neverending.

The words of Holy Scripture speak directly to the human person, giving the reader words of encouragement, challenge, and personal instruction. If you let the Word of God get into your bloodstream you cannot go back and lead the life you once lived because God’s story has taken root in your soul. If you don’t want God to invade your life, don’t pick up His word. It’s dangerous and not a safe book.

Ambassadors

An ikon of the Twelve

I've laid things out a little unusually in this post. Instead of just addressing the Gospel reading, I'm analyzing it together with its parallels in other Gospels. These are all about the mission of the Twelve Apostles. This is not the Great Commission; that comes later, after the Resurrection. This is when the Twelve were sent on their first "solo project" (solo in the sense that Jesus wasn't physically present there). It was a mode they'd need to get used to in a few years' time—a first "off-book" rehearsal for what they'd be doing for the rest of their lives, in fact.

What is an "apostle"? It's a religious word to us, but like I was saying in my last post, that's because it's "Greeklish," and Greeklish words were all ordinary terms to the people who actually spoke Koine Greek. Taken hyper-literally, ἀπόστολος [apostolos] means "sent one"; a host of more natural synonyms comes to mind: ambassador, envoy, messenger, emissary, nuncio, legate, missionary, spokesman. There are probably more. The point is, in the world of international relations, this is familiar. It's a common function—a common class of functions, really—that any sovereign, even of a tiny state, is going to deal with very formally and officially, to ensure first that he's being represented correctly, and second, that the people who meet his qualified representatives are treating them right, because that's a signal of how they view him, his crown, and his whole people.

A tabard (a bit like a chasuble) once worn
by heralds of the British crown—note the
quartered arms.¹ Photo by Nicholas
Jackson (CC BY-SA 3.0 license: source).

This is, if anything, ramped up in the Near East, especially back in antiquity. It's not uncommon for an author to make no explicit distinguish between a message sent from someone and an appearance of that person: the centurion with faith that surprises Jesus himself is a great example, given that Matthew writes about him as if he (the centurion) were there in person, whereas Luke (who's from a Gentile background) specifies that the centurion sent elders and friends of his, bearing messages. Luke, too, records the saying, "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Biblical prophets were understood in precisely these terms. This principle went further still. At least some of the Judaic wariness about the Divine Name came from an idea that a person's name, in some sense, was the person—to injure or mis-handle someone's name was to do them real (if invisible) harm.

As a result, ἀπόστολοι aren't exactly ambassadors in the modern sense. Ambassadors are often appointed for short terms, do not normally designate their successors, and cannot be automatically presumed to have full powers to represent their state the way that, well, a head of state does; moreover, ambassadors (and the embassies of which they are a part) are normally only present in, or at least only open and operating in, countries that are at peace with their own. Jesus's ἀπόστολοι are appointed to all appearances for this life and the next are capable of transmitting their office, are told several times that they possess full powers, and are not only anticipated but even assumed to be operating in actively hostile territory. It's tempting to translate it as something like "viceroy." I think the translation I've most opted for in fact has been "emissary," since, not being a formal legal title in most of the historical reading I've done, it has more leeway than terms like "legate" or "ambassador."

Remains of a temple to Pan near Cæsarea
Philippi (modern Banias); when Jesus tells
the Apostles "the gates of hell shall not prevail,"
they may have been in sight of this temple.

The textual notes are arranged a little differently in this one. Due to differences in content or completeness among the Synoptic Gospels, none of the passages below bear the complete set of notes a through I. (Mark has five: a, E, f, h, and I. Matthew has seven—B, C, D, E, G, h, and I—and Luke, four: B, E, h, and I.) Also, content in the other two Gospels that is not present in Mark is shown in green. (Since I'm only providing my personal translation for Mark, I've simply offered the RSV-CE's version of the parallel Gospel passages.)

Mark 6.7-13, RSV-CE

And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two,^a and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff;^E no bread, no bag, no money^f in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. And he said to them, “Where you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place.^h And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them.”^I So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

Mark 6.7-13, my translation

And he summoned himself the Twelve, and began to send them forth two by two,^a and he gave to them authority over unclean spirits, and directed them to take nothing on the road except a single rod^E—no bread, no bag, no copper^f in the belt, but to tie on their sandals, and not be clothed in two cloaks. And he told them: "Wherever it may be you come into a household, stay there until you leave the place.^h And if that place will not receive you nor listen to you, when you leave there, shake off the dust that is under your feet, as a witness to them."^I And they went out and proclaimed that people should have a change of heart, and cast out many demons, and anointed many sickly people with oil and healed them.

A Russian Orthodox chrismarium² (there known
as an Алавастр [Alavastr]). Photo by Shakko,
used under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license (source).

Matthew's Parallel (10.1-15)

And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.^B The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.^C

These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.^D And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’^B Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without pay, give without pay. Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff;^E for the laborer deserves his food.^G And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you depart.^h As you enter the house, salute it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.”^I

Luke's Parallel (9.1-6)

Symbol of St. Luke from folio 27 of
the Book of Kells (9th cent.)

And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal.^B And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff,^E nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart.^h And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”^I And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Textual Notes

Since I've put Mark beside Matthew and Luke, I've set up the notes slightly differently. Notes in capital letters (B, C, D, E, G, and I) discuss text that's in the other two Synoptics,³ while those which are also in italics (B, C, D, and G) refer to information found only in other Synoptics; notes a, f, and h are the only Mark-exclusives.  To help avoid confusion, within the references themselves, I've set text from Matthew in dark red and text from Luke in dark blue; text from Mark remains in black.

a. two by two: Only Mark mentions the detail that the Twelve were sent out in pairs, though he doesn't tell us what they were. Matthew seems like he may be listing the pairs: if so, they were Peter-Andrew, "big" James-John, Philip-Bartholomew, Thomas-Matthew, "little" James-Thaddæus, and Simon-Judas. This reveals that our Lord tastefully assigned those six apostles who shared first names—the Jacobs, Judahs, and Simons⁴—to different teams. He also put the two confirmed sets of brothers together; however, if Matthew and James the Less were brothers (check the bullet on the name "Matthew" in note C), them he split up for some reason. Luke does mention pairs when talking about the later mission of the Seventy⁵ (which only he records), but not here.

B. and to heal every disease and every infirmity ... And preach as you go, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." | to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal: Curiously, while both Matthew and Luke mention express instructions to preach the gospel, Mark—though he mentions that they did preach—has nothing to say about what message they were told to bring to people. Presumably, since they had been apprenticed to Jesus for a while at this point, they had seen him preach quite regularly, and had an idea of what to say.

Similarly, though he mentions acts of healing—and specifies anointing with oil, a detail left out by the other two—Mark has nothing to say about the commission given to the Twelve to heal the sick: the only authority he mentions is that which they were given over demons. This could indicate that a somewhat superstitious way of thinking about diseases was habitual to the author of Mark or to his sources—or at least, that he/they were in the habit of speaking that way, which is not necessarily the same thing. (That said, the absence of a single clause from one passage can't bear much theological weight!)

Calling of the Apostles (1481)
by Domenico Ghirlandajo

C. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddæus; Simon the Cananæan, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him: All three Synoptics list the Twelve; only Matthew does it here. Mark's list is in chapter 3, where it says "he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." This suggests that this mission was anticipated, and maybe even discussed when the Twelve were originally selected, but that he kept them with him a while first. (It might even mean their ordination preceded their training, which would be wild by our standards.) Luke lists the apostles twice: once in his Gospel (in chapter 6, around the same position as in Mark's shorter narrative), and again in the first chapter of Acts.

I'd like to get into some of the names and epithets here—nine, all told. We've touched on four of them on this site already: Alphæus, Peter, Thomas, and Zebedee.

• Alphæus probably represents the same name as Clopas/Cleophas: חילפאי—a name I can't really transcribe properly, because I can't find a version with the niqqud and I'm not good enough at Hebrew or Aramaic to insert any vowel except "a" when in doubt.⁶ But I'm assured by better-informed people that it comes out to [Chilfai].
• Peter, "Rocky," is a well-known nickname: Πέτρος [Petros] represents the Aramaic כֵּיפָא [Keyfa'], or Cephas.
• Thomas, "Twin," is almost certainly a nickname as well; at least, I've never heard of anybody actually being named "Twin." Δίδυμος [Didümos] stands for תְּאוֹמָה [T'owmah] of the same meaning.
• Fourth, Zebedee is the same as Zebadiah (in Hebrew זְבַדְיָה [Z'vad'yah]), filtered as usual through the classical languages and then Anglicized. (Incidentally, Zebadiah means "gift of God." No, you're not misremembering, that's also what Matthew means; they really just did this twice.)

Five others drew my eye: Bartholomew, Cananæan, Iscariot, Matthew, and Thaddæus.

Judas Iscariot in stained glass at the
Church of St. John the Baptist in Yeovil,
Somersetshire; note the black halo.
(GadgetSteve, CC BY-SA 4.0: source.)

• Bartholomew is a surname. The prefix "bar-" functions a little like "Mc-/Mac-" in Gaelic surnames; -tholomew, on the other hand, is the Aramaic name Talmai. This name came from Hebrew, and was also used as the Hebraization of the (quite unrelated) name Ptolemy. Based on the fact that bar-Talmai in the Synoptics is regularly paired with Philip, he is thought by most people to be the same individual as Nathanael in John—thus netting us a first and last name, Nathanael bar-Talmai.
• St. Jerome suggested that Cananæan might mean "from Cana," which is the origin of the (very misleading!) rendering "Simon the Canaanite" you'll occasionally find. However, the older and more common theory is that Cananæan comes from קַנַּאי [qanna'y], "zealous." If Greek bothered to borrow an Aramaic word, it probably had some special significance: referring to a localized movement like the Zealots would do nicely. This is reinforced by Luke titling him ζηλωτής [zēlōtēs]. Granted, it'd be surprising for a Zealot to start following a pacifist rabbi; but personally, I'd be even more surprised if no Zealots changed their minds on hearing Jesus. I see no reason to doubt the old theory.
• The name Iscariot has prompted a couple theories. One is that it's a lightly scrambled form of the Latin sicarius, which means "assassin" or "hitman," and that Judas's background was similar to Simon's. There was a Zealot-aligned group of sicarii active in Judæa a little after Jesus's time, in the 50s. However, not all Zealots were murder guys who loved to do murders; and while the Romans called them sicarii, I don't know that that name was current among Jews. Besides, while Jesus and/or the other apostles calling one guy "Simon the Zealot" is one thing, openly referring to another as "Judah the Hitman"—before all the, you know, went down—seems a little far-fetched. And that's to say nothing of their doing so in Latin, garbled or not. Anyway, there's a more natural explanation: there was a town in Judæa called קְרִיּוֹת [Q'riyyowth], "Kerioth." Prefix the Hebrew word for "man," אִישׁ ['iysh], to make "guy from Kerioth," and what do you know: ish-Kerioth. But nah, sure, it's the murder one.

A seventeenth-century Armenian miniature
of St. Matthew the Evangelist.

• Matthew is an interesting case.⁷ All the lists of the Twelve contain his name. The Gospel of Matthew also records him being called from the tax-collector's office, but Mark and Luke, in relating an identical story, make it about a man named Levi. (Mark adds the tantalizing detail that Levi is a "son of Alphæus." Like James the Less? Do we have a third set of brother-apostles?) Levi is broadly agreed to be Matthew, but I haven't discovered an explanation for the naming discrepancy. Of course, it wasn't uncommon for a person to have multiple names, but there's normally a reason—from one as simple as "he also has a nickname," to elevated causes like a religious initiations. I wonder whether Mark and Luke, knowing what a bad figure tax-collectors cut, were sensitive to what people might think of Matthew and so quietly omitted the fact that he was Levi; but, perhaps St. Matthew couldn't be bothered to stand on his dignity. That would align with St. Paul's attitude, and we see what may be echoes of Matthew in Paul's writings (cf. note G). Of course, this rests on the assumption that the Synoptics, or Matthew at least, were written by the saints they're named for, an idea not widely accepted by scholars. (I find the arguments against the tradition unsatisfying, but it is true that I've got most of Academe against me on this.)
• Finally, Thaddæus, thought to be the same as John 14.22's "Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot" (nice save). The etymology of Thaddæus is uncertain, but some of what I read proposed it was a version of the Aramaic תַדַּי [Thadday], which appears to come from תַּדָּא [tadda'], "breast." The name thus could mean something like "suckling child." The image that immediately came to me—and which, to be honest, strikes me as credible, if not inevitable, in a group of thirteen men hanging out for months on end—is that one guy in the group basically got the same nickname as "Baby John" from West Side Story.

A lunette with fifteen relics of apostles:
the Eleven are all here, as are SS. Matthias
Barnabas, and Paul, plus two from St. John.
(By ExorcisioTe, CC BY-SA 4.0: source).

Taking the Evangelists' four lists and combining it with data gleaned from John, we get a probable list⁸ of "The Twelve Classic" along these lines:

1. Simon "Rocky" bar-Jonah | St. Peter
2. Andreas bar-Jonah | St. Andrew
3. Jacob bar-Zebadiah | St. James the Greater
4. John bar-Zebadiah | St. John
5. Philip | St. Philip
6. Nathanael bar-Talmai | St. Bartholomew
7. Levi "Matthias" bar-Chilphai | St. Matthew
8. "the Twin" | St. Thomas
9. Jacob bar-Chilphai | St. James the Less
10. Simon "the Zealot" | St. Simon
11. Judah "Baby Jude" bar-Jacob | St. Jude Thaddæus
12. Judah "of Kerioth" bar-Simon | Judas Iscariot

Contemporary Samaritans observing Passover on
Mount Gerizim, 2006. Photo by Edward Kaprov,
used under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license (source).

D. Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel: Characteristically, Matthew focuses on the explicitly and at this stage exclusively Jewish mission of Jesus and the Apostles. Mark rarely if ever touches on this (he has nothing to say about the dispute between orthodox Jews and Samaritans, for instance, a topic even John takes head on); St. Luke, a Gentile convert and close associate of St. Paul, downplays it.

E. except a staff/except a single rod | nor a staff | no staff: This is an odd discrepancy between Mark and the other Synoptics. The best I can make of Mark's phrasing is that the word μόνον [monon], which I think the RSV is taking to mean "only" (in the sense that it is the "only" exception to Jesus's directions to under-prep), is really being used in a numerical sense here. In other words, they're allowed to bring a staff, but only one—no backup: if it breaks, it breaks, and they'll have to either do without a staff or accept a new one as a gift.

f. money/copper: Then as now, money was 1) often made from copper or copper alloys, but 2) usually only for the smallest, least valuable coins, like pennies.⁹ Idiomatically, "don't bring a penny" would be a very defensible rendering.

An ancient lepton, the "mite" of the widow's
mite episode, sometimes translated "penny";
it was typically made of copper and might
be referred to simply as "a copper."

G. the laborer deserves his food: St. Paul alludes to this idea a few times (e.g. in I Corinthians 9), and in I Timothy 5 he quotes it directly.

h. stay there until you leave the place: The command not to go from house to house in a single city or town could have many reasons behind it: for example, if anyone needed to find the visiting apostles to request healing, it would be far easier to find them. (And speed could be important for some illnesses—though on the other hand, Matthew tells us raising the dead was also part of their commission, so ...?) But I believe the interpretation I've most often seen reads this as a warning against moving around for nicer accommodations, which—besides being suicidally rude, and in a culture that took hospitality as seriously as the Near East!—would be gluttonous of comfort¹⁰ (even if it didn't start out that way, the habit would be all but certain to form) and, at bottom, a total distraction regardless.

I. when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them/when you leave there, shake off the dust that is under your feet, as a witness to them | shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town | when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them: As so often, Matthew, while the same as the other two in substance, is more poetic and elaborate, bringing in Sodom and Gomorrah—as, of all things, a positive counterexample; one is tempted to think of the abrupt and heartfelt repentance of the Ninevites.

Lot and his daughters fleeing Sodom, as
depicted in the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493).¹¹

I poked around a bit to see if "shaking the dust off one's feet" was a pre-existing custom. Wikipedia claims it was, but without a source; something about it—I don't quite know what—gives me "thing Christians have projected backwards onto first-century Judaism" vibes. Of course, now that search engines suck, I couldn't find anything of use. I do know (though this is a bit different) that showing the sole of your shoe or sandal to someone is insulting in the Near East: not as bad as hitting them with it, maybe, but it's pretty bad. This could be an elaboration of that.

Footnotes

¹In heraldry, "quartered arms" are coats of arms shrunk down to one-quarter size and combined with other coats of arms. Normally (as in this example), this is done with three coats of arms: the primary arms go in the upper left and lower right quarters, and the other two in the remaining two. Here, the arms quartered are those of the royal houses of England, Scotland, and Ireland. (Dynasties—which often rule multiple nations, shift from one throne to another over the centuries, etc.—normally have separate coats of arms from nations as such.) Simplified slightly, the arms of the English monarch are Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or: "a scarlet field, three golden lions walking past but facing the observer." Scotland's are Or a lion rampant Gules with a double tressure of the second: "a golden field, one scarlet lion rearing within a doubled scarlet border." Ireland's are normally Azure a harp Or ("a blue field with a golden harp"), but here the Azure seems to have been replaced with Argent (silver, but usually depicted as white). I can't tell if this is a variant or a trick of the light—probably the latter; Argent and Or aren't really supposed to border each other, except on the papal arms.
²A chrismarium is a vessel for containing chrism, or holy oil, used in the sacraments of Confirmation and Unction (and on some other occasions as well).
³The Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They are so named because they "see together": their structure is roughly the same (with a closer resemblance between Matthew and Mark); the actual wording of many episodes is often similar if not identical (again with more resemblances between Matthew and Mark); and none of the three overlap much with John, whose structure and style are strikingly different.
⁴Jacob (Ἰάκωβος [Iakōbos] in Greek, from the Hebrew יַעֲקֹב [Ya3aqov]), is typically represented in English New Testaments as "James"; Judah (Ἰούδας [Ioudas], from יְהוּדָה [Y'hudhah]), as "Jude" or "Judas" (invariably as Judas in reference to the traitor, but inconsistently when speaking about others of the same name). Simon (from Σίμων [Simōn]—or occasionally Συμεών [Sümeōn]—from שִׁמְעוֹן [Shim'3own]) is not generally altered.
⁵The significance of the Twelve and then the Seventy (or Seventy-Two—manuscripts vary) being sent out by Jesus may seem obscure. However, it is probably an allusion to the idea that Jesus is founding a new Israel. Twelve, the number of the sons of Jacob, symbolizes the chosen people of Israel in its wholeness (no missing ten tribes); seventy, or a number close to it, especially after twelve, evokes the Israelite caravan that went to sojourn in Egypt (as in the opening of Exodus; cf. Acts 7.8-14). More striking still is the fact that Luke sandwiches his account of the Transfiguration, which describes Jesus' death as "the ἔξοδος [exodos]" (the departure) "he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem," between the two missions, with the Twelve before it and the Seventy after it.
⁶Which, ironically, works okay for this name. But I've been around long enough to know, if I trust that rule of thumb from a position of ignorance even one time, hubris will rear up like Ammit to devour me. In a month I'd be arguing with some world-renowned Syriacist about how the Aramaic version of Ephesians has a clear reference to aliens in it or something.
⁷For the sake of being confusing, I'm sure now is a good time to note that Matthew and Matthias are slight variations of the same name in Greek, likely representing one Aramaic name.
⁸Oddly, even though we've got a bar-Jacob and a bar-Simon in there, I've never heard anyone even speculate on whether any of the Twelve were a father-son pair. The absence any such a tradition may be evidence against the idea. (That, and as far as being apprenticed goes, not many men who've already had children would have the time or liberty to go pick up a whole second profession.)
⁹Modern American pennies are made of surprisingly little copper, only about 2.5%; most of a penny's weight is actually zinc. Nickels, on the other hand, are made by alloying 25% copper with 75% nickel, and thus contain way more copper than pennies, which is doubly funny given that nickels are the only coin we named after (some of) the metal they're made from!
¹⁰Gluttony is a rather misunderstood temptation. Most of us have heard the essence of pride is self-focus, not self-aggrandizement; as Screwtape has it (Letter XIV), "[God] would rather the man thought himself a great architect or a great poet and then forgot about it, than that he should spend much time and pains trying to think himself a bad one." Similarly, food is a shorthand for gluttony; but the real key to it is that gluttony is an unregulated appetite for sense-pleasure. Many sins we mistakenly classify as sins of lust, for instance, are so detached from any human connection (even an unhealthy one) that they're more intelligible as acts of gluttony that incidentally involve sex than as sins of lust proper.
¹¹The sleek, porcelain-like appearance of Lot's wife qua pillar of salt in this woodcut made me reflect: it's high time somebody created a set of "Lot's wife and the city of Sodom" salt and pepper shakers.

Christian Scripture offers us a glimpse of what is to be in the eschaton, sometimes in ways which appear to be contradictory, which is why there are various, often contradictory, interpretations and beliefs concerning it. Some Christians believe that Scripture indicates that those who are not “saved” will be annihilated (a view, to be sure, repudiated by most Christian traditions). Most Christians believe that everyone will be brought back to life in a general resurrection from the dead, whereupon everyone will be told exactly what their eternal status will be (that is, whether they will be called to join Christ in the kingdom of God or they will be sent away from him and thrown into the lake of fire). Some Christians think Scripture is not clear about the eschaton  because we are not meant to know until  the eschaton itself, using this to suggest we can hope all will be saved. Others believe all will be saved, and the warnings  concerning an eternal hell are pedagogical in nature. Thus, most Christians do not believe in annihilationism, however, some do, and those who do think Scripture suggests it; why do they think this?

Perhaps Revelation 10:11-15 can be read as the most supportive of the notion of annihilationism; that passage  says that those who are not found in the “book of life,” that is, not “saved” will be sent to the lake of fire and be taken in by the “second death”:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.  And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.  And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.  Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire;  and if any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 10:11-15 RSV).

As our temporal death, the end of our temporal life, is the first death, annihilationists suggest that the second death must be seen as the final end of our existence. Those sent to the lake of fire to experience the second death perish, never to come back to life. Sin, which seeks to destroy and corrupt being until it is completely annihilated, would be victorious, for what is sent into the lake of fire, sinners who remain attached to their sins, will be eliminated from existence itself. While this interpretation of the second death and the lake of fire is wrong, because it would prove sin and death, not Christ, to be victorious, there is an element of it which is correct. The lake of fire does serve as a kind of ending, to which, something which is brought to it finds its connection to reality, to being itself, destroyed, leading to its elimination. But what is destroyed, what is brought to an end, is not the person, or anything which can be said to have a share in existence, but rather, sin itself, thus bringing an end to the power and influence of sin. What sin had corrupted finds itself freed from sin, that is, it will find itself made pure as it is brought to the purifying flame of the lake of fire. Then, instead of seeing the eschatological outcome being a victory of sin and death over God, God (in and through Christ) is the one who is victorious as sin and death no longer reigns over creation. Then God, the source and foundation of every being, of existence itself, can be and will be shared by all; that is, God will be all in all:

The last enemy to be destroyed is death. "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.  When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one  (1 Cor. 15:26-28 RSV).

Death is destroyed at the second death, so that the second death can be said to be the death of death itself. The power of death, the power of sin, the power of hell itself, is  put to and end by Christ: “To destroy a hostile power means to do away with the right of this power so that it no longer remains, and the annihilation of the power means to abolish the government of the kingdom.”[1] The kingdom of death is abolished: Christ conquers death by death itself, that is, by bringing death to death. Life, being, and existence, is confirmed and strengthened and reinforced by Christ. All those who had died will experience the end of death itself, and in that experience, find themselves coming back to life.

Thus, what we see established in the eschaton is the elimination of all that has corrupted and destroyed being, so that being itself is freed and all the good contained in being, all the good which sin and death tried to destroy, is preserved for eternity.  Due to the way sin connects to us, in and through our actions, we confuse what we become through its influence with our true self; that is, we end up covering up our true nature, our true goodness, our inherent persona, with the mask of sin, and then confuse what that mask presents as being our true persona and so act in relation to our false persona, reinforcing that false persona so long as we do so. But  once sin and death is cast in the lake of fire, that mask, that false persona, likewise is cast away, freeing us from that persona and the corruption it imposed upon us. In this fashion, the wicked which are destroyed in the lake of fire is all those masks, and the false personas they generated,  so that persons which were covered up find themselves revealed and set free:

‘But the way of the wicked vanishes.’ That does not mean that the wicked will perish. If they repent and do penance, they too will be saved. When the Apostle Paul was persecuting Christ and His Church, he was wicked. If the wicked perish, there is no chance for their repentance. It does not say that the wicked shall perish, but the way of the wicked vanishes, that is, wickedness shall perish. Not the wicked, but wickedness itself; not the one who was wicked will perish, but while he is repenting, wickedness vanishes. [2]

St. Gregory of Nyssa, reflecting upon 1 Cor. 15, and the way Christ is said to subjugate himself to the Father (which he says is in and through his body, the church, that is, in and through us), points out that the purpose of that passage is to indicate the way God will free and restore all the good God gave creation as its inception so that nothing will end up being outside the kingdom of God:

What, then, is the heart of the doctrine that the divine Apostle is teaching us in this passage? It is that at some point the nature of evil will be transformed into non-existence, completely made to disappear from reality, and pure divine goodness will contain all rational nature within itself; nothing of all that has come into being from God will fall outside the boundaries of God’s Kingdon, but when all the evil has been mingled with existing things has been consumed, like some material impurity, by the melting-process of purifying fire, everything will become just as it was when it had its origin from God—as it was when it had not yet come to share in evil.[3]

Thus, what is eliminated is that which is said to be evil, for evil has no place in the kingdom of God. What remains after that evil is removed is the good which God created. But, some might ask, does that not mean something is being annihilated, that is, is not some part of existence is being destroyed? Gregory, like many others, would point out evil itself has no real existence, it is not a thing, certainly not a thing created by God, and as such, we talk about its elimination from being only as a convention. Thus, when it is detached from the good which it holds to, it has nothing of its own, and this is revealed in the way it does not exist once it is cut off from the good of something else. When evil is mixed with some good, it seems to have a life and existence of its own, but it does not, it only borrows from the good which it corrupts. This is why in the eschaton, evil can be removed, without God destroying something which God has created:

But submission to God is the utter removal of evil. When, then, all of us come to be outside of the realm of evil, its imitation of our “first-fruit,” then the whole mix that is nature, blended in with the first-fruit and becoming one body in its solidarity, will receiving within itself the rule of the Good  alone; so, with the whole body of our nature mingled with the divine, immortal nature, that subjection here ascribed to the Son will become reality through us, as subjection is brought to fulfillment in his Body and is referred to him, who works in us the grace of submission.[4]

Sergius Bulgakov is right when he said that in the eschatological judgment, evil is shown not have a nature or existence of its own; it was not established in us by God, but by our creaturely choice, as we, through choice, mixed the corrupting nature of sin with our good nature. Then, the good which was made impure by evil can once again be pure, leading, then, to the “apokatastasis” or return of all things back to their initial good  (which is, to be sure, not the end which God wants for us, but rather, the foundation for that goal, for what God wants for us is theosis, our own participation in the divine nature, making us greater than what we were in our creation):

Therefore, if we can speak of apocatastasis, then this is only in the sense of ontological anamnesis – in the sense of the beginning, not of the end. In the world nothing is lost and nothing is annihilated except evil, conquered by the power of God and thereby exposed in its non-being. But the history of the world, which is also the history of the Church, is the building up of the kingdom of God, the City of God. And this can be called apocatastasis only in the sense of the universal salvation whose foundation was already laid when all that exists was created. [5]

Thus, there is a way we can talk about the annihilation of evil, but we must realize when we do so, it is a poetic convention which helps us understand what is going to happen. In the end, the insubstantial nature of evil will be revealed as it will be shown to have no true existence, and so there is, in a sense, nothing which is eliminated. Evil is the concept we use to describe our experience of the corruption of being, or of those acts which counter the good which should be done and the corruption of being those acts then generate, a corruption which seeks to spread itself throughout all being, corrupting and destroying all things.  But, thanks to Christ, death has met with death, the corruption of being has met itself, and in doing so, eliminates itself, freeing all created things from the power which sought to destroy them. We will see and experience this in the eschatological judgment, and the false personas which evil has created will be “put to the fire” like effigies, leaving the good person which it had hidden behind, freeing them to finally embrace that which is  good without any taint or compulsion from the false persona which they had previously embraced. The second death, the judgment which is to come, brings about the destruction or elimination of all such illusory personas; so long as someone struggles to hold onto that false persona, to keep themselves masked by it, they will experience the purifying fire of God’s love, but once they let it go, then they will find God will free them all the pain and suffering evil brings and at last, they will be able to experience the glory of  God, the glory which God shares with all being, for themselves.

[1] St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity. Trans. Stephen McKenna, CSSR (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), 486.

[2] St. Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome: Volume I (1-59 On the Psalms). Trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, IHM (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1963), 13 [Homily 1].

[3] St. Gregory of Nyssa, “On the ‘Final Subjection’ of Christ” in On Death and Eternal Life. Trans. Brian E. Daley (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2022), 74.

[4] St. Gregory of Nyssa, “On the ‘Final Subjection’ of Christ,” 76.

[5] Sergius Bulgakov, “On the Question of the Apocatastasis of the Fallen Spirits ” in The Sophiology of Death. Essays on Eschatology: Personal, Political, Universal. Trans. Roberto J. De La Noval (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2021), 90-91.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

N.B.:  While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.

St. Benedict’s spirituality includes an emphasis on autonomous communities as well as stability. Benedictine monks or sisters who resided in a particular community committed to staying in that particular place and with those particular religious. This contrasts with the practices of other religious orders and diocesan priests who are often sent from one location to another.

The need for connection

In today’s world, we’re less and less connected to our neighborhood and neighbors. We may walk out of our houses on smartphones, hop into our cars, and drive to work; versus walking out looking for a neighbor to greet and walking to our local place of worship or employment.

Stability

We have cars and Uber and trains and more; and phones for social contact. But what about Benedict’s spirituality—to stabilize in a particular place and develop autonomy with others in that place?

It may seem like an impractical ideal in today’s world, but I have a feeling we will realize, more and more, that this lifestyle is needed, even amid the technological revolution. We will crave stability, a place to which we develop an attachment, and connection with those physically close to us.

Science supports stability

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, science supports Benedictine spirituality. Thank you, St. Benedict, for revealing transcendental truths to us, well before we could figure them out scientifically.

So what exactly does science say?

Place attachment

Particular places

There’s a fascinating literature in psychology on place attachment. It’s just like what it sounds like- it’s tendency to attach to particular places. These might be annual vacation spots, places of worship, schools, or our very own neighborhoods (maybe even all of the above).

How does place attachment develop?

Place attachment involves feelings of affection and other positive emotions in response to a particular place. It is evoked when individuals feel safe and secure in their environment and have developed connections with it over time. It involves the encoding and retrieval of memories associated with the particular place. It may also involve a sense that the place fulfills one’s needs or helps one achieve particular goals.

If you want to find out more about place attachment, I recommend this scholarly article  by Korpela (2012) that delves into some of the theories behind place attachment.

You might also find this interesting- apparently place attachment fosters the degree to which we perceive meaning in life.

My own place attachment

I can give an example. Every year, my family travels to Maine for an annual vacation. It’s beautiful, and we visit the same precious places every year, like the “little beach,” “the big beach,” and the lighthouse. We even take pride and pleasure enjoying the trip to the grocery store, where we just might see the same cashier or store manager from years ago. Each moment, there are strong, positive emotions that occur in response to these places- and it’s not just their beauty; it’s also the connection we have developed with them over time.

Pocahontas’ place attachment

Another fascinating example of place attachment comes from the Disney movie, Pocahontas. Recall the song, “Colors of the Wind,” and Pocahantas singing:

But I know every rock and tree and creature

Has a life, has a spirit, has a name

….The rainstorm and the river are my brothers

The heron and the otter are my friends

And we are all connected to each other

In a circle, in a hoop that never ends

It sounds like Pocahontas has some serious place attachment to her native land. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all felt a bit more connected to the place in which we reside?

Benedictine spirituality in the world today

Living Benedictine spirituality in today’s world doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

In fact, there are countless intentional communities in which individuals strive to be present to their neighbors, like this The Simple Way in Philadelphia.

Also, more and more individuals also strive to connect with their local place. And, nonprofits emerge with this mission, such as Science and Sustainability in Newark, NJ, which invites residents to create sustainable, local food sources in the city.

How to live Benedictine spirituality in the world today

So how to begin? Well, maybe we can start by recognizing the beauty and dignity of each person around us; taking breaks from technology; and looking to local resources to meet our needs. We might consider gardening or beautifying our local communities in some way, and maybe even doing so in collaboration with nearby others.

All in all, there are countless opportunities to live this research-backed, Benedictine spirituality in today’s world. As we do so, we just might find that we are truly “connected to each other” (Colors of the Wind).

St. Benedict, pray for us!

In a 2002 debate book he did with J. J. Smart--Atheism and Theism--the Scottish philosopher John Haldane offers a First Cause argument for God's existence. It is not a First Cause argument based on the impossibility of an infinite past series of events--like the Kalam Cosmological Argument--but one that makes a case for a First Cause of everything whose existence depends on another in the here and now even if the universe had always existed. It is an argument within the Thomistic tradition.

To make his case, Haldane begins with this illustration:

A few years ago, in keeping with general developments throughout the British education system, the University of St Andrews decided to introduce a staff appraisal scheme. This was to involve a system of 'progress review' according to which every member of the university would periodically be reviewed by a colleague. A draft was circulated setting out the various arrangements for the introduction of the proposed scheme. It included a section on the role and responsibilities of reviewers, from which I quote: ["]The reviews of colleagues who have not been reviewed previously but are to act as reviewers will also have to be arranged... so that all reviewers can be reviewed before they review others.["]

The well-intentioned point was that no staff should act as reviewers who had not themselves already been subject to the review process. Additionally the system was to be self-contained: no one's reviewed status could result from having been reviewed outwith the university. At the time this document appeared I was acting as an occasional cartoonist for the university newsletter and it seemed that this was an opportunity that ought not to be missed. The cartoon reprinted here brings out the problem that had been overlooked in the drafting. [see picture] If no one could conduct a review unless and until he or she had been reviewed, and that could only derive from within thes

ystem, then the process could not begin. In the cartoon I highlighted the difficulty by depicting an initial review meeting and placing the faculty members in a circle around a table. One asks another 'Do you have any idea of who goes first?

The solution subsequently arrived at was to postulate an unreviewed re-viewer: more precisely the Principal was 'deemed', for purposes of the scheme, to have been reviewed. The point of this anecdote will be obvious, and the issue it raises is addressed in Aquinas's second way:

"The second way is based on the nature of agent (i.e. efficient) cause (cause efficientis). In the observable world causes are found ordered in series: we never observe, nor ever could, something causing itself, for this would mean it preceded itself, and this is not possible. But a series of causes can't go on for ever, or in any such series an earner member causes an intermediate and the intermediate a last (whether the intermediate be one or many). Now eliminating a cause eliminates its effects, and unless there's a first cause there won't be a last or an intermediate. But if a series of causes goes on for ever it will have no first cause, and so no intermediate causes and no last effect, which is clearly false. So we are forced to postulate some first agent cause, to which everyone gives the name God (quam omnes Deum nominant)." [J. Haldane in Atheism and Theism, pp. 216-218]

A couple of weeks ago, out of curiosity, I thought it would be a cool idea to ask ChapGPT for a solution. Below are a series of screenshots of what happened. Enjoy! (Pardon the typo in the third screenshot. I meant to say "consisted of" rather than "consistent," but ChatGPT seems to have gotten it right).

But God says to the wicked: “Why bother reciting my decrees and pretending to obey my covenant? For you refuse my discipline and treat my words like trash. When you see thieves, you approve of them, and you spend your time with adulterers. Your mouth is full of wickedness and your tongue is full of lies. You sit around and slander your brother.

Psalm 50: 16 - 20a

Louisiana’s legislature recently passed a law requiring the public schools in that state to display the 10 Commandments in their classrooms. 

Much of the outrage that followed, conflated hanging a plaque the 10 Commandments on it in classrooms with the total destruction of Separation of Church and State. Opponents of the new law saw it as the beginning of  oppressive state religion like the ones you see in most Muslim majority countries today and throughout Europe several hundred years ago. 

This has two problems.

First, it isn’t true. While there absolutely is an organized and well-funded movement to create a government-owned state religion and suppress all others, this isn't it. 

Second, these over the top hysterics turn people off and blinds them to the very real threat of the destruction of our religious liberties that is right in front of us in Project 2025.

Project 2025 is a blueprint for a fascist takeover of our government at every level, from top to bottom. One part of this plan is to create and enforce a state-controlled church much like the state-controlled churches in Communism.

The reasons for doing this are obvious. One of them is simply to use the state-controlled church to control the population. This leads like a plumb line straight to the conclusion that all other faiths, including Christians who want to follow the Gospels, would be suppressed ruthlessly.

Project 2025 is as real as Mein Kampf. It is terrifying.

But putting the 10 Commandments on a plaque and hanging those plaques on school room walls is not Project 2025.

I don’t have any big problems with putting the 10 Commandments on plaques and hanging them on walls. When I was in office, I voted to put the 10 Commandments in courthouses. I didn’t and I don’t see that as a threat to our democracy. The 10 Commandments is the basis for Western law. That alone provides a legitimate reason to post it.

What bothers me about this whole 10 Commandments in classrooms deal is not the 10 Commandments. It’s the revolting hypocrisy of the right wingers who are pushing it. 

What is the point of putting the 10 Commandments in classrooms when right wing whore clergy are preaching and teaching that lying is ok if Donald Trump does it? 

Where in the 10 Commandments or the Scriptures does it say that adultery is ok so long as Donald Trump is the one committing it?

Where does it say that grift, stealing and corruption are good when Donald Trump is the grifter?

I must have missed it, but I haven’t found the Scripture that says it’s ok for Donald Trump to rape women. 

I literally read the Bible morning and night. I read it through, cover to cover, and then I read it through, cover to cover, again. I’ve done that for decades.

I’ve never found the Scriptures that say that rape is ok, greed is good, lying is fine and taking bribes is holy so long as the person doing these things is Donald Trump. 

I’ve searched the Scriptures and I never found anything that said that God’s Chosen One would be a rapist, adulterer, compulsive liar, swindler, grifter, racist, woman-abusing scumbag. There are people who do these things in the Bible, including in Revelations, but they are most emphatically not God’s Chosen. 

The 10 Commandments condemn this behavior. The rest of Scripture condemns it to hell. The Gospels teach behavior which is the exact opposite — the exact opposite — of what right wing preachers, priests and bishops are teaching today. 

I have never found the commandment that tells us to fall down and worship any human being. There is no teaching proclaiming that any political party or affiliation of any sort, including the Church itself, comes before God in your life. I do not see the Scripture that says You shall put the Republican Party ahead of me and my Commandants and fall down and worship evil men. 

When I voted to allow the 10 Commandments posted in public buildings, I didn’t see posting those commandments as anything like actually obeying them. I knew at the time that performing fake religious actions like getting all self-righteous about posting the 10 Commandments was a political action, not a Godly one. 

Performing Christianity to get votes and control the religious block of the electorate to gain power is not following Christ and it is not obeying God. It’s a terrible, God-mocking sin. 

Psalm 50: 16-20a 

But God says to the wicked: “Why bother reciting my decrees and pretending to obey my covenant?

For you refuse my discipline and tread my words like trash.

When you see thieves, you approve of them, and you spend your time with adulterers.

Your mouth is full of wickedness and your tongue is full of lies. You sit around and slander your brother.

+ Luther's ignoring of the biblical motif of "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16)

The following is drawn from The Interpretation of the Second Psalm (March 1532), derived from the transcription of the "indefatigable scribe" Georg Rörer (1492-1557), possibly also from the notes of Veit Dietrich (1506-1549), who prepared it for publication in 1546 (see the Introduction in Luther's Works, Vol. 12, viii). Since it is included in a set called Luther's Works, the editors evidently concluded that it was substantially Luther's words. His words will be in blue below.

***

Read the writings of the papists, listen to their discourses, and you will find that they rely on this one argument, namely, the claim that nothing good has come of our teaching. For immediately after our Gospel sounded forth, there followed the horrible revolt of the peasants, disagreements and sects arose in the church, discipline broke down, and, as if all the restraints of the laws were done away with, all began to indulge in the greatest license. This is indeed true. For now there is greater freedom for all vices than there was in former times, when the common crowd was coerced with fear. But now, like an unbridled horse, it undertakes everything according to its own good pleasure. For it despises the ecclesiastical chains with which it was formerly held by the papacy and makes full use of the negligence of the civil magistrate. All these misfortunes, which are by no means trifling, our adversaries impute to our teaching or to the Gospel. (Luther's Works, Vol. 12, 7-8; specifically commenting on Psalms 2:2)

Thus far, Luther recounts what he assumes are the self-evident facts of Lutheran behavior in practice, as opposed to the teaching he introduced. He lamented these things many times (and I've documented many similar utterances: see "Related Reading" near the end). But Luther had a ready explanation for why they happened:

But suspend judgment a little while, and first reflect more carefully. Reduce the argument to a dialectical form, and consider whether this is a logical conclusion: “This theologian is evil, therefore theology is evil; this lawyer is worthless, therefore a knowledge of the law is also bad; this teacher is a fornicator, therefore the arts which he teaches are a fornication.” Would we not call anyone mad who defended these conclusions as good and sound? Nevertheless the adversaries draw inferences not a bit wiser than this. But listen to this psalm foretelling that when this King begins His kingdom, that is, when He begins to teach, the murmurings of the heathen will follow, the conspiring of the peoples, battles and the wars of kings, the plottings and counsels of the rulers. Against whom? Against the Lord and His Christ. Therefore fortify your conscience and, admonished by the Holy Spirit in this passage, understand that the world will be in an uproar. But do not put the blame on this King or His Word, but rather on Satan and the godless world. You must, on the contrary, affirm and declare: “Though evils follow the teaching of this King, nevertheless the teaching is not on that account evil, but rather the men are evil who are opposed to the good teaching and wish it suppressed.” For it is a true and logical conclusion that the more eagerly the world opposes this sacred teaching, the more evil and wicked it is. Nor should the teaching be maligned on account of the fault of men. The Jews crucify Christ, shall we therefore accuse Christ, the Teacher? It is therefore necessary for us to be well fortified in advance and to say: “What is that to God, what is that to His Word, if men are evil? For this is the imperfection of men, not of God, who for this very reason sends His Son and His Word that men may be saved. But if they are not willing, they perish by their own fault. Christ does not for this reason cease to be the Son of God, God does not for this cause reject Him whom He has appointed king over all things. (Ibid., 8-9; my bolding)

In his sermon for the Twenty Sixth Sunday After Trinity, on Matthew 25:31-46 (1522?), from The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther (John Nicholas Lenker, Minneapolis, Lutherans in All Lands Co., Vol. XIV, 1905, 379- 395; currently updated in Vols. 75-78 of Luther's Works), Luther sounded the same theme (all bolding my own):

11. It seems as though he meant hereby to show that many Christians, after receiving the preaching of the Gospel, of the forgiveness of sins and grace through Christ, become even worse than the heathen. For he also says in Mat. 19, 30, "Many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." Thus it will also be at the end of the world; those who should be honest Christians, because they heard the Gospel, are much worse and more unmerciful than they were before, as we see too many examples of this even now.

Aforetime when we were to do good works under the seduction and false worship of the Papacy, every one was ready and willing; a prince, for example, or a city, could give more alms and a greater endowment than now all the kings and emperors are able to give. But now all the world seems to be learning nothing else than how to estimate values, to rake and scrape, to rob and steal by lying, deceiving, usury, overcharging, overrating, and the like; and every man treats his neighbor, not as though he were his friend, much less as his brother in Christ, but as his mortal enemy, and as though he intended to snatch all things to himself and begrudge everything to others.

12. This goes on daily, is constantly increasing, is a very common practice and custom, among all classes of people, among princes, the nobility, burghers, peasants, in all courts, cities, villages, yes in almost every home. Tell me, what city is now so strong and pious as to be able to raise an amount sufficient to support a schoolmaster or a preacher? (pp. 384-385)

15. We ought really to be ashamed of ourselves, having had the example of parents, ancestors, lords and kings, princes and others, who gave so liberally and charitably, even in profusion, to churches, ministers, schools, endowments, hospitals and the like; and by such liberal giving neither they nor their descendants were made poorer. What would they have done, had they had the light of the Gospel, that is given unto us? (p. 386)

34. . . . the same conditions, alas, prevail now everywhere ; and I fear and must almost resign myself that Germany may have the same experience as Sodom and Jerusalem, and will be a thing of the past; it will either be destroyed by the Turks or it will crumble by its own hand, unless the last day overtake it soon. For the present conditions are altogether unbearable and so exceedingly bad that they cannot become worse; and if there be still a God, he cannot thus let matters go on unpunished. (p. 394)

In another similar sermon on Matthew 18:21-25 (Twenty Second Sunday After Trinity, 1530), available via a multi-volume Baker Books edition (1996) edited by Eugene F. A. Klug and also in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), Luther stated:

28. The nature of the gospel is such, that those who misuse it, become more wicked than they were before. Christ himself says (Matt. 12:43-45): "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." There you have it, black on white! Any person to whom the gospel is proclaimed and who then misuses that gospel, becomes seven times more wicked than he was to begin with, and it would have been better for him if he had never heard the gospel. That is why I have often said that if I could accomplish things by wishing, I would wish that peasants, burghers, and nobles, who now horribly misuse the gospel, might still be under the papacy, for they are nothing but a hindrance, a shame and a disgrace to the gospel. 

29. You see that illustrated here in this wicked servant too. After having experienced such great mercy, this scoundrel leaves and becomes more wicked than he had been before. This is not just my own personal judgment or opinion; it is the judgment of our Lord Christ himself, In crystal clear words he asserts that those who become evangelicals turn out to be more wicked than they were before. Experience, too, teaches us that this is so. Sad to say, we daily experience the fact that people who are under the gospel now bear greater and more bitter hatred and envy in their hearts; they are more greedy and to materialistic now than when they were still under the papacy. As Christ says, The reason for this is that they have again opened their heart's door to Satan, and he has brought with himself seven other spirits more wicked than he himself is. We, who proclaim the gospel, must simply put up with the fact that under the gospel people become more wicked than they were before. But it is not the fault of the gospel, but of the devil and those people who return to serving Satan, allowing him to reenter their hearts and rule there along with sew other, more wicked spirits. This really depresses and angers the rest of the servants, so they come and report to the king the sordid conduct of their fellow servant. We, too, experience the same kind of disappointment when those who have the reputation of being "evangelical" conduct themselves so disgracefully and abominably that we really wish they were still under the papacy. But here we follow the example of these fellow servants by bringing their disgraceful abuse of the gospel to the attention of God and of the public. (The Complete Sermons, vol. 7, 141-142; my bolding)

In another sermon in 1537, he bitterly observed:

[W]ho of us would have begun to preach if we had known in advance that so much misery, sectarianism, offense, blasphemy, ingratitude, and malice would ensue? (Luther's Works, Vol. 24, 358)

Another line of reasoning that is relevant is to note that Luther thought his period was the last days, with the Second Coming imminent. And so he wrote in the same year:

I have no doubt that the Last Day is not far away, though the highly intelligent and super-rational world is not concerned about this, being are that there is no need for that for a long time. As time goes on it is becoming so callous and wicked that, even if no Last Day were supposed to come, still it itself—highly intelligent reason—would have to say that it may not and cannot continue or remain this way for long . . . 

It is an old saying, repeated by many teachers, that after the revelation of the Antichrist the people will become so dissolute that they will thereafter be unwilling to know or to believe anything about any god. Rather, each one will do or not do according to his own pleasure, as the devil and the flesh teach. We see such a time being fulfilled here before our eyes. For now that the horrible, dreadful lies and deception of the abominable Antichrist, the papacy, have been revealed and come to the light of day through God's amazing and exceptional grace, the people are beginning to believe nothing at all any longer. And because they feel freed and released from the bonds and strictures of the papacy, they want to be released and freed from the Gospel and all of God's commandments as well. From now on whatever pleases them and seems good is to be good and right By rights, this will be the end of the song, if God so wills.  (Preface to Ambrosius Moibanus, The Glorious Commission of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior (Mark 16 [:15]), in Luther's Works, Vol. 60, 149-150; my bolding)

So what happens if his period is not the last days? Another 500 years have gone by. We can safely say -- with the considerable benefit of hindsight -- that they weren't. Therefore, this explanation must be discarded. If it's not the last days and the devil, what was the cause of all the upheavals and chaos in Lutheran circles? Again, in a letter to his wife, Katie, dated 28 July 1545, a little less than six months before he died, Luther disdainfully lamented the moral conditions in his Wittenberg (he did return later, however):

I would like to arrange matters in such a way that I do not have to return to Wittenberg. My heart has become cold, so that I do not like to be there any longer. . . . As things are run in Wittenberg, perhaps the people there will acquire not only the dance of St. Vitus or St. John, but the dance of the beggars or the dance of Beelzebub, since they have started to bare women and maidens in front and back, and there is no one who punishes or objects. In addition the Word of God is being mocked [there]. Away from this Sodom! . . . I am tired of this city and do not wish to return . . . 

I. . .  will rather eat the bread of a beggar than torture and upset my poor old [age] and final days with the filth at Wittenberg . . . I am unable any longer to endure my anger [about] and dislike [of this city]. (Luther's Works, Vol. 50, 278-281; my bolding)

Luther tried very hard to reasonably comprehend and explain (from Scripture) what immensely troubled him, and to counter the Catholic accusations; and indeed he made some perfectly valid points: particularly his argument that sinning practitioners don't prove the falsity of the teaching they are claiming to be following. I've utilized the same argument many times in defending Catholicism, under the general category of "sinners in the Church." But that only goes so far. I don't think Luther can fully explain what happened in early Lutheranism and larger Protestantism on this basis alone. Nor can he -- like the comedian Flip Wilson's famous routine -- rely on "the devil made me do it" excuse: his other primary interpretation of the scandalous events in Protestant circles.

He remains responsible for introducing -- or greatly popularizing -- the notions of private judgment, sola Scriptura, and supremacy of the individual conscience (too disconnected from traditional precedent). These things, in my opinion, had a direct causal relationship with the rampant sectarianism that immediately commenced, and that he despised (as I recently argued). Luther, of course, detested lawless antinomianism, too, and counseled the necessity of good works.

Nevertheless, I would contend that it was inevitable that his "faith alone" doctrine would be distorted and transformed by less educated, unsophisticated, brand-new Lutherans into reckless sinning under the assumption that it was permitted, since good works were formally separated from salvation altogether (imputed justification) in Luther's and Lutheranism's soteriology. I would say that a false doctrine leads to bad fruit in practice, because the initial untruth will be distorted even further, including sanction for sin.

As I have suggested many times, the problem wasn't Luther's deliberate intention to do evil (I think he was perfectly sincere and well-intended, albeit too often wrong) but rather, his naivete about human nature and his initial assumption about the likelihood that all would be well and good and so much better than the former Catholic "norm" in his new Lutheran movement. When it clearly wasn't, especially after 1525 and the Peasants' Revolt, Luther (rather than examine whatever may have been his role in bringing these events about) started to develop the above sort of explanation (I dare say, rationalization) for the unfortunate turn of events in his circles.

Sectarianism remains perhaps the biggest "Achilles Heel" and unresolvable difficulty in Protestantism to this day. But the breaking down of "discipline" in Luther's Wittenberg and surrounding areas is directly attributable to Luther's rejection of Catholic authority and hierarchy, leading to a scenario where -- as he describes -- "all the restraints of the laws were done away with" because the "ecclesiastical chains . . . formerly held by the papacy" were no longer present. Part of this aspect: "the negligence of the civil magistrate" was a result of Lutheranism's replacement of the Catholic bishops (whom they no longer recognized as authoritative) with the secular German princes: a thing that his best friend and successor Philip Melanchthon bitterly regretted, to the point of frequent tears and despair. Melanchthon wrote to his friend, Joachim Camerarius, in a letter dated 31 August 1530:

Oh, would that I could . . .  restore the administration of the bishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have when the ecclesiastical body has been disorganized. I see that afterwards there will arise a much more intolerable tyranny [of the princes] than there ever was before. (in Book of Concord, “Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions,” by F. Bente: VII. Smalcald Articles and Tract concerning Power and Primacy of the Pope: section 70)

Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff mentioned this belief of Melanchthon’s, on page 33 of his History of the Christian Church, Vol. VII (Chapter One; § 10): "The many and crying abuses which followed this change in the hands of selfish and rapacious princes, were deeply deplored by Melanchthon." Ignoring all this, and any hint of any causation or personal responsibility as a result of his own innovations, Luther preached:

That the kings and rulers rage against us at the present time, that Zwingli, Carlstadt, and others cause disturbances in the church, that burghers and peasants condemn the Gospel, is therefore nothing new or unusual. (Ibid., 10)

These people, then ["kings" and "rulers"], are the causes of the tumults and scandals, not we who are moderate, peaceful, quiet. And the kind of teaching we offer is also not turbulent, but most peaceful. . . . Our adversaries . . . stir up the princes of the world against us. (pp. 11-12)

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Another thing that Luther seems to have neglected altogether in this regard (certainly in this sermon) is the biblical motif of "the good tree is known by its fruits." Is this a completely irrelevant consideration, when it comes to examining whatever the "fruit" of Lutheranism and larger Protestantism was and is? Let's see what the Bible (and especially our Lord Jesus) say about it:

Psalm 105:24 (RSV)And the LORD made his people very fruitful, and made them stronger than their foes.

Proverbs 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but lawlessness takes away lives.

Proverbs 14:14 A perverse man will be filled with the fruit of his ways, and a good man with the fruit of his deeds.

Isaiah 3:10 Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds.

Isaiah 32:16 Then justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field.

Jeremiah 12:2 Thou plantest them, and they take root; they grow and bring forth fruit; . . .

Jeremiah 17:8, 10 He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit. . . . [10] I the LORD search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings. (cf. 21:14; 32:19)

Zechariah 8:12 For there shall be a sowing of peace; the vine shall yield its fruit, and the ground shall give its increase, and the heavens shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.

Matthew 3:10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:16-21 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? [17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (cf. Lk 6:43-44)

Matthew 12:33, 35  Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. . . .
[35] The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it."

Luke 8:15 And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.

John 15:2, 4-5 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. . . . [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

John 15:16 . . . I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide . . .

Romans 7:4 . . . so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Philippians 1:11 filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

Colossians 1:6, 10 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing -- so among yourselves, from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth, . . . [10] to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

Hebrews 12:11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

James 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity.

If the original Lutheran movement was not exhibiting this fruit much at all (according to Luther's own frequent reports and lamentations), then Catholics were altogether justified, on this biblical basis, to question -- at least to some degree -- the movement itself and its false tenets. When St. Paul rebuked the notoriously sinful Corinthians and Galatians, he didn't simply say that the devil would oppose any good movement from God and the gospel, etc. He commanded them to rise above all that, with God's grace and power:

1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 7, 13 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. . . . [7]  Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. . . . [13] . . . "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 18-20 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. . . . [18] Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. [19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; [20] you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Jesus acted in the same way with the seven churches of Revelation:

Revelation 2:4-5 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. [5] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 2:14-16 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. [15] So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola'itans. [16] Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 3:2-3 Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. [3] Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

Revelation 3:15-16 I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! [16] So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

It wasn't sufficient for Luther to simply appeal to the "sin argument" and the Flip Wilson "the devil made me do it" argument, in reply to Catholic criticisms. That works to an extent, but not as a complete answer. It's just not feasible. It seems to come down in Luther's case to the usual human failing of not being able to admit one's own failures, whereas outside observers readily can see them. His flock had blind spots and tragically mistaken notions, and they weren't following what Luther taught them, but he also had blind spots.

It's not simply "anti-Protestant" or "anti-Luther[anism]" Catholic bias to point this out. Something really was seriously wrong in early Protestantism (again, as observed by Luther himself, over and over), and a serious, humble, dispassionate examination and analysis is called for, as opposed to the usual boorish and tendentious historical revisionism, hagiography, rationalizations, tunnel vision, or twisted, exaggerated caricatures that both sides too often fall into.

Matthew 7:5 . . . first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Mark 8:18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? . . . (cf. Mt 11:15; 13:15; Jn 9:41)

From Martin Luther's Thirty-Second Sermon, on Matthew  23:14, preached sometime "after March 27 and before September 25, 1538" (Luther's Works, Vol. 68 [2014], 168-173):

Now people do not give anything at all when the Gospel is being preached and people can pray correctly. Now they can find a pastor who does more than all the pope's bishops, but they give him only about ten gulden. No one wants to give now, and if we did not have the stolen property of the pope, the preachers would have hardly anything to eat. But that is not all; people also gladly take to themselves all that the poor pastors have for getting an income. People used to open their moneybags generously, but now they would gladly snatch the morsel from the mouth of the pastors. The princes have no lack, but the noblemen and magistrates also take away from the pastors their leftover stale crusts of bread, and yet they want to be regarded as being good evangelical people. . . .

Therefore, we are worse than the pope, who steals from the rich widows, emperors, kings, princes, and lords. We rob from the poor beggars, their children, and widows, and this is done by us even in this principality. Therefore, we set ourselves in opposition to the Gospel even more disgracefully than in the lands of Duke George or the margrave. That is devouring the beggars, guests, and poor widows. We can also cry out in woe over this, for they devour flesh and bone. While lamenting over the Papists, we should also not forget ourselves.

I fear that we fool around with the Gospel such that we are even worse before God than the Papists. For if someone is going to steal, then it is better to steal from a rich man than from a poor beggar or orphan who has nothing more than a bite of bread. . . .

[You may say,] "The people should not be scolded!" Christ can also preach well. But here He takes vinegar and forgets the honey and says: "Woe, woe to you peasants, townspeople, and nobility, who scrabble, scrape, and grab up everything for yourselves, and yet want to be regarded as good evangelical people. See to it that the Gospel is not only on your lips, while your deeds are doing the opposite. (pp. 171-173; my bolding)

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Even the anti-Catholic Protestant Reformed polemicist and controversialist James Swan, in a rare candid moment regarding his heroes, lamented:

Out of all the quotes used to prove Luther's despondency over the effects of the Reformation, this one comes closest to presenting Luther's grave concern over the state of the early Protestant church. Luther was disheartened by the lack of funds to support Protestant ministers. While Luther viewed the general stealing of the Papists as horrible, he likewise chastised his own people for lack of giving, which in essence was a form of stealing. . . .

Luther often complained about the Wittenberg church. He threatened, more than once, that he would either leave this congregation or no longer preach to them.

The editors of Luther's Works in another volume add:

The tensions between Luther and the Wittenberg congregation came to a head in Luther's resolution during the summer of 1545 to abandon Wittenberg and to retire with Katy and his family to the countryside, until he was finally persuaded by the petitions of the elector and the university to return. But though dramatic, Luther's brief self-imposed exile from Wittenberg during the last year of his life was in fact not unprecedented. In 1530, before his departure for the Coburg during the Diet of Augsburg, Luther had announced that he would not preach in Wittenberg anymore, and similar threats, sometimes carried through for several weeks at a time, were repeated both before and after. . . .

In his next-to-last sermon of February 7, 1546, Luther complained of the devotion of the Christians in Eisleben:

If you do go to the Sacrament, you go and come away again like a block of wood, or you let other people go to it and stay away yourself. So, too, you hear God's Word and that God's Son has died for you with no more devotion than if someone had said to you that the Turk had slain the sultan or the emperor had captured the king of France or some other tale, and you think it has no bearing on you, and you are as cold as ice and do not enkindle your heart nor take any thought for your soul or eternal life. That is what careless, wild people do, who take no thought for God. (Vol. 58, xx-xxii)

Related Reading

Martin Luther: “Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists” [12-29-07]

Luther on Early Lutherans: “Ingrates” Who Deserve God’s “Wrath” [2-28-10]

Luther on Early Lutheran Degeneracy & Bad Witness [3-2-10]

Luther: Monks & Priests More “Earnest” Than Lutherans [11-10-11]

Luther: I Was a Better Christian as a Catholic [6-5-24]

Many people today are turned off by the idea of having to suffer for the sake of holiness. For them, the image of a Catholic saint who had to go through unimaginable ordeals and martyrdom is not a very enticing one.

Why suffer when all you want is to be happy? Doesn’t God want us to be happy, too?

It’s not easy to understand how a good God would allow so much suffering. And it’s harder to grasp why His followers would suffer the same fate as Jesus did.

Jesus did nothing wrong. He made the blind to see and the lame to walk. He raised up even the dead! Why must He die such an excruciating death?

In the same way, why must saints suffer unjust punishments from men? Why must they be starved, flogged and beheaded? Even those who did not die as martyrs lived in a self-sacrificial way, often letting go of personal comfort, and spent their time in prayer, fasting and works of charity.

Is there some deeper wisdom we must learn to understand the suffering of the saints?

Here are some of the possible reasons why the saints had to suffer so much:

1. To serve as witnesses for eternal life

If the saints never suffered, we may get the wrong idea that salvation is only for our present life.

Some of the saints suffered as martyrs to make us realize that the kind of joy they are looking for resides in another life.

They suffered to give us a glimpse of hope and to make us look forward to heaven.

They seem to be saying that no matter how hard our lives would be on earth, no suffering can ever match the joys of our heavenly home!

2. To sacrifice for other people

The saints did not just suffer for themselves. Many took on voluntary sacrifices such as fasting and spending long hours in prayer to offer for sinners and other people in purgatory.

They lift up other souls to God and they fill their prayers with a life lived in holiness and self-sacrifice.

3. To gain more merit for heaven

Some of the sufferings of these saints did not come from voluntary offerings. They were a result of unjust situations in the world that were allowed by God so that they could receive a greater reward in heaven.

4. To grow in humility

The more righteous a person becomes, the greater also is the temptation for pride and vainglory.

To avoid attributing their holiness to themselves, they are sometimes taken to difficult trials. Suffering and temptation become the cross that reminds them of their weaknesses.

It brings them to a greater awareness of themselves and helps them overcome the sin of self-righteousness.

5. To show their love for Christ

The deeper one’s love for Jesus, the more also one is willing to embrace suffering for His sake.

It is not that God wants to see us suffer. But He gives us an opportunity to love Him ever more deeply in this life.

In heaven, we can no longer suffer. All we have is our current life on earth to follow the path that our Savior walked upon to show us His infinite love.

The Suffering of the Saints

The suffering of the saints should remind us of the suffering of Christ. Christ did not undergo all those hardships without a good reason. He did it to save us. He did it because He loves us!

The saints merely reflect and carry on the mission of Jesus Christ. They embody the kind of love that is willing to make a sacrifice for the sake of saving one’s neighbor.

While some of them lived very short lives, their holy lives and willingness to even die as martyrs should witness for us the firmness of their faith. They would like to invite us to believe also that there is yet another life we can look forward to. In that life, we shall finally meet God’s loving embrace. In that God, He will wipe away every tear from our eyes.

“For my heart is always with Him, day and night it thinks unceasingly of its heavenly and divine Friend, to whom it wants to prove its affection. Also within it arises this desire: not to die, but to suffer long, to suffer for God, to give Him its life while praying for poor sinners.”- Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity

“For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” - 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 (NRSVCE)

Jocelyn Soriano is the author of the book Defending My Catholic Faith.

"Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope." - 1 Peter 3:15 (NABRE)

Get the book from Amazon

Get my books on other Digital Stores

You may also want to read "How Is Christian Suffering Different From Sinful Suffering?"

In the introduction to the book I am currently reading, Prayer of the Heart, the author, Fr. George Maloney, a writer I greatly respect for his knowledge and wisdom, wrote something which I found to be greatly mistaken:

Only a human person, of all God’s material creatures, has the ability to stand on the mountaintop of his or her consciousness and ask the why and where of human existence. Why have I been created? Where is my life going? Where should it be going? How can I find purpose in my life?

The notion that humanity is the only material creature, the only animal, which can and will ask these, and other similar, questions, is one which many believe. It is an assumption which many Christians accept without question. I  am not one of them. I have grown to question it, even if many of my favorite theological and spiritual writers tend to accept it as a given and through it, produce  extremely anthropocentric theological system. When they do so, I tend to deconstruct those systems and take the good from them while casting aside what I believe to be false. Indeed, while there are exceptions to the rule, they represent what has become the Christian norm, and those who support this norm often try to base it on their reading of Scripture, a reading which does not always follow as they think it does. For, as they point out, Scripture says humanity was made in God’s image and likeness; this certainly is true, and all Christians should hold that belief; nonetheless, the problem is how they turn that statement into something which Scripture does not say, that is, only humanity is made in God’s image and likes. They add “only” to a text which does not say only, similar to the way some have come to read Paul as saying “faith alone” is what saves, even though Paul never said “alone.”

While, it must be acknowledged, many in Christian tradition believe only humanity is made in God’s image and likeness, it is clear they are being influenced by their own cultural background, their own cultural understanding of other forms of animal life,  one which had a limited understanding of the potentiality found in such other forms of animal life. That is, as all of us do, they engaged Scripture based upon factors outside of Scripture, factors which can be and should be reformed. But once they did this, then they took their belief and used it in the way they read or engaged science, creating a never-ending circle based upon a bad hermeneutical foundation, one which led them to believe many qualities associated with humanity, such as its intellect, come from the way they represent God and so is exclusive to humanity.

Scientifically, there seems to be a variety of intellectual potentials found throughout the range of animal life (and possibly, not just animals). Some animals have greater intellectual capabilities than others. Some demonstrate conscious awareness of death and act upon in in ways which prove that humanity is not alone in the way it engages death. We can see this in various species closely related to humanity, like Neanderthals, but also in others, like elephants, who seem to have rituals connected with death, or with other animals which clearly are in mourning when they lose a loved one (as many of those who inherited a pet from a loved one has likely observed).  To be sure, not all animals show the same level awareness, suggesting that, as with the intellect itself, we are likely dealing with a spectrum of potentiality, with some much more aware, much more affected by death than others. Of course, we can appreciate and understand those animals which act in ways similar to us much more easily than those which act in ways quite a bit different from us, and so we might be misreading those who are different: they might have ways we cannot appreciate or understand that for them represent their own engagement with death.  It is also possible that some animals truly have little to no understanding of death beyond the instinct for survival. What we should not do is use those we cannot understand and use them to suggest the conclusion that only humans have the ability to think about and ponder about life and death.

Nonetheless, though science suggests one thing, and much of Christian tradition suggests another, once again, it is clear, many do not want to reform Christian tradition to take in what science has revealed. They think it takes away what makes humanity special, and  indeed, this is a part of the problem: people want to feel they are special – special as individuals, as communities, and as a species, and so they try to find ways to prove they are not only special, but superior to others. That is, pride is at work in the way they look out into the world. And it such pride which has them turn various qualities they possess into exclusive ones, for by doing so, their pride validates itself.  This tendency seems to be a byproduct of the fall, that is, it is the type of egotism which the fall generates, one which seeks to divide up creation so as to make one part of it better than others, and then, having made it better, justify whatever it does to the others, even if it means destroying that which is deemed inferior. That is, sin has us divide up creation so we can join in its destruction of being. Individualism, racism, nationalism, and even religious fundamentalism, all come as a result of this tendency. They are all opposed to the way of Christ because Christ has shown us that the distinctions found in creation are not meant to serve as qualities which divide creation into distinct parts cut off from each other, or fighting each other, but rather as parts which are interdependent with each other and come together as one. This is why it is said in Christ there is to be  neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile, not because those qualities do not take place, but because those qualities and distinctions are not absolutes; while sin divides up creation through them, Christ finds a way to bridge everything together, to make them one, even as God is one.

This is not to say there are no distinctions to be found in the world. It’s not distinctions which are in question, but how they are understood and applied, which is problematic. Distinctions are not meant to be absolutes, separating those which are distinct from each other, but rather, are to serve as the way we establish how different people and things can exist in relation with each other. That relationship is important. It shows they are not independent but rather interdependent. Those persons and things, those objects which serve as the basis for such relationships, will have qualities which make each of them unique, qualities which emerge and come to be as a result of those relationships. For Christians, the Trinity should help them better understand this point, for in it, we have a plurality of persons, each unique in their own way, and yet each connected with and full equal with every other one, showing us  uniqueness does not have to be seen as representing an essential difference, nor as making one or another better than another.  This should help us better understand humanity and our place in creation. We can accept there is something unique about humanity while not using it to produce a cosmological understanding that makes humanity special or greater than all other material beings.

It can be said that one of the distinctions given to humanity, one of the things which made it unique, is that the incarnation took place with it, that is, God took on human nature and through it, become a man, Jesus Christ. Because distinctions come from and through relationships, this distinction should not be used to suggest the incarnation is only for the sake of humanity, but rather, it is the means, the relational center, God uses to bring salvation to all creation. Thus, humanity can be said to be unique because of the incarnation, and not because it has exclusive claims to possessing an intellect, self-consciousness, or awareness of death.

Yes, I know some of my argument could be used against me, that is, because we cannot and do not know what is going on in the consciousness of other animal species, I could be wrong in suggesting that they have some level of self-awareness and even an understanding of death. While, for some animals, this might be true, we have found the means to observe and  learn from others that they have some understanding about death and have rituals associated with it. Perhaps some species have that awareness, and others do not. Perhaps. But to say such an ability is exclusive to us I think can be shown to be wrong. I would also say the instincts most animals have in regards self-preservation (or those who look for and take care of their own youth, with a willingness to sacrifice themselves so that their children can survive) demonstrate that they all have some awareness of death, even if it is not the same kind we have. And if this is true with death, this can also be true with other concepts; animals are going to want to understand, at least in regards their potential, their own origin, why they exist, and indeed, the meaning of it all. This is not to say they will do so in the same degree, but then again, not all humans do so either. But, for me, the way I read the interactions of many saints with animals suggests that they had come to know and recognize some of these qualities with the animals they associated with, even those science has less ability to examine and understand, showing that the Christian tradition, in action, often transcended the notions which were handed down from generation to generation. I see this, for example, when St. Anthony of Padua preached to the fish: he had them celebrate and worship God, indicating he thought they had some sort of concept which they could and would use about God and their creation, and the way they responded to him, suggests he was right. I see similar stories with many other saints, including favorites like St. Antony the Great, St. Jerome, St. Francis of Assisi, and St. Seraphim of Sarov, each which are known to have encounters with animals which highlight such animals had some sort of understanding of God and praised God when asked to do so.

Just as many Christians have begun to understand salvation in a pluralistic, inclusivistic sense, so I think we must begin to explore creation with such a sense as well. We should stop looking at humanity, believing many of the qualities we associate with it are exclusive to it. Indeed, we should truly embrace pluralistic inclusivity as a hermeneutic for our engagement with others, be it other people, or other forms of life, for then, if we do so, we will find our actions will be transformed and made better, as we will better realize our ethical and moral obligations to the other. We will have cut out the way of thinking which leads us to think we can ignore them because we view them as different, and therefore, our inferiors. Then, we will find ourselves truly following the way of Christ, because we will no longer allow sin to lead us on to divide up the world and justify destroying that which we find to be different. Rather, we will see difference does not need to lead to absolute division, but rather, serve as the foundation for a new way of looking at things, where we realize our interdependence with everything, and therefore, the need to work together so that we lift everyone else up due to our relations with them instead of putting them down and excusing their destruction.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

N.B.:  While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.

I saw another list. The internet is a tyranny of lists. At first, I enjoyed participating, ranking my own taste against that of, well, everybody else. But now, now I’ve seen too many lists, had my heart broken one too many times. This list was about TV shows. Nearly every winner premiered in the last 25 years, with a hefty weighting toward the more contemporary. Where’s the fun in that? Has nobody ever heard of Ernie Kovacs? I’m only 30, for God’s sake.

Faced with another defeat, I had to see if anything I liked was actually any good. Where better to start than the original Twilight Zone (1959-1964). I grew up with the News Years’ and July 4^th marathons. Sure, it’s a hodgepodge of morality tales, sometimes so thick with allegory Rod Serling felt the need to offer an interpretation in the closing narration. You know, for good measure. Sure, it’s in black and white and wasn’t made by HBO. But was it so paltry it couldn’t make a top 50 list? “The Dummy” seeped into my developing brain so thoroughly that images of Willy’s face haunted me for years. Occasionally, my brain, no apparent reason to be seen, screeches "it's a cookbook!" How bad can a show that induces such childhood trauma be?

Looking for a place to begin my quest, an episode I’d never seen caught my eye, “Night Call” from season five. Directed by Jacques Tourneur of Cat People (1942) and Out of the Past (1947) fame, “Night Call” is replete with tension from beginning to end. Elva Keene (Gladys Cooper) is an elderly, disabled woman who lives alone in a cabin in the country. More than this, she is lonely, only ever seeing her daytime aide. Elva waits and waits by her phone; it’s her only connection to the world.

That is, until one night during a storm when her phone rings—no voice on the other side. The calls become more and more frequent even as the caller becomes bolder and bolder. “Hellllooo,” it rasps over and over. "Who are you?" Elva screams. The disembodied caller sounds like a zombie creaking out its first words after decades of dusty sleep. Eventually it even seems to know her name, who she is.

Her little cottage seems to grow dimmer and dimmer, more masked by shadow; Elva succumbs to hysteria.

But that’s just the thing: she’s not hysterical, not really. She reacts exactly how many elderly people would. I’ve seen it with, I regret to say, my own eyes: a growing loneliness. As her aide keeps jabbing, she needn’t pick up the phone. But what else is there to do? Who would harass someone otherwise so alone? Why? And why give up the one connection she has to the outside world? Elva must know; the voice must account for itself. Elva begins calling the phone company like she's praying the Liturgy of the Hours. They must know.

The original short story by Richard Matheson (who also co-wrote the teleplay with Serling) ends differently, but that’s no matter. “Night Call” is The Twilight Zone at its best; it distills this creepy feeling down to its bare essence. It offers just enough realism to feel plausible, for me to imagine just such an old woman having just such an experience. But the terror feels preternatural, something unknowable pervasive. Plus, the moral ain’t half bad.

Maybe I’ll make a series of this—who’s to say? Me, I guess. There’s much Twilight Zone to be watched, and I need to see why my taste, it seems, is so bad.

July 1, 2024.

That’s the day the Supreme Court killed American democracy and replaced it with an absolute dictatorship. 

Nothing changed for us on that day. People who understand the ruling are rocking and rolling. Some of them are probably dusting off their passports and wondering if there’s a corner of the globe to which they can escape if the worst happens and Trump wins next November. But most people didn’t even look around and go “what was the that?” when America was shot through the heart. 

Nothing happened. The Supreme Court issued a series of execrable rulings in a few days, any one of which would normally cause great public debate and outrage among genuine, Jesus-following Christians.

They legalized bribery for elected officials, in particular and specifically the kind of bribes that Clarence Thomas and other Supreme Court justices have been caught taking themselves. They allowed the government to put homeless people in prison for sleeping outdoors in public places. They overturned the convictions of a large number of 1/6 coup attempt participants who stormed the United States Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election. They overturned the power of federal agencies to set rules and regulations to keep the government running. They crippled the clean air and water act. 

All those things, in fact any of those things, would, in the America we’ve lived in all our lives, have set off vigorous public debate and a good bit of outrage.

There was a time when Christians actually thought that taking bribes was a sin, even for Republicans. In fact, there was a time when Christians — and by that I mean everyone who called themselves a Christian — would have said without reservation or hesitation that the 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount were binding commandments of God and everybody — even Republican officeholders, Republican candidates for office and billionaires — sinned when they broke them. 

I remember a time when Christians believed and all Christian religious leaders taught that taking bribes was a sin, lying was a sin, rape was a sin, corruption was a sin. Now, the Supreme Court gives the president the power to order anyone he chooses to be executed without charges or a trial, just on his say-so — just, in fact, on his whim — and “christians” support it. The new-old satanic teaching of America’s phony, anti-Christ clergy is that if a Republican does it, no matter what it is, it’s not a sin. 

Now, the new-old satanic teaching of America’s anti-Christ clergy is that Donald Trump, not Jesus, is the savior and whatever Trump wants is holy. 

That’s why the next new thing the Supreme Court spat on, the coup de grace to American democracy and the end of the good times for all of us, was received not with outrage by America’s right wing clergy and their followers, but with hosannas. 

On the last day of the session, early in the morning, the Supreme Court handed down what people have begun to refer to in verbal shorthand as “the immunity decision.” 

The six right wing “justices” who brought this monstrosity all testified at their confirmation hearings that they were what is called “Constitutional originalists.” What that supposedly meant is that they believe in issuing rulings based on the plain text of the Constitution with no embellishment; that they were opposed to “interpreting” the meaning of the words in the document. They were, they said, going to rule according to the plain text without any interpretation. 

They lied. 

Just like everyone who refers to them as “conservatives” lies. 

These justices are not “conservatives” by any definition of the word that exists in the English language. They are extreme, fascist, Neo Nazi radicals. I know that many of my pro life brothers and sisters revere them because they overturned Roe v Wade. If they had stopped there, that would be a legitimate way for pro life people to feel. They would also have ruled in a manner that generally fit with their claims to be “Constitutional originalists” and “conservatives” going forward.

But they didn’t do that. What they have been doing is acting on behalf of a group of Neo Nazi billionaires who got most of their billions from government largesse of one sort or another. Not only are these judges not Constitutional Originalists, they have torched the Constitution. They ripped the Constitution to shreds and flushed it.

Not only are they not pro life, they are six people who have given the president the authority to murder at will. They made presidential corruption and murder, including — get ready for this now — mass murder -- legal. 

They added some stupid blather about the vague possibility of judicial review and, of course, impeachment, as limiting factors on the absolute dictatorship they were creating, but that was patent nonsense, a dodge and a set up to give them some sort of deniability.

The bald truth is, no Supreme Court justice is going to rule against a president they believe will have them killed and no Congress is going to impeach a president who can either have them shot or removed from office at will. 

The Supreme Court gave the president unlimited power. 

We the People didn’t feel the earth shifting beneath our feet because the idealistic old man holding the presidency today is probably the last person who will ever hold that office who will not use those powers. 

But that other old man, the one on whose behalf the Supreme Court wrote this ruling, most certainly will. I do not doubt that if Trump wins the election in November, he is going to kill people. He’s going to kill a lot of people. It probably won’t start all at once. But absolute power of this sort corrupts even good men. And Donald Trump is not a good man. He’s a cruel, sexual predator, liar, grifter, walking barrel of criminality and corruption. He is an absolute moral degenerate who gives every appearance of being a psychopath. 

If we elect him president again, he will take this ruling and run with it. And even the people who’ve sucked up to him and worshipped him and put him in place of Jesus will suffer. This beautiful country of ours, this wonderful free, prosperous way of life that we have come to take so much for granted that we no longer value it, is going to be lost forever. 

The Supreme Court killed the Constitution for Donald Trump and it felt like nothing happened. But the hard times are coming, and when they come, we won’t be able to elect a different president to turn it around. Because the Supreme Court gave the president the power to do anything so long as he claims it is an “official act.” And that includes cancelling future elections or killing anyone who dares to run against him. 

From the dissent of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision giving presidents the power of absolute dictators:

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way … he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. 

Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. 

Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. 

Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. 

Immune, immune, immune. 

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.

With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies. We let our worst thoughts get the best of us. We find ourselves becoming stuck in a bad headspace, and when that happens, we don’t know what to do to get out of it. This is especially true with those who are actively striving for perfection in their lives. They think all they should be doing is wrestling with all their temptations, and the thoughts which generate them, but in doing so, they often strengthen those thoughts instead of overcome them because of the focus they give them. They give those thoughts the space they need in their lives to continue to thrive. The reason why they do this is that they think that it would be slothful if they didn’t confront such thoughts when they appear, but in focusing on them, all they do is give those thoughts the fuel they need to continue on. Eventually, with all their focus turned inward, with all their attachment being upon themselves and all the bad things they see going on in their minds, they lose sight of their lives and the good which can be and should be found in it. Eventually, they can leads to acedia, where they lose all care and concern for life itself.

A good, healthy spirituality, certainly will have us struggle against temptation, against our worst thoughts, but it will also have us do so by finding a way to detach ourselves from those thoughts, to not always notice them, to not give them space, so that we can move beyond them. We must fight them,  but one way to do that is to push them aside and have our focus elsewhere. We must let them vanish just as they emerged. One of the best ways to do this is to find a way to appreciate  the life we have been given, to find something which we enjoy and do it so that we find ourselves becoming reinvigorated by it. St. Antony the Great understood this; while he would  tell monks not to become slothful, and so, not to needlessly wander outside their cell, he did not think monks should stay put if and when it was proven to be unproductive for them, especially if it led to acedia. Thus, we read:

Abba Antony said, ‘When you are moved by thoughts that distress you that you cannot chase away sufficiently, go outside into the fresh air and they will leave you.’[1]

We should take time to go out and enjoy the world, to go out and see the goodness of God’s creation. This way, we can contemplate the glory of God as it is revealed in and through nature. This will help us see that life is good, that its goodness is found, not just in ourselves, but in the things around us, and it is a good which we can enjoy so long as we engage that goodness in a proper fashion. When find ourselves becoming stuck in a bad situation, such as finding ourselves being stuck in a war against evil thoughts and the temptations they bring, the best thing to do is to end it by getting over ourselves, for it is often some element of egotism and the attachments it forms which keep us trapped in a situation which is not good for us.  We can and should leave it all behind so that we can embrace the glory which is beyond ourselves, letting that glory penetrate us, and in doing so, finding that all that we were fighting, all that was clouding our mind, vanishes because of the grace which is found in that glory.

We can’t do all things ourselves; it is often pride which makes us stay put, constantly fighting the bad thoughts within, constantly focusing on them, and in doing so, giving them what they need to control and manipulate us;  when we realize, despite all the ways we tried to fight against them, we have not been successful but they remain there, just as powerful as they ever were, we accept that our victory over them will not come from ourselves, but from outside ourselves, that is, from God and God’s grace. There are many ways God shares grace, each of which can be said to be a kind of grace.  Everything, in the goodness given to it by God, has its own grace, a grace which can be and will be shared, and this is exactly what we can receive when we go out into the world and contemplate and open ourselves to the goodness found in all things. That is, as we enjoy the world around us, we enjoy the glory God has given to the world, to be sure, a reflected glory of God’s own glory, but yet a glory with its own share of graces, and so the more we are open to that glory, the more we find ourselves open to God, the source and foundation of that glory. This is why, going out to the world, going out to nature, to commune with it can and will provide us the support we need to resist temptation.

It is important for us to be flexible in our spiritual engagements. When we discover what we are doing is not working for us, we should be open to try other things. Rigorism takes what should be flexible and makes it inflexible, as it embraces one way to an extreme, and in that extreme, begins to create rules which it suggests should be followed by everyone. Thus rigorism often end up creating and establishing a legalistic spirit, the kind which does not have the flexibility needed for continuous spiritual development. Antony, when he told monks, and through that, told us, that sometimes it is important to move on and take time to enjoy life, to embrace leisure time, shows us he understood that those who do not do so are being broken down and destroyed by their own rigorism, their own legalism, or a combination therefore. Seeing that as a problem, he also made it sure people understood a good spirituality would never be such legalistic:

Abba Antony also said: ‘It is not what is written in the letter of the law that makes for righteousness; rather, it is the purified heart: this is what makes for human righteousness.’[2]

The purified heart comes, in part, from our struggles, but it also comes in part from grace, and so long as we struggle in such a way as to think we can and will do all things ourselves, our hearts will never be pure. But if we take in the good which is around us, if we take some time to relax and let out all our anxiety, all our stress,  we then find in and through our leisure time we come in contact with all kinds of graces, graces which will provide us what we need to truly make spiritual progress until, at last, over time, with our combined struggle and grace, we find ourselves truly pure at heart. Legalism and rigorism always limits us in such a way that much of that which is good is cut asunder, and without that good and the grace contained in it, we will never find ourselves embracing all that is good and so never truly attain purity of heart. Those who know how to have a spirituality which is not stuck with the letter of the law, the letter of the spiritual message they are told, but capable of going to the meaning beyond words and embrace it, will find themselves able to embrace flexibility in their spirituality, and through such flexibility, they will be able to cooperate with all kinds of grace until, at last, the purity which they seek will be theirs.

[1] More Sayings of the Desert Fathers. An English Translation And Notes. Ed. John Wortley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019; repr. 2023),  140 [“Sayings Preserved in Coptic”: C53].

[2] More Sayings of the Desert Fathers, 141 [“Sayings Preserved in Coptic”: C55].

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

N.B.:  While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist James Swan is again trying to make polemical and rhetorical hay out of a supposed dispute between myself and a fellow Catholic lay apologist; in this instance, my very good friend, Gary Michuta. He calls this post, "Why the Canon Is Closed According to Roman Catholic Apologists, and Why the Canon is Not Closed According to Roman Catholic Apologists" (3-14-12). Here is most of it:

You can't make this stuff up:

The Canon is closed:

"Scripture was Scripture before the canon was declared. Vatican I and Vatican II both state this. The canon is not Scripture itself, but the authoritative list of biblical books. Thus, there is no difficulty in saying 'Scripture existed before the canon was declared.' Indeed, this was necessarily the case, since declaring a list of biblical books presupposes that there are biblical books to be listed! The point of the canon was to end dispute once and for all as to which books are part of the Bible, since some didn't accept various books, and others thought books were Scripture that were not (as later determined by councils and popes and general consensus)."

"I would say that many Christians largely knew what books were part of Scripture, but not exactly or with precision, and that's where the Church's declarations were important and necessary: to remove any remaining doubt and make it more certain what books were in the Bible."[source] [a Facebook post of mine, dated 3-13-12]

The canon is open:

"The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books.

...The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241].

All that is required here is for me to further clarify that the books that were declared by Trent certainly are part of the canon of Scripture (all doubt is removed about those, for those who accept Catholic conciliar authority); and the books that were not declared upon at all there (including [I] Esdras), are "theoretically open," as Gary put it. Since Gary is the leading Catholic apologist today on the topic of the canon, I gladly yield to his opinion. Having now done that, there is no contradiction between us, since we agree. That said, it's a pretty minor textual issue that we're discussing with regard to Esdras, as will be seen when we examine it more closely.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Esdras is almost all simply a reiteration of parts of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The great Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce gives it short shrift in his book, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1988, p. 47), describing it as "a variant Greek edition of the history from 2 Chron. 35:1 to Neh. 8:13)." Michuta adds: "Only a short section of this book (Esdras 3:1-5:6) contains unique material. Most of the book is a repetition of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemiah" (Ibid., p. 239). Encyclopaedia Britannica ("First Book of Esdras") summarizes more specifically:

The work is textually more closely related to the Old Testament than other books of the Apocrypha, for it traces portions of Israel’s history from 621 BC to 444 BC by summarizing II Chronicles 35:1–36:23, the whole of the canonical Book of Ezra, and Nehemiah 7:73–8:12.

So what is the nature of the unique portion?  The same article opines:

The only new material is the “Tale of the Three Guardsmen,” a Persian folk story that was slightly altered to fit a Jewish context. The method used in compiling I Esdras is uncertain, especially because of numerous historical inconsistencies and errors; in several instances it also alters biblical texts.

We're talking about two chapters and six verses of a third (93 verses, about 2211 words, and about 2.8 pages in my RSV): that are different from other portions of the Old Testament agreed upon by all. Wikipedia ("1 Esdras") adds: "Many Protestant and Catholic scholars assign no historical value to the sections of the book not duplicated in Ezra–Nehemiah."

None of this information -- predictably --, was included in Swan's little potshot. It didn't fit the plan and goal, you see. If that's scholarly consensus today, it looks like Trent was right on the money almost 500 years ago, and acted wisely and correctly in passing over making a declaration about the canonicity of Esdras. Lastly, the Wikipedia article provides a handy summary of the overlap of Esdras and other books (I modified the order a bit):

II Chr. 35 = I Esd. 1:1-33

II Chr. 36 = I Esd. 1:34-58

Ezr. 1 = I Esd. 2:1-14

Ezr. 2 = I Esd. 5:7-46

Ezr. 3 = I Esd. 5:47-65

Ezr. 4:1-5 = I Esd. 5:66-73

[Ezra 4:6 is not found in Esdras]

Ezr. 4:7-24 = I Esd. 2:15-30a

Ezr. 5 = I Esd. 6:1-22

Ezr. 6 = I Esd. 6:23 — 7

Ezr. 7 = I Esd. 8:1-27

Ezr. 8 = I Esd. 8:28-67

Ezr. 9 = I Esd. 8:68-90

Ezr. 10 = I Esd. 8:91-9:36

Neh. 7:73-8:12 = I Esd. 9:37-55

Swan's post, seen in this light, is what Shakespeare described in Macbeth: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

In his article, "Roman Catholic Confusion on Contraception in the Bible" (3-15-12), anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist James Swan observed:

You can't make this stuff up:

Genesis 38 is about contraception:

Bottom line is that God killed Onan for some reason. The only plausible reason we have from the text itself is contraception. A straightforward reading of the text lends itself readily to that interpretation (though not absolutely of logical necessity).[source]

Genesis 38 is not about contraception:

"In the case of Onan, you are right that the common Catholic reliance on this passage as a proof text against contraception or masturbation is a weak one and wrong-headed" [Source: Mark Shea. What Does it Mean to Say Jesus has Fulfilled the Old Covenant?].

Swan's point, as always, is to mock and scorn Catholicism and Catholics. Here he finds two Catholic apologists (the first one, myself, unnamed by him as usual), disagreeing on the interpretation of Genesis 38 and the Onan incident with regard to contraception, and so he thinks this is some sort of argument against Catholicism, as if individuals Catholics don't have disagreements on exegesis, just as all Christian groups do.

I contend that Mark Shea is simply wrong, and unacquainted with the relevant facts. First of all, he is in effect accusing a pope in a very high-level papal encyclical on the topic of contraception -- and St. Augustine -- of using "weak one and wrong-headed" reasoning concerning this issue. In Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage), issued by Pope Pius XI on 31 December 1930 (the precursor to the famous Humanae Vitae of 1968), he wrote:

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”

[Footnote 45: St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVlll, 8-10.]

In Catholicism, when the choice in a disagreement comes down to a lay apologist vs. a pope in an encyclical along with St. Augustine, virtually any serious, observant Catholic would yield to the reasoning of the pope and the person widely considered the greatest Church father. I would hope that Mark Shea would do so, if he were shown this. I certainly would, if I took this view and discovered this passage. As it turns out, I was correct, and in line with the Bible, the Church fathers, Protestant tradition all the way up to 1930, and the Catholic Church. I've written at least five times about Onan, if anyone wants to better understand my position on this:

Why Did God Kill Onan? (Bible and Contraception) [2-9-04]

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception) [2-13-04]

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment: a Concise “Catholic” Argument  [3-7-14]

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]

Steve Hays, Onan, Bible Commentary, & Contraception [1-11-07, 2-28-14; revised & expanded on 12-14-21]

The Protestant New Bible Dictionary (J. D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962), in the article, “Marriage”, written by the editor, J. D. Douglas, states that “Onan . . . took steps to avoid a full consummation of the union, thus displeasing the Lord, who slew him” (p. 910). Douglas appears to contend that Onan was killed for the contraceptive act, not disobedience to the levirate law. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975; translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink) concurs:

Onan’s tactic of withdrawing before ejaculation . . . costs him his life. (p. 653)

[W]henever Onan and Tamar had intercourse he would spill his sperm on the ground to prevent her from conceiving; for this the Lord slew him. (p. 781)

In its article on “Levirate Law,” we are also informed that “the brother had the option of refusing to take his sister-in-law in levirate marriage” (p. 652). The logic is apparent: if refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause. Genesis 38:9 undeniably establishes that Onan utilized the “withdrawal method”: probably the form of contraception most used throughout history. God clearly didn't approve of it and judged him as a result.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Lutheran) also concurs in its view on this passage:

This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Since all Protestants thought contraception was an impermissible sin and evil until 1930, when the Anglicans first permitted it in "hard cases" only, it's easy to find them supporting my interpretation as well. Hence, John Calvin, commenting on the Onan passage, wrote:

And the thing which he did displeased the LORD. Less neatly the Jews speak about this matter. I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

Martin Luther used even stronger language in condemning Onan and interpreting the passage as a condemnation of the contraceptive mentality:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; in Luther's Works, Vol. 7, 20-21)

For more about Luther's views on this topic, see: Luther and Calvin Opposed Contraception and “Fewer Children is Better” Thinking (2-21-04; published at National Catholic Register, 9-13-17). For an overview of the early Church on this issue, see: Contraception: Early Church Teaching (William Klimon) [1998], and "What the Early Church Believed: Contraception and Sterilization" (Catholic Answers).

As Jesus said to the Pharisees: "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains" (Jn 9:41, RSV).

Looking at America’s Catholic bishops from far outside and with zero insider information, I can say that they appear to be split into two camps. 

One camp, the ascendant and apparently controlling group, are the buddies — dare I say operatives? — of the billionaire Neo Nazis who are doing a pretty effective job of destroying American democracy. You might call them the lions. 

The other camp, the gobsmacked, blithering, can’t-quite-figure-out-that-they-are-nose-to-nose-with-evil-incarnate group, are the bishops who still think that the 10 Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes are, well, commandments from God, and that Jesus Christ, not Trumpism, is Lord. You might call them the Christians. 

So far — and again from far outside and with zero insider information — it’s looking like the score is Lions 7, Christians 0. 

Meanwhile, over in Italy, the land that — with the backing of the Vatican — went fascist even before Germany in the 1930s, the bishops are actually celebrating democracy instead of aligning themselves with those who are working to kill it. 

History repeats itself. But differently. 

This time around, while the Supreme Court of the United States of America torches the Constitution and sets up the presidency as an absolute, total dictatorship, complete with the power to kill anybody or any number of people, at will, with absolutely no consequences, the Italians are standing up for democracy. Meanwhile many of America’s religious leaders, including almost all Evangelicals and a healthy number of our Catholic bishops, are in the bag for the destruction of our democracy. They are backing a moral degenerate/criminal who gives every appearance of being a flat-out psychopath for president and excusing every evil, vile, morally repugnant thing he does or says.  

America’s right wing bishops are so besotted with fascist teachings that they have even begun enacting right wing political goals into the fabric of Church governance itself by cutting the USCCB’s programs that serve the poor and seek justice. These moves cripple the American Church’s ability to address the evils that are coming at us. Meanwhile, Pope Francis continues to visit the poor, and to speak for them, even when he is slandered and attacked for doing it. 

History repeats itself. But differently.  

While America’s bishops are either sucking their thumbs in dismay, or actively supporting the destruction of our democracy, the Italian Bishops Conference has dedicated this year to the theme “At the Heart of Democracy: Participation throughout history and into the future.” 

In that vein, the Italian press has published a previous speech by Pope Francis highlighting the same theme. Pope Francis also gave a speech decrying the attacks on democracy. Pope Francis and the Italian bishops make the point that democracy requires many people from all sorts of backgrounds, faiths and ideas to work together for common goals. 

That is why democracy is always so incredibly successful. From the ancient Greeks, to the Roman Republic, to the United States of America, democracy empowers people to build and grow. In the course of that, democratic nations inevitably trounce all competition and end up powerhouses of strength and prosperity. 

The problem comes when a few individuals give their souls to bottomless greed. They figure out how to hack the democracy in order to concentrate wealth to themselves. Then, inevitably, they decide they want all the money, and all the power. They kill the democracy so that they can have everything for themselves.  

And that is where America is today. Our problems stem from a coalition of fascist billionaires and corrupt religious leaders who have taken over our institutions in order to accrue all the power and wealth of this great nation to themselves. 

I applaud the Italian bishops and Pope Francis for their support of democracy. Democracy is, as everything humans devise, imperfect. That is inevitable since democracy is government of, by and for the people, and people are imperfect. But democracy is the form of government that provides the greatest freedom, happiness, prosperity and security we can know in this world. 

Totalitarianism leads to misery, suffering and death. Dictatorships crush ordinary people like you and me under its wheels like an 18-wheeler rolling over bugs on a highway. 

It’s a sad thing that so many of America’s religious leaders have decided to be present-day Nazis. Make no mistake about it: What they are backing is old-school fascism.

The Supreme Court decision of July 1, 2024 setting presidents above the law is absolute dictatorship on a level that it took Hitler several years to gain. It’s a tragedy that, at this pivotal moment, America’s religious leaders who haven't drunk the fascist Kool Aid are flitting and dithering and refusing to stand up and speak out loud and without apology for the Gospels of Christ. 

Religious leaders have backed monsters before. And those religious leaders who refused to back the monsters have also ducked and covered and played polite games until it was too late to stop the oncoming cataclysm before as well. This time, the pope is not ducking and covering. But, he’s being forced to almost stand alone. 

As I said, history repeats itself. But differently. 

What that means for those of us in the pews is that we are like lambs without shepherds. No one is preaching Christ. 

The loudest and the meanest American clergy (from many denominations, not just Catholic bishops) are preaching Trumpism, which if you have eyes to see and ears to hear, is satanic. It is definitely and absolutely not preaching Christ. There is no Jesus in anything these clergy say. 

The rest of America’s clergy are giving us feel-good platitudes straight from the 1970s. 

I’ve thought about this. I’ve prayed about it. I’ve thought about it again. And I’ve prayed about it some more. 

I’ve decided that I have a Shepherd. His name is Jesus. He was murdered by political priests cut from the same cloth as the Neo Nazi clergy of today, including some of our bishops, who are preaching Trump instead of Christ. 

Before He was murdered, Jesus told His followers that they were not greater than He was. If the forces of greed, cruelty, dishonesty and indifference to basic morality and human suffering killed Him, they would kill His followers as well. 

Jesus didn’t tell us we were going to be prosperous and have all good things. He never said life in Him would be all ponies and rainbows. He told us that we would be drug before courts, that our friends and even our families would turn on us, and that if they killed Him, they would also kill us. 

He told us to pick up our cross and follow Him. And He was not speaking figuratively. 

I feel that our bishops have deserted us in this time of great peril. Even the best of them, the well-intentioned and still faithful among them, are dithering, not leading. I feel that some of our bishops have turned on us and are exploiting our faith to build little empires of political and monetary power for themselves by telling us we must, on pain of sin, vote in ways that will lead to our destruction.  

I don’t feel so much heartened as ironical when I see that the Italian bishops and the pope are willing to speak for the good of democracy. When I put it in historical context, the irony of the Italian bishops cherishing democracy while the American bishops work to destroy it is so thick I could walk on it from here to Kansas. 

From Crux:

Speaking to the Italian Bishops’ Conference the pope said July 7, “It is evident that in the world today, democracy, let’s tell the truth, does not enjoy good health.”

… The declining state of democracy, the pope said, is concerning for the world, because the good of humanity is at risk … He compared the current crisis in democracy to “a wounded heart,” describing it as a “heart attack” in which “we must also worry about the different forms of social exclusion.”

… “It is our duty not to manipulate the word democracy nor to deform it with titles, empty titles, capable of justifying any action. Democracy is not an empty box, but is tied to the values of the person, of fraternity, and also of integral ecology,” he said.

Saint Paul Needs a Prequel Miniseries

I wound up with about twice as much "front matter" in this post as I expected! Counting the heading right above this paragraph as the first, the passage proper begins after the fifth heading. Skip to there if you want to jump right in.

We all "know about" St. Paul, to the point that none of us know about him. I am in no position to offer an adequate primer on him here and now. Even a summary of what we do know would be hard pressed to do that knowledge justice. He easily ranked beside Plato or Cicero in intelligence, passion, erudition, and idiosyncracy, not to mention long-term influence.

I was going to put an ikon of him here,
but then it struck me that
St. Paul would probably prefer this.

That said, the reader doesn't need to know a lot about him for this passage to make sense. It's more interesting and resonant if you have some backstory, but it'd perfectly comprehensible even if it were anonymous. However, I would like to highlight one thing that this passage brushes up against, but which I rarely hear spoken of: Paul's mysticism, which I suspect of being (or being derived from) Merkavah mysticism.

This Is Not That Prequel Miniseries

Unluckily, Merkavah (or Merkabah) mysticism is another topic that I can't do justice to! This is because I simply don't yet understand it very well; "but such as I have I give thee."

Its name comes from the description given by Ezekiel of the divine throne or chariot (מֶרְכָּבָה [mer'kavah], "carriage, chariot"), which the angelic beings called Thrones accompany. Merkavah mysticism was the "standard" variety of Judaic mysticism during the Second Temple period (515 BC-70 CE). It continued producing new mystics and mystical works for centuries after the destruction of the Temple; I gather its most productive period was a little after the failure of the Bar Kokhba Revolt in the early second century, but some early Merkavah materials, and related Hekhalot literature,¹ date to before the life of Christ. Both overlapped with the apocalyptic genre. The book of Enoch is probably the most famous example of Hekhalot literature, while the New Testament books of Hebrews and Revelation—both of which are concerned with a heavenly temple that is the archetype of which the terrestrial Temple was the ectype—both suggest influence from Merkavah mysticism and/or Hekhalot writings.

One thing a Merkavah adept might hope to do—and one he would know enough about to understand what was going on, if it happened to him or someone else—was to make what they called "the descent":² a journey into the heavenly palaces. There, if God favored them, they might receive the most sublime visions yet, or even converse with the Lord as when "the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

The reason I'm so reticent about whether this was one of St. Paul's personal ambitions is that, bluntly, I doubt he was such a fool. To phrase it lightly, the descent was not something one made a nice afternoon out of: it was a long, taxing, and indeed a dangerous endeavor; for "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." There is a story preserved in the Talmud known as the Pardes legend, about four eminent scholars who accomplished the descent (pardes, "orchard," is a term derived from Persian and related to the word "paradise"): Rabbis Akiva ben Joseph, Simeon ben Azzai, Simeon ben Zoma, and a fourth referred to only as Acher, "the Other One." All four were surpassingly wise and virtuous; in fact, they were the only men of their age to fully grasp the mystical significance of the Torah. And of them, only one, R. Akiva, returned safely in body and soul. Ben Azzai died on beholding God; ben Zoma was driven mad; and "the Other One," known to history as the apostate Elisha ben Abuyah, fell into idolatry in heaven itself.³

A depiction of one of the Thrones,⁴ dating
to the English Renaissance; note (the top of)
a set of scales in the Throne's hand. Photo
by Martin Harris (CC BY-SA 4.0—source).

Principles: Translation Versus Hermeneutics

The handling of this passage is a little odd. English translations regularly make verse 7 the beginning of its own sentence, but in the Greek, it's the final phrase of the sentence in verse 6, no two ways about it. This is why I've included verse 6 in my translation, even though it isn't part of the Mass reading. (I distinguished it the way I've done for skipped verses elsewhere, printing the text that isn't present in the lectionary reading in grey.) By a coincidence that just seems impossibly stupid, this small difference in verse divisions is what moved me to write the next several paragraphs here, detailing parts of how I approach my work. Originally, I put them to a footnote; however, the presuppositions we make about how translation is supposed to work are pretty important—and even I am embarrassed to need to distinguish paragraphs within a footnote—so I moved them up here.

What comes up here is the difference between translating a text on the one hand, and interpreting a text on the other. In substance, it's the difference between telling people what it says, and explaining what it means. Those two things are closely related, and at times are inextricable, yet not always. It'll be easiest to illustrate why by starting from the opposite extreme: one in which translation and interpretation are doing totally distinct things.

There's a convention in anime shows that have romantic subplots, where one character will say this stock phrase to another: 月が綺麗ですね [tsuki ga kirei, desu ne]. The translation of this phrase is "The moon is beautiful, isn't it"; which, okay, fine—except that isn't the significance of the stock phrase. It became "stock" in the first place because it represents something else. The social norms of Japanese culture are highly motivated to avoid embarrassment, and therefore often classify direct speech about sensitive topics as distasteful. The upshot of all this is, the effective meaning of the stock phrase 月が綺麗ですね is "I love you."

Now, if you look up 月が綺麗ですね in a dictionary, whether following the vocabulary by sound or the characters by scripts and radicals, none of it translates to "I," "love," or "you." That's because meaning never works that simply, in any human culture; it always operates on multiple planes simultaneously. To arrive at the correct, but exceedingly non-literal, interpretation of the Japanese, you have to know what cultural and contextual clues to follow.

A copy of a woodcarving from 1475
depicting the "seven heavens" (or nine,
if the sphere of the fixed stars
and the Empyrean are counted).

This is obviously not a new problem! But it bothers me, because it's in tension with the philosophy of translation I prefer. This philosophy is that I, as a translator, should interpose myself between the reader and the text itself as little as possible. I'm at liberty to offer commentary on the text as well as translate, and I do; but the two activities need to be very clearly distinguished from each other, both to me and to the reader. There are a few reasons for this, but the biggest one is, I have no right to arrogate Scriptural authority to my opinions!

This is what leads me, first, to my appetite for literalism; and then immediately to my next-highest desire, to be idiomatic: both are versions of the desire for maximum clarity, for the text and not me to speak. (Or rather, for the text to speak and, if I speak at all, for me to speak distinctly from it.) The problem is, while I think these two desires—literal translation and idiomatic translation—are less in conflict than many translators make them out to be, it is nearly always true that they can't both be equally satisfied. Occasionally, one of them has to be sacrificed entirely to get a text in readable English.

Idiom, Æsthetics, and Vocabulary

Overall, I'd say that if my translation in this post has a weakness, it's that it doesn't sound as pretty as alternatives like the RSV's; that's a real shame, because I find Paul's variety of elegance particularly winsome. However, there's only one book of the Bible in which I believe that æsthetic considerations ought to enjoy a casting vote; and II Corinthians is not a Psalm, so too bad for me.

Lastly, I think I've talked about the following stuff before, but I'm not sure I've ever given a full explanation. When translating, I try to avoid what are sometimes called "Greeklish" words—apostle, canon, presbyter, etc.—and replace them with more-familiar English equivalents such as "envoy," "rule," or "elder." This in itself is not very unusual, but I carry the principle a lot further than most translators of the New Testament, even excising words like angel and Christ in favor of "messenger" and "Anointed."

I wish to emphasize, this is not because I think they have "been mistranslated." They haven't; as a matter of fact, I will citizen's-arrest the first person who so much as thinks the phrase "a game of telephone" while reading this post. Moreover, the concepts represented by our "Greeklish" words are plenty distinctive enough to merit our having specialized terms for them. Especially given those ideas came to us from Greek, there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't have, keep, and use such words, speaking in general. The reason I steer away from them in this context is that I'm trying to make the text as it then was to its first readers maximally accessible; to them, these bits of "Greenglish" were still just ordinary words, so that's how I want them to hit here. That is the ideal description, of course, from which any execution will fall short, but that is the ideal I'm falling short of when I do so.

II Corinthians 12.6, 7-10, RSV-CE

Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool,^a for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. And to keep me from being too elated^c by the abundance of revelations,^b a thorn^d was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan,^e to harass^f me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient^g for you, for my power is made perfect^h in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest uponⁱ me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults,^j hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.^k

II Corinthians 12.6, 7-10, my translation

For even if I do want to brag, I will not be senseless,^a for I am telling the truth: yet I spare it, lest anyone reckon me above whatever they see or hear from me, in superiority from the revelations.^b So that I would not be exalted^c on their account, there was given to me a spike^d in my flesh, a messenger from Satan,^e so that it should beat^f me, so that I would not be exalted. About this, three times, I appealed to the Lord that it be sent away from me; yet he told me: "My grace suffices^g you; for power is finished^h in weakness." Most gladly, then, I will brag instead about my weaknesses, so that the power of the Anointed may quarter withⁱ me. Because of this, I am pleased with weaknesses, insults,^j needs, persecutions, and distresses, over the Anointed; for whenever I am weak, then I am powerful.^k

Russian ikon of St. Paul the Apostle
(love you St. Paul, and I did put the
picture of Jesus first, but I didn't
promise not to have one of you in).

Textual Notes

a. a fool/senseless: This word (ἄφρων [afrōn], for those of you scoring at home) is quite interesting from a strictly linguistic point of view. The virtue of temperance or moderation was referred to in Greek by the related name σωφροσύνη [sōfrosünē], literally "sound-of-mind-ness"—sanity, or even sobriety, would be reasonably good modernizations. Both terms derive from a word that goes back to the Homeric era, and indeed to proto-Indo-European: φρήν [frēn], which probably meant "midriff" or "heart, breast"; and yes, the term "phrenology" has just hoved into view, but as it's entirely too silly, I'm having that one hoven back. (What may look like an e/o discrepancy between derivatives of this root is actually a familiar feature of proto-Indo-European grammar.)

As for its meaning, the word kind of boxed the compass, between the time when Homer was (reputedly) barding his φρήν out and the time when St. Paul disclosed his to Corinth. At different periods, it could denote the seat of your appetites, your intellect, your emotions, your will—basically, the border of its meaning amounted to "that which prompts behavior."

The Ladder of Divine Ascent, a celebrated
ikon from St. Catherine's Monastery
on Mount Sinai, Egypt.

However! All of this is merely interesting detail that lends a little color to translating ἄφρων (i.e., being without φρήν or lacking φρήν) as "senseless."

b. the abundance of revelations/in superiority by the revelations: As I've said, I prefer to keep my role as an interpreter of the text to a minimum; however, occasionally it can't be avoided, and that seems to apply in this case. The wording, thankfully, is not at stake: τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων [tē hüperbolē tōn apokalüpseōn], translated literally, is "the excess of the revelations." (Neither the RSV nor my translation actually use "excess" to translate ὑπερβολή, so, to limit confusion, I'm going to do the pastor-fresh-out-of-seminary thing and use the Greek word in the rest of this note.)

The point of contention is what meaning ὑπερβολή bears in this context. It's in what's called the dative case, which has a few different functions. The RSV interprets this as a dative of agency, expressing the agent of a verb; this kind of dative is normal with verbs in the middle or passive voices—see note c below for more on the middle voice. On this showing, ὑπερβολή is the thing-by-which the "elation" would be happening (if St. Paul were elated).

However, as far as I can tell, the dative-of-agent interpretation is based on the quite separate idea that this phrase goes with the rest of verse 7—which it doesn't; it's the last phrase of the sentence in verse 6. Accordingly, I take this to be a dative of circumstance, describing conditions that attend some event. In this case, the event is hypothetical: if (counterfactually) St. Paul did not spare us his bragging, then people might easily believe that he is in a state of ὑπερβολή, compared to the rest of the faithful. This is where I felt the double meaning of "superiority" served the text fairly well: a word like superior can be strictly descriptive in English (as when one "reports to one's superiors" in a business or an army), but it can also be an unflattering claim about how they view themselves (as when a person "acts superior").

I'm having flashbacks to College Park now.
I wrote a bit there saying that, like its verbs,
Greek pupils have moods: Bad, and Worse.
Photo: Radhika Kshirsagar, CC BY-SA 4.0.

c. too elated/exalted: This verb, though a pretty simple one in Greek, defies simple explanation in English. The root of the term is a simple verb meaning "to lift" or "raise." The preposition ὑπέρ [hüper] is then stuck on the front, which is related to the Latin super and, more distantly, the English word "over," all three of which have the same meaning (and yes, this is where we get the prefix hyper-). The verb is then put into what's called the middle voice, which covers verbs that don't neatly fit into the categories of active and passive⁵; to generalize, it covers actions that are done to oneself (or reflexives), and also those done to one's own benefit (or detriment—grammatically, it makes no difference).⁶ All told, then, we have a verb that, hyper-literally and with the adverbs, means something like "lest I lift myself up above" or "lest I lift myself on high"; the object of "other people" is implied.

d. thorn/spike: I was prepared to learn that "thorn" wasn't an accurate rendering, especially since the word here, σκόλοψ [skolops], is used in modern Greek for "scalpel," if memory serves. I was not prepared to learn that its real meanings include not only "hook" (as in a fishhook—specifically the point, as distinct from the curved bit which hook is more associated with in English), but also "a tool for operating on the urethra." In fact, I don't know what could prepare a person to learn that; and that is why I didn't prepare you, dear reader!

e. a messenger of Satan: You'll also see this rendered, a little less literally, as "an angel of Satan." A few people have interpreted this as meaning that St. Paul was demon-possessed; given that, to the best of my knowledge, no other sources (either biblical or sub-apostolic) hint at this—I don't think even Paul's enemies charge him with such a thing—I find this interpretation extraordinarily unlikely.

A Difference Over Augustine, by 15th-
century Austrian artist Michael Pacher.
It really, really should bother me that this
image is so frequently apt. Right?

More plausible, in my opinion, is the theory that St. Paul had epilepsy. Epilepsy was widely known as "the sacred disease" in ancient times, and attributed by most people to evil spirits, though some at least among the educated were asserting that it was properly a disease, i.e. of natural origin, as early as Hippocrates. This explanation allows St. Paul's "messenger of Satan" to be literal, metaphoric, or both at once, and seems to me to track with his other vague references to his "affliction." Furthermore, while this isn't universal, epileptic seizures can be accompanied by visual hallucinations, and are sometimes followed by blindness or blurred vision (which is normally but not always transient), matching the handful of more specific allusion to something being the matter with his eyes.

The big weakness I see in this theory is, if Paul did have anything in the nature of seizures or fits, he would probably have been widely reputed to be possessed (which again raises the problem of silence even from his enemies). Doubtless, the testimony of the apostles would have done something for him under such circumstances, but I'm not sure how much—and anyway, it would only have done so among people who were already Christians, not among the vast majority of the people he went to on his missionary journeys. I should also point out, though it does not in itself discredit the theory, that some people who subscribe to it do so to explain away his visions and locutions in general, as mere epileptic symptoms that affected the temporal lobe of his brain. (The temporal lobe handles both sensory input and language processing, among other things, so you really don't want things affecting that lobe all willy-nilly.)

Demon possession and epilepsy aside, St. Paul's "spike" could have been practically anything. And I suppose, considering he didn't choose to tell us what it was more specifically, it isn't really our business.

The Apostle Paul, c. 1657, by Rembrandt.

f. harass/beat: "Buffet" (the one that rhymes with "stuff it," not with "delay") is another old favorite for this word. English, perhaps disquietingly, has developed a lot of fine distinctions in its terms for knocking people about; Greek assigns "beat," "punch" or "box," "smack" or "slap," and metaphorical or generalized meanings like "torment" or "mistreat," all as gradations of meaning common to the one word κολαφίζω [kolafizō]. Shows what they knew.

g. is sufficient for/suffices: Alternate translations of this verb include "to assist" and "to ward off." However, the latter doesn't really make sense here, and the former is—forgive me another lapse into subjective evaluation—such a bland message as hardly to seem worthy of Paul or Jesus. That grace helps, the apostle doubtless knew already; whether it was enough was, apparently, a question of actual moment at the time.

h. is made perfect/is finished: A little like the verb from note c above, this one isn't difficult in itself, but it is tricky to render—not in the sense that you're likely to wind up with a wrong translation if you know even the basics of Greek, just that there are nuances you'd be forced to leave out. The verb is τελεῖται [teleitai]; it is related to the τέλος [telos] or "goal, purpose" that we know from philosophy, and also to the sixth of the seven sayings from the Cross, τετέλεσται [tetelestai] or "It is finished." The sense of the text could thus be taken as "power ends in weakness" (i.e. every human power fails eventually) or "power is made complete in weakness" (i.e. the most complete kind of power is the one that can exert itself even in the midst of weakness) or "the end of power is weakness" (i.e. Christ's power exists to serve weakness), and perhaps other meanings besides.

The "Canterbury cross": a 9th-cent. bronze
Saxon brooch. Its unique shape has come to
symbolize English Christianity. Photo by
Storye Book (CC BY-SA 2.5 license: source).

For lack of a better way to put it, the RSV's "perfect" here (inherited from the King James) ought to be a good translation; it still was as late as the nineteenth century, possibly into the early twentieth.⁷ This is because the root of the English adjective "perfect" is the Latin verb perficere: "to complete, carry out, finish." Unfortunately, due to semantic drift, the perficere-sense of the adjective ceased to be its most familiar and least context-conditioned meaning a long time ago, and was replaced by a related, logically close, but different sense: "flawless, ideal, best possible." Accordingly, it does one of the most irritating things a word can possibly do: take the reader's mind to an idea that's also true, but the wrong one here. Getting readers even to notice what's gone wrong is nearly as hard as noticing it yourself as the author. In my experience, this kind of subtle misdirection is reparable only by excising the offending word bodily and starting over afresh, even at the price of recasting the whole sentence.

i. rest upon/quarter with: It would not be true to say that most, or even many, of the problems I've face in my life have been related to the Greek word for "tent"; I can think of maybe two, but what I couldn't think of was a more compelling way to open this paragraph.

Anyway, ἐπισκηνόω [episkēnoō] can be translated as "rest upon" without doing violence to the language, though, given this is one of the assorted derivates of σκηνή [skēnē], "tent," I wish the RSV's translators had made at least a token effort to get that idea into the word they chose. It would be natural to render this verb as "set up camp at," for example; this is doubtless how it came to be applied to armies regularly. And, being so close after the Fourth of July, I couldn't resist the specific Bill-of-Rights nod in describing divine grace as "quartering with" the apostle.

The remains of an honorable discharge from
the Roman army (in Latin, a diploma),
unearthed in modern Austria. Photo by
Matthias Kabel (CC BY-SA 3.0 license: source).

j. insults: This word is actually our old literary friend, ὕβρις [hübris]! We're used to thinking of it as an elevated synonym for "pride," and that's not inaccurate. However, a word like "insolence" suits it better: it conveys overt and unearned disrespect toward others (especially impiety), not merely being conceited in public.

k. strong/powerful: Here we again have a "not hard, but frustrating" word—the adjective δυνατός [dünatos]. It is perfectly logical that the verb meaning "to be able to; can" is related to the noun for "power" and the adjective "powerful, able." There's nothing wrong with occasionally replacing "I am able to" with "I have the power to" in English. But your English is going to look weird if you say "have/has the power to" every time a normal person would say "can," while on the other hand, I don't know if there even is an English noun or adjective related to the word "can" that would serve as synonyms for "power" or "powerful," respectively. Irksome.

In translating δυνατός, however, "strong" strikes me as slightly off, on strictly linguistic grounds. (On æsthetic grounds, I think it's much better than my choice; we don't have a conventional antonym pair in weak vs. powerful: it's weak vs. strong that feels like an obvious set, and therefore "sounds better" in a sentence.) A more usual word for "strong" would be κρατύς [kratüs]. Of course St. Paul isn't talking in a "feats of strength" sense (though κρατύς could be used metaphorically); but I wonder if part of the reason δυνατός appears here is that the noun δύναμις [dünamis] or "power" is sometimes used to refer to miracles.

The Conversion of St. Paul (1600), Caravaggio.

Footnotes

¹I'm still not sufficiently familiar with either field of literature to say this with any confidence, but I have the impression that Hekhalot ("palaces") literature tends to stand in relation to Merkavah literature proper in kind of the same relationship the (orthodox) infancy gospels have to the canonical four. In other words, they are broadly "about the same stuff," and make the same assumptions about that stuff, but that they are not—and are often not attempting to be—accounts set down by visionaries of their experiences; they might aim to offer pious entertainment, rebut skeptics, or even excite religious devotion, but they would not be "technical" in the sense of containing real instruction on how to enter a trance, for example.
²We of course would have expected the word ascent here, given that the God of Israel is very much a God who resides up in the sky (however poetically we take that). My hunch about this idiom of "descent" is that it represents something like "going in," rather than "going down." However, it's at least equally possible that "descent" instead of "ascent" was a reverent euphemism, such as we might expect to occur in discourse on what was considered a highly sensitive, indeed a dangerous, subject.
³The exact nature of Elisha ben Abuah's heresy is a matter on which the Talmud is tight-lipped. In one elaborated version of the story, it is said he saw the Metatron (the traditional name or title for the angel who is the Lord's mouthpiece), seated, in the divine throne room—sitting down is something only the Lord himself is understood to do there—and concluded that "there are two powers in heaven": in other words, he became a polytheist. It is not clear whether this means ben Abuyah pursued some kind of heterodox Judaism of his own devising, or converted to Christianity (whose doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of the Torah were abominated by mainstream Judaism), or became something else entirely.
⁴This humanoid portrait is kind of an unusual way of depicting one of the Thrones. It was commoner in the Middle Ages; this illustration comes from the rood screen of a church in Norfolk, England. Modern depictions mostly go for the bizarre, sometimes far in excess of anything that could correctly be called "biblically accurate angels." Conversely, the most remote ancient literature believed to give an account of the Thrones is Ezekiel itself, principally in chapter 1 and, with minor variations, in chapter 10. They are widely identified with Ezekiel's ophanim or "wheels." These ophanim are rather confusingly described, and bear an unclear relationship to the tetramorphs (the four-faced creatures combining elements of men, lions, oxen, and eagles); the wheels and the tetramorphs might be distinct parts of the same being, or two different beings that move together. Physically, the ophanim sound more like gigantic gemstones than anything else; they are explicitly compared to a kind of semiprecious stone, although unfortunately we don't really know what kind, as ancient Hebrew mineralogy is rather poorly understood.
⁵To fellow Classicists, grammarians, etc.: I'm sorry, come at me, but we don't have time. Look at how long some of these footnotes are, it's obscene. So we're not doing deponents, and we're not doing the subjunctive mood, and we're not doing whatever bespoke version of reflexive pronouns you were about to point out doesn't align with the strictly practical and abbreviated summary below.
⁶An example of an English verb which Greek might use the middle voice to convey is "cooked" in Mary cooked herself some dinner. This is an active-voice verb in English; it contains a reflexive pronoun (all⁷ pronouns ending in -self or -selves are reflexives), but the verb is not reflexive. If it were, "herself" would be the direct object, and this is no time to start discussing the Donner Party. Mary is both the subject of the verb and its indirect object (the dinner is for her), a construction that falls quite neatly into the middle voice; if she had instead cooked John some dinner, it would be a straightforward active verb like in English.
⁷I produce even this vague period with some diffidence. By the time Dorothy Sayers—a person abnormally sensitive to the finest shades of meaning in language, by both temperament and profession—first published Creed or Chaos? in 1940, she had observed the semantic drift in question at the popular level; we know this, because she made suggestions in that book about how to meet the challenge that this drift in the meaning of "perfect" cast before the Church. I imagine she was both more exposed than most professional academics to this kind of linguistic change, and also more interested in and attentive to it, given she was a respected novelist working in a contemporary and very popular genre. If a minimum of one novelist had had time to both observe and reflect on this shift in meaning, I assume it can't have been less than a few years old by that point (most semantic shifts only become clear in retrospect). Let's say the word's "center of gravity" changed no later than 1920, so that by 1940, we've got an entire cohort of just-come-of-age adults who've spent their entire lives using "perfect" with the flawless-sense as its default meaning, rather than with the perficere-sense. That seems to me like it would lead to enough small, but detectable, misunderstandings in reading and conversation to prompt an unusually sensitive person, like Miss Sayers, to realize what had happened. This would indeed give us a date not later than the early twentieth century, making the late nineteenth quite possible.
Having finished (or, if you will, perfected) this paragraph, it has come strongly into my mind that nobody but me is likely to care about it even a little bit. That said, if you read this paragraph on one of my severely niche interests and liked it, then there are at least two of us who are Like This!

Last Time on HOARATS

Mark Twain and the Wellerman Come on a Comet – 1830 – 1839

As we enter into the 1840's

Martin Van Buren (1782–1862) was president from
March 4, 1837  – March 4, 1841

Pope # 254 Gregory XVI (September 18, 1765 – June 1, 1846) was on the throne of St. Peter from
(February 2, 1831 – June 1, 1846 -15 years, 119 days)

1840

Picture This

Entry of the Crusaders in Constantinople - Wikipedia

News of the World

• January 19, 1840 – Captain Charles Wilkes' United States Exploring Expedition sights what becomes known as Wilkes Land in the southeast quadrant of Antarctica, claiming it for the United States, and providing evidence that Antarctica is a complete continent.
• April 3, 1840 – Johnny Appleseed meets Abraham Lincoln, and plants apple trees in New York City.

Arrivals

John Boyd Dunlop (February 5, 1840 –  October 23, 1921) was a Scottish inventor and veterinary surgeon who spent most of his career in Ireland. Familiar with making rubber devices, he invented the first practical pneumatic tyres for his child's tricycle and developed them for use in cycle racing.

Departures

• May 6, 1840 - Servant of God Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin (December 22, 1770 – May 6, 1840) was an emigre Russian aristocrat and Catholic priest known as "The Apostle of the Alleghenies" and also in the United States as Prince Galitzin. He was a member of the House of Golitsyn. - American Catholic History

Publications Hot of the Press

• 1840 - John Wilson ( June 8, 1799 – January 22, 1870) publishes Our Israelitish Origin, a book of his lectures, in which he claimed that the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel had made their way from the Near East, across the continent of Europe, to the British Isles.  He believed the Northern European people to be descended from the Ten Lost Tribes, with the people of Britain being the Tribe of Ephraim. Wilson relied on philological "evidence" of English, Scottish, and Irish words that were similar to Hebrew words, even though he lacked formal training in language or seminary. Other members of the  British Israelism movement, included Edward Wheler Bird and Edward Hine.

Good Sports

The third contender Ben Caunt enhances his title claim by defeating Bill Brassey in a fight lasting 101 rounds. This victory sets up a bout with Ward the following year.

Sanctifying Time

• Probe Nostis – On the Propagation of the Faith, by Pope Gregory XVI

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

The Piano Sonata No. 2 in B♭ minor, Op. 35, is a piano sonata in four movements by Polish composer Frédéric Chopin. Chopin completed the work while living in George Sand's manor in Nohant, some 250 km (160 mi) south of Paris, a year before it was published in 1840.

1841

Picture This

Christoffer Wilhelm Eckersberg – Woman in Front of a Mirror

News of the World

• March 4, 1841 – William Henry Harrison is sworn in as the ninth President of the United States.
• March 9, 1841 – United States v. The Amistad: The Supreme Court of the United States rules in the case, that the Africans who seized control of the ship had been taken into slavery illegally.
• April 4, 1841 – President William Henry Harrison dies of pneumonia, aged 68, becoming the first President of the United States to die in office, and at one month, the American president with the shortest term served. He is succeeded by Vice President John Tyler, who becomes the tenth President of the United States.

Mysterious World

• November 22, 1841 -The Mystery of Hypnosis   James Braid "Father of Modern Hypnotism"(June 19, 1795 – March 25, 1860) performs his first act of hetero-hypnotization at his own residence, before several witnesses, including Captain Thomas Brown (1785–1862) on Mr. J. A. Walker. (see Neurypnology, pp. 16–20.) also in 1841 - Étienne Félix d'Henin de Cuvillers (1755–1841) dies. He was a French magnetizer and an early practitioner of mesmerism as a scientific discipline. He's best known for coining the term hypnotism in the 1820s. The words hypnosis and hypnotism both derive from the term neuro-hypnotism (nervous sleep)

Arrivals

Sir Henry Morton Stanley, (January 28, 1841 –  May 10, 1904) was a Welsh-American  explorer, journalist, soldier, colonial administrator, author and politician who was famous for his exploration of Central Africa and his search for missionary and explorer David Livingstone.

Departures

Saint Peter Chanel (July 12, 1803 –  April 28, 1841), was a Catholic priest, missionary, and martyr. Chanel was a member of the Society of Mary and was sent as a missionary to Oceania. He arrived on the island of Futuna in November 1837. Chanel was clubbed to death in April 1841 at the instigation of a chief upset because his son converted.

Publications Hot of the Press

• Edgar Allan Poe – short stories
  • "The Murders in the Rue Morgue"
  • "A Descent into the Maelström"
  • "Eleonora"
  • "Never Bet the Devil Your Head"
  • "Three Sundays in a Week"
• Hans Christian Andersen – Fairy Tales Told for Children. New Collection. Third Booklet

Good Sports

September 9, 1841— Tom Hyer (January 1, 1819 – June 26, 1864) is acclaimed the first American  bare-knuckle boxer Champion after defeating George McChester at Caldwell's Landing, New York, over 101 rounds.

Sanctifying Time

• Pope Gregory XVI – Quas Vestro – On Mixed Marriages, 30 April 1841
• Reflections on the Great Truths of Christian Religion for Every Day of the Month, by Archbishop Richard Challoner

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

Frederic Chopin Fantaisie in F minor

1842

The Little White Horse (1946) by Elizabeth Goudge is set in 1842, it features a recently orphaned teenage girl who is sent to the manor house of her cousin and guardian in the West Country of England. The estate, village, and vicinity are shrouded in mystery and magic; the "little white horse" is a unicorn. Goudge won the annual Carnegie Medal from the Library Association, recognizing the year's best children's book by a British subject. It has been adapted for film and television.

Picture This

Thomas Cole – The Voyage of Life (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.)

News of the World

1842 - Dinos Questions  English palaeontologist Richard Owen coins the name Dinosauria, hence the Anglicized dinosaur.

Mysterious World

1842 -The Pyramids of Egypt  Karl Richard Lepsius (December 23,  1810 – July 10, 1884) begins an expedition to Egypt and the Sudan commissioned by King Frederick William IV of Prussia. Karl and his team spent six months making some of the first scientific studies of the pyramids of Giza, Abusir, Saqqara, and Dahshur. They discovered 67 pyramids recorded in the pioneering Lepsius list of pyramids and more than 130 tombs of noblemen in the area. While at the Great Pyramid of Giza, Lepsius inscribed a graffito written in Egyptian hieroglyphs that honours Friedrich Wilhelm IV above the pyramid's original entrance; it is still visible. GP Hieroglyphics".

Arrivals

• Saint  Dominic Savio (April 2, 1842 –  March 9, 1857) Italian adolescent student of John Bosco.

Departures

• April 4, 1842– President William Henry Harrison dies of pneumonia, aged 68, becoming the first President of the United States to die in office, and at one month, the American president with the shortest term served. He is succeeded by Vice President John Tyler, who becomes the tenth President of the United States.

Publications Hot of the Press

• c. March 7, 1842 – Charles Dickens meets Edgar Allan Poe in Philadelphia
• Henry David Thoreau – A Walk to Wachusett

Good Sports

• The first American collegiate rowing club is established at Yale University on the Thames River (Connecticut)

Sanctifying Time

November 26, 1842  – The University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Indiana (United States) is established by Father Edward Sorin, of the Roman Catholic Congregation of Holy Cross.

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

December 7, 1842 – The New York Philharmonic, founded by Ureli Corelli Hill, performs its first concert. 

And it's still here today.

1843

Picture This

Théodore Chassériau – The Two Sisters

News of the World

• January 6 – Antarctic explorer James Clark Ross discovers Snow Hill Island.
• February 14 – The event that will inspire The Beatles' song Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! is held in England.
• March 21, 1843 -  Real, Haitian Zombies!  English Poet Robert Southey (August 12, 1774 – March 21, 1843) dies.  He coined  the English word "zombie".  It  was first recorded in 1819, in a history of Brazil.
• November 28 - Hawaii is recognized as an independent nation by the United Kingdom and France. The holiday is celebrated annually as La Ku'oko'a (Independence Day)

 Arrivals

Charles Warren Stoddard (August 7, 1843 – April 23, 1909) was an American author and editor best known for his travel books about Polynesian life.  Stoddard's The Lepers of Molokai, according to Robert Louis Stevenson, did much to establish Father Damien's position in public esteem. In 1867, soon after his first visit to the South Sea Islands, Stoddard was received into the Catholic Church. He told the story of his conversion in a small book, A Troubled Heart and How it was Comforted, of which he said: "Here you have my inner life all laid bare."

Departures

May 28 – Noah Webster (October 16, 1758 – May 28, 1843)  American lexicographer.  Webster's name has become synonymous with "dictionary" in the United States, especially the modern Merriam-Webster dictionary that was first published in 1828 as An American Dictionary of the English Language.

Samuel Sutherland Cooper (1769 - 1843) dies. He is perhaps the most important person in the early Church in America whom you’ve never heard of.- American Catholic History

Publications Hot of the Press

Hans Christian Andersen – New Fairy Tales. First Volume. First Collection

• Charles Dickens
  • A Christmas Carol
  • Martin Chuzzlewit

• June 21 – Edgar Allan Poe's short story "The Gold-Bug" begins to be serialized in the Philadelphia Dollar Newspaper as the winning entry in a competition, earning Poe a $100 prize. It will be widely reprinted and adapted for theater. It popularizes cryptography.
• August 19 – Edgar Allan Poe's Gothic short story "The Black Cat" is first published in The Saturday Evening Post.
• Edgar Allan Poe's short story "The Tell-Tale Heart" is published in a Boston magazine.
• Beowulf, an epic poem translated from the Anglo-Saxon into English verse by Wackerbarth, A. Diedrich
• Søren Kierkegaard's philosophical book Fear and Trembling is first published, in Denmark.

Sanctifying Time

Several Archdiocese's are founded including....

• Archdiocese of Chicago, Illinois
• Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut
• Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
• Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

• December – The world's first Christmas cards, commissioned by Sir Henry Cole in London from the artist John Callcott Horsley, are sent.
• The blackface troupe the Virginia Minstrels popularize the song, "Old Dan Tucker"

1844

Picture This

Robert Walter Weir – Embarkation of the Pilgrims (United States Capitol rotunda, Washington, D.C.)

News of the World

• June 6, 1844– The Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) is founded in London.
• June 15 1844– Charles Goodyear receives a United States patent for vulcanization, a process to strengthen rubber.

Arrivals

Friedrich Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 –  August 25, 1900) was a German classical scholar, philosopher, and critic of culture, who became one of the most influential of all modern thinkers.

Departures

• June 27,1844 – Killing of Joseph Smith: Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, and his brother Hyrum, are murdered in Carthage Jail, Carthage, Illinois by an armed mob, leading to a succession crisis in the movement. John Taylor, future president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is severely injured but survives, while the fourth man inside the upper room, then-apostle Willard Richards, escapes with only a graze to his upper ear.

Publications Hot of the Press

• March–July, 1844 – Alexandre Dumas père's historical adventure story The Three Musketeers (Les Trois Mousquetaires) is serialised in the Paris newspaper Le Siècle. 
• August 28, 1844 – Alexandre Dumas père's near-recent historical adventure story The Count of Monte Cristo (Le Comte de Monte-Cristo) begins serialization in the Paris newspaper Journal des débats, and continues through to January 1846. Book publication also begins this year.

Good Sports

First ever international cricket match, between Canada and the United States, takes place at St George's Cricket Club in New York.

Sanctifying Time

• Congregation of the Holy and Immaculate Heart of Mary was founded.

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

• February 5, 1844 – The first three of many theatrical adaptations of A Christmas Carol open in London. 
• Buffalo Gals" is a traditional American song, written and published as "Lubly Fan" in 1844 by the blackface minstrel John Hodges, who performed as "Cool White". The song was widely popular throughout the United States, where minstrels often altered the lyrics to suit local audiences, performing it as "New York Gals" in New York City, "Boston Gals" in Boston, or "Alabama Girls" in Alabama, as in the version recorded by Alan Lomax and Shirley Collins on a 1959 field recording trip. The best-known version is named after Buffalo, New York.

1845

Picture This

• J. M. W. Turner – Sunrise with Sea Monsters

News of the World

• March 3,1845
  • Florida is admitted as the 27th U.S. state.
  • The United States Congress passes legislation overriding a presidential veto for the first time.
• March 4, 1845 – James K. Polk is sworn in as the 11th President of the United States.
• September 9, 1845 – Potato blight breaks out in Ireland, beginning the Great Famine.
• December 29, 1845 – Texas is admitted as the 28th U.S. state.

Arrivals

Saint  André Bessette, (August 9, 1845 –   January 6, 1937), was a lay brother of the Congregation of Holy Cross and a significant figure of the Catholic Church among French-Canadians. He is credited with thousands of reported healings associated with his pious devotion to Saint Joseph. Bessette was declared venerable in 1978 and was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1982.^[2] Pope Benedict XVI approved the decree of sainth He is the first Canadian living after Confederation to be canonized.

Departures

• Thomas Davis (Young Irelander)  (October 14, 1814 –  September 16, 1845) dies. He was one of the founding editors of The Nation, the weekly organ of what came to be known as the Young Ireland movement.
• Wilhelm Friedrich Ernst Bach (May 24, 1759 –  December 25, 1845) dies. He was the eldest son of Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach and the only grandson of Johann Sebastian Bach to gain fame as a composer. He was music director to Frederick William II of Prussia. WFE's only son died in infancy. The first born of his three daughters, Caroline Augusta Wilhelmine, lived the longest. She died in 1871 – the last of Bach's descendants to hold the Bach name.

Publications Hot of the Press

• 1845 – "The Raven" is published in The Evening Mirror in New York, the first publication with the name of the author, Edgar Allan Poe.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
"'Tis some visiter," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more."

• Alexandre Dumas,  The Count of Monte Cristo (book publication concluded)

Good Sports

• October 21, 1845 – The New York Herald becomes the first newspaper to mention the game of baseball.

Sanctifying Time

• Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is Founded.

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

The Hutchinson Family Singers tour England with Frederick Douglass.

1846

Picture This

News of the World

• December 28, 1846 – Iowa is admitted as the 29th U.S. state.
• September 23, 1846 – Discovery of Neptune: The planet is observed for the first time by German astronomers Johann Gottfried Galle and Heinrich Louis d'Arrest, as predicted by British astronomer John Couch Adams and French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier.

Arrivals

William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody, (February 26, 1846 – January 10, 1917)  was an American soldier, bison hunter, and showman.

Departures

John Ainsworth Horrocks, (March 22, 1818 –  September 23, 1846) was an English pastoralist and explorer who was one of the first European settlers in the Clare Valley of South Australia where, in 1840, he established the village of Penwortham.

Publications Hot of the Press

• January 21 – The Daily News, edited by Charles Dickens, first appears in London. After 17 issues Dickens hands over as editor to his friend John Forster. It continues until 1930.
• April  -Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales are first translated into English, beginning with "The Little Mermaid" in Bentley's Miscellany.

Good Sports

• 19 June — First baseball match certainly played under the Knickerbocker rules at Elysian Fields in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Sanctifying Time

NEW POPE

• June 16 ,1846–Blessed Pope Pius IX succeeds Pope Gregory XVI as the 255th pope. He will reign for 31½ years (the longest definitely confirmed).

September 19, 1846 - La Salette Apparition   Our Lady of La Salette, a Marian apparition, is said to have been seen by two children at La Salette-Fallavaux in France.

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

• June 28, 1846 – The saxhorn family of valved brass instruments is patented by Adolphe Sax in France.

1847

The year is 1847, the place is the territory of New Mexico, the people are a tiny handful of men and women with a dream. Eleven months ago, they started out from Ohio and headed west. Someone told them about a place called California, about a warm sun and a blue sky, about rich land and fresh air, and at this moment, almost a year later, they've seen nothing but cold, heat, exhaustion, hunger, and sickness. This man's name is Christian Horn. He has a dying eight-year-old son and a heartsick wife, and he's the only one remaining who has even a fragment of the dream left. Mr. Chris Horn, who's going over the top of a rim to look for water and sustenance and in a moment will move into the Twilight Zone.
"A Hundred Yards Over the Rim"   The Twilight Zone, Episode # 59   Second Season Episode 23 - April 7, 1961.

Picture This

John Rogers Herbert – Our Saviour Subject to His Parents in Nazareth

News of the World

• March 1, 1847-The state of Michigan formally abolishes the death penalty.
• 1847 - The American physician and missionary Thomas Staughton Savage and naturalist Jeffries Wyman are the first Europeans to encounter the western gorilla.

Arrivals

Jesse James, (September 5, 1847 – April 3, 1882) was an American outlaw, bank and train robber, guerrilla and leader of the James–Younger Gang.

Bram Stoker (November 8, 1847 – April 20, 1912) was an Irish author who is best known for writing the 1897 Gothic horror novel Dracula. During his lifetime, he was better known as the personal assistant of actor Sir Henry Irving and business manager of the West End's Lyceum Theatre, which Irving owned.

Departures

Mary Anning, (May 21, 1799 –  March 9, 1847) was an English fossil collector, dealer, and palaeontologist. She became known internationally for her discoveries in Jurassic marine fossil beds in the cliffs along the English Channel at Lyme Regis in the county of Dorset, Southwest England. Anning's findings contributed to changes in scientific thinking about prehistoric life and the history of the Earth.

Barbara Spooner Wilberforce, (1771 –  April  21, 1847) was the spouse of abolitionist and MP William Wilberforce (August 24, 1759 –  July 29, 1833).

Publications Hot of the Press

• March, 1847 – First known publication of the classic joke "Why did the chicken cross the road?", in The Knickerbocker, or New-York Monthly Magazine.

• Jane Eyre (1847) by Charlotte Brontë (1816–1855)
  Wuthering Heights (1847) by Emily Brontë (1818–1848)
  Agnes Grey (1847) by Anne Brontë (1820–1849)

Good Sports

• William Clarke's All-England Eleven (AEE), formed in 1846, becomes a major attraction and plays numerous matches throughout England

Sanctifying Time

• A resident Latin Patriarch was re-established in 1847 by Pius IX, with Bishop Joseph Valerga (April 9, 1813 –  December 2, 1872) being appointed to the office. Though officially superseding the Franciscans, Valerga was also the Grand Master of the Order.

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

"O Holy Night" (original title: Cantique de Noël) is a sacred song about the night of the birth of Jesus Christ, described as 'the dear Saviour' in the original, and frequently performed as a Christmas carol. Originally based on a French-language poem written in 1843 by poet Placide Cappeau, it was set to music by composer Adolphe Adam in 1847. The English version, with small changes to the initial melody, is by John Sullivan Dwight.

1848

Picture This

Holman Hunt
 The Flight of Madeline and Porphyro during the Drunkenness attending the Revelry, Eve of Saint Agnes

News of the World

• March 18,1848 – The Boston Public Library is founded by an act of the Great and General Court of Massachusetts.
• May 29, 1848 – Wisconsin is admitted as the 30th U.S. state.
• August 19,1848 – California Gold Rush: The New York Herald breaks the news to the East Coast of the United States that there is a gold rush in California (although the rush started in January).

Arrivals

• March 19 – Wyatt Earp, American lawman and gunfighter (d. 1929)
• February 5-Belle Starr American outlaw (d. 1889)
• September 4 – Lewis Howard Latimer, African-American inventor (d. 1928)
• November 20 – James M. Spangler, American inventor (d. 1915)

Departures

• January 21 – Horace Wells  (January 21, 1815 – January 24, 1848) was an American dentist who pioneered the use of anesthesia in medicine, specifically the use of nitrous oxide (or laughing gas).
• February 23 – John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States, son of John Adams and Abigail Adams (b. 1767)
• August 14 – Sarah Fuller Flower Adams, English hymnwriter (b. 1805)
• December 19 – Emily Brontë, English author (b. 1818)

Publications Hot of the Press

• January 22,1848 – The second edition of Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre is dedicated to William Makepeace Thackeray.^[1] It is also first published in the United States this year.
• February 21,1848 – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels publish The Communist Manifesto (Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei) in London.

Good Sports

First publication of the Knickerbocker rules of Baseball.

Sanctifying Time

• November 5, 1848– Pellegrino Rossi the minister of justice in the government of the Papal States, under Pope Pius IX, was going to preside of the opening of the Parliament in the Palazzo della Cancelleria. After exiting his carriage and walking towards the entrance, he was killed by an assassin who stabbed him in the neck. The pope seeing the inevitable imposition of democracy for his state, fled from Rome in disguise for Naples, leading to the proclamation of the Roman Republic.

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

Oh! Susanna!" by Stephen Foster

1849

Picture This

News of the World

• February 14, 1849 – In New York City, James Knox Polk becomes the first President of the United States to have his photograph taken.
• March 4, 1849 -Zachary Taylor becomes the 12th president of the United States, but refuses to be sworn into office on a Sunday. Urban legend holds that David Rice Atchison, President pro tempore of the United States Senate, is President de jure for a single day.

Mysterious World

• November 14, 1849 -Communication with the Dead The Fox sisters  Leah (April 8, 1813 – November 1, 1890), Margaretta (also called Maggie), (October 7, 1833 – March 8, 1893) and Catherine Fox (also called Kate) (March 27, 1837 – July 2, 1892) demonst their spiritualist rapping at the Corinthian Hall in Rochester. This was the first demonstration of spiritualism held before a paying public and inaugurated a long history of public events featured by spiritualist mediums and leaders in the United States and in other countries.

Arrivals

Lord Randolph Churchill, (February 13, 1849 –  January 24, 1895) was a British aristocrat and politician. Churchill was a Tory radical and coined the term 'Tory democracy'. He participated in the creation of the National Union of the Conservative Party. His elder son was Winston Churchill, who wrote a biography of him in 1906.

Michael Ancher  (June 9, 1849 –  September 19, 1927) was a Danish realist artist, and widely known for his paintings of fishermen, the Skagerak and the North Sea, and other scenes from the Danish fishing community in Skagen.

Departures

• October 3 – Death of Edgar Allan Poe: Edgar Allan Poe is found in Baltimore delirious, "in great distress, and... in need of immediate assistance".^[7] He dies on October 7 aged 40, of an uncertain cause, in Washington College Hospital.   - American Catholic History
• October 17, 1849 Frédéric Chopin  (March 1, 1810 – October 17, 1849) dies. He  was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of the Romantic period, who wrote primarily for solo piano. He has maintained worldwide renown as a leading musician of his era, one whose "poetic genius was based on a professional technique that was without equal in his generation.
• Marie Rose Durocher  SNJM (October 6, 1811 –  October 6, 1849) dies. She was a Canadian Catholic religious sister who founded the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary.

Publications Hot of the Press

• Charles Dickens – David Copperfield (begins serialization)
• Francis Parkman – The Oregon Trail

Good Sports

• March 29  — the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, last contested in 1846, is revived and this 9th race is won by Cambridge
• December 15 — Oxford is awarded the 10th Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race following the disqualification of Cambridge. This is the first and last time that the race is contested twice in the same year.

Sanctifying Time

• Ubi Primum – On The Immaculate Conception, by Pope Pius IX, February 2, 1849
• Nostis et Nobiscum – On The Church In The Pontifical States, by Pope Pius IX, December 8,  1849

The Sound of Music and Other Cultural Milestones

Once in Royal David's City", words: Cecil Frances Alexander, music: Henry Gauntlett. The words were written as a poem by Mrs Alexander in 1848.

Next Time on

HOARATS

To Understand

What I love and How I Write About History  

Hit the Link Above.

To understand about this particular series I’m writing about, please read

The Catholic Bard’s Guide To History Introduction  

And to view a historical article click on

Catholic Bard’s Guide To History Timeline Of Articles |
A Link List To The Catholic Bard's History Articles. (patheos.com)

After having listened on recent Sundays to different accounts of portentous deeds by Jesus, culminating on the most-impressive revival of Jairus’ daughter, in the Gospel reading on the 14th Sunday in Ordinary Time we find Jesus back in Nazareth, unable to perform a single miracle due to the lack of faith of those of his own home [Mk 6:1-6].

As a rabbi, he preaches in the synagogue on sabbath. The crowd who listens to his words, is astonished, even offended. They simply refuse to accept that such a wisdom can come from the mouth of the “carpenter” they know, who is the son of Mary.

It is noteworthy that Joseph is not mentioned. It could be that the upset crowd didn’t mention his name because he was already dead by then. Or it could be that the Evangelist omits Joseph’s name to make the point that Jesus is the Son of God, and not of his putative father. This is an important Christological idea for Mark. We must not forget how he begins his book:

Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God [1:1].

Was Jesus a carpenter?

The translation of the gospel refers of Jesus as a carpenter. We have to bear in mind that the readings in the Lectionary and the Book of Gospels have to be translated, as a liturgical norm, from the Latin text of the Neo Vulgata. If we dig deeper into the text, we have to get to the original in Greek.

οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων,
isn't he the artisan?

τέκτων (tekton) means artisan, mason and builder, while carpenter corresponds to ξυλουργός or to its synonym, μαραγκός. If Jesus was a τέκτων, an office he learned from Joseph, then he did a lot more than only working with wood.

Did the Virgin Mary have other children?

But there is something even more important to understand in this pericope. The crowd is unwilling to accept the words of Jesus, who is —according to the common English translation of this pericope—, “the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon” [v. 3b] and “his sisters” were there with them [v. 3c].

Because of this translation of this verse, Protestant churches affirm that Mary had more children than Jesus. Yet, it is a dogma of faith in the Catholic Church that Mary is always a virgin: before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

From the earliest faith formulations the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, without human seed. The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man [Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880]. The liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aειπαρθενος (Aeiparthenos), the “Ever-virgin." [CCC 499; Cf. LG 52].

Looking at the Greek text of verse 3b-c in Mk 6, we read:

...καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆτος καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος;
καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ ὧδε πρὸς ἡμᾶς;
...and the relative of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?
And are not his female relatives here with us?”

The key word here is ἀδελφὸς (adelphos) — ἀδελφαὶ (adelphe) is the feminine in plural. This noun means “relative”, which includes brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, nephews, grandchildren and grandparents. There is a word derived from ἀδελφὸς, αδελφοτης (adelphotees) which refers to a religious fraternity.

Therefore, the reference to these relatives does not necessarily make them Jesus’ biological brothers or sisters

In the fifth century, St. Augustine explained,

With the term "brothers" Jews usually designate their relatives, which can be verified not only among relatives with the same degree of affinity, such as the children of brothers and sisters —whom we also very often call "brothers"— but even the uncle and son of their sister, as Jacob and Laban were among themselves. All of these used to be called "brothers". Let us not be surprised, then, that they called “brothers” to everyone related to his (Jesus') mother's lineage [17 Questions About the Gospel According to Matthew, n. 16].

In fact, Matthew, in his Gospel, specifies who these “brothers”, or relatives, rather, of Jesus, are sons of. In his account of the crucifixion, he mentions:

“Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” [Mt 27:56].

As we see, James and Joses were actually sons of a different Mary. We know from John’s account of the crucifixion that this other Mary was the wife of Clopas [Jn 19:25].

Jesus' reaction to the unbelief of his people

Back to the episode in Galilee, we see Jesus is unable to perform any mighty deed in there, due to the lack of faith of all these people. He resolves,

“A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house” [Mk 6:4]. 

We cannot disregard the conclusion of this episode. Marveled because of their unbelief, he leaves them and goes to teach at other villages [v. 6]. 

Their lack of faith is not going to stop his mission. Jesus will propose his message of salvation, but will not try to convince anyone about it. He will not negotiate with the truth, and he will never impose it either. 

Being himself the Truth, the Logos of the Father, Jesus will never impose his message to anyone. It is up to those who listen to him, and that includes us as well, to accept his message or to distrust him and refuse to embrace his message. But if we chose to distrust him, Jesus will just move on and go to talk to the ones who are willing to listen.

Let us ask in prayer that Jesus grants us the grace to never become ourselves an obstacle to his plan, but rather, collaborators of his salvific mission. 

________________

Abbreviations

CCC - Catechism of the Catholic Church
DS - Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum
LG - Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium
Jn - Gospel According to John
Mk - Gospel According to Mark
Mt - Gospel According to Matthew

While working on the revised edition of my 2007 book, Defending Life, I came across a June 8, 1981 New York Times opinion piece written by the great Catholic novelist Walker Percy.  Entitled "A View of Abortion, With Something to Offend Everybody," I publish it here in its entirety (with a spelling correction):

I feel like saying something about this abortion issue. My credentials as an expert on the subject: None. I am an M.D. and a novelist. I will speak only as a novelist. If I give an opinion as an M.D., it wouldn't interest anybody since, for one thing, any number of doctors have given opinions and who cares about another.

The only obvious credential of a novelist has to do with his trade. He trafficks in words and meanings. So the chronic misuse of words, especially the fobbing off of rhetoric for information, tends to get on his nerves. Another possible credential of a novelist peculiar to these times is that he is perhaps more sensitive to the atrocities of the age than most. People get desensitized. Who wants to go about his business being reminded of the six million dead in the holocaust, the 15 million in the Ukraine? Atrocities become banal. But a 20th Century novelist should be a nag, an advertiser, a collector, a proclaimer of banal atrocities.

True legalized abortion - a million and a half fetuses flushed down the disposal - is yet another banal atrocity in a century where atrocities have become commonplace. This statement will probably offend one side in this already superheated debate, so I hasten in the interests of fairness and truth to offend the other side. What else can you do when some of your allies give you as big a pain as your opponents? I notice this about many so-called prolifers. They seem pro-life only on this one perfervid and politicized issue. The Reagan Administration, for example, professes to be antiabortion but has just recently decided in the interests of business to let infant-formula manufacturers continue their hard sell in the third world despite thousands of deaths from bottle feeding. And Senator Helms and the Moral Majority who profess a reverence for unborn life don't seem to care much about born life, poor women who don't get abortions, have their babies and can't feed them.

Nothing new here of course. What I am writing this for is to call attention to a particularly egregious example of doublespeak which the abortionists, ''pro-choicers'' that is, seem to have hit on in the current rhetorical war. Now I don't know whether the human life bill is good legislation or not. But as a novelist I can recognize meretricious use of language, disingenuousness, and a con job when I hear it. The current con, perpetrated by some jurists, some editorial writers and some doctors, is that since there is no agreement about the beginning of human life, it is therefore a private religious or philosophical decision and therefore the state and the courts can do nothing about it. This is a con. I will not presume to speculate who is conning who and for what purpose. But I do submit that religion, philosophy and private opinion have nothing to do with this issue. I further submit that it is a commonplace of modern biology, known to every high school student and no doubt to you the reader as well, that the life of every individual organism, human or not, begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex which thenceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism.

Such knotty and arguable subjects as the soul, God and the nature of man are not at issue. What we are talking about and what nobody I know would deny is the clear continuum which exists in the life of every individual from the moment of fertilization of a single cell.

There is a wonderful irony here. It is this: The onset of individual life is not a dogma of the church but a fact of science. How much more convenient if we lived in the 13th Century when no one knew anything about microbiology and arguments about the onset of life were legitimate. Compared to a modern textbook of embryology, Thomas Aquinas sounds like an ACLU member. Nowadays it is not some misguided ecclesiastics who are trying to suppress an embarrassing scientific fact. It is the secular juridical-journalistic establishment.

Please indulge the novelist if he thinks in novelistic terms. Picture the scene. A Galileo trial in reverse. The Supreme Court is cross-examining a high school biology teacher and admonishing him that of course it is only his personal opinion that the fertilized human ovum is an individual human life. He is enjoined not to teach his private beliefs at a public school. Like Galileo he caves in, submits, but in turning away is heard to murmur, "But it's still alive!"

To pro-abortionists: According to the opinion polls, it looks as if you may get your way. Buy you're not going to have it both ways. You're going to be told what you're doing.

As Catholics, we should "be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope." (1 Peter 3:15). How can this be done? Enter apologetics.

Because the word apologetics sounds very similar to the word apology, it may seem that Catholics are to express regret or remorse for their faith. This could not be farther from the truth. Apologetics is the English translation of the Greek word apología, which means to give a systemic and reasoned defense of one's beliefs and actions. The most famous example of this is The Apology of Socrates.

Since Catholic apologetics is generally categorized into three approaches: classical, evidentialist, and presuppositional, I will devote one paper to each type of method. This essay will focus on classical apologetics.

The classical method is usually attributed to Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Historically, the classical method consisted of two steps. First, one presented arguments for the existence of God. Second, one sought to establish that such a being is the God evidenced in the Judeo-Christian tradition: the God of the Bible. Recently, some have added a third step, which is to argue for the truth of Catholicism. I will adhere to this three-step approach to the classical method.

Both theology and philosophy have developed arguments for proving the existence of God. One of the more unique arguments utilized by the classical method is the ontological argument. Ontology is a subset of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence. The argument is formulated this way:

By definition, God is a being that which none greater can be imagined. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.

Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something greater than God. However, we cannot imagine something greater than God.

Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality. God exists in the mind as an idea. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

As one can see, the argument is a priori. That is, the ontological argument is not reliant on experience but solely on reason and logic. The ontological argument does not exhaust the proofs for God's existence. It is, however, the one most associated with the classical method of apologetics.

Having sought to establish the existence of God, the second step is to show why such a deity is consistent with the God depicted in the Bible.

According to some anthropological studies, human history has seen the worship of approximately eighteen thousand different gods. In light of such staggering numbers, why is the Christian God - the God of the Bible - the one true God?

In his outstanding work Introduction to Christianity, Pope Benedict XVI observes that the God of Christianity is the God of philosophy. The scriptural data suggest that God is one, eternal, and personal. Therefore, a philosophical approach must eliminate polytheism and pantheism and provide evidence of a personal God.

By definition, God possesses every possible perfection, including existence. If multiple gods existed, then they would differ from each other. A property or attribute would belong to one god that did not belong to another. However, this entails a privation of some good which is impossible if God is that which possesses every perfection. Therefore, the belief in many gods is not tenable, and polytheism is false.

Pantheism asserts that the universe - and everything in it - is God. Obviously, pantheism is unbiblical, but it is also untenable from a philosophical perspective. The universe is itself an effect and does not exist necessarily. What does not exist necessarily must be caused by another. However, God cannot be caused by another while simultaneously existing necessarily. Therefore, the universe cannot be God. Moreover, as time began with the universe, the cause of the universe (i.e., God) must exist independent of time. That is, God must be eternal.

Finally, we can infer that God is a personal being using the same line of reasoning. It has been shown that the universe is contingent. Whatever is contingent does not exist necessarily, and what does not exist necessarily is a result of a choice. Choice is a product of the will, and the will is a power of an intellect. An intellect can only exist in a personal being. It follows then that the first cause (God) is a personal being.

The final step in the classical apologetics method is to argue for the truth of Catholicism. Is it possible to show that Catholics worship the God proven by philosophy and revealed to human beings in the Bible?

As an act of faith, Christianity asserts that God became a human being (without ceasing to be God). Faith is not irrational, but rather it is suprarational. In this case, this act of faith is predicated on the historical record of Jesus of Nazareth. Put differently, Catholicism believes that the historical person Jesus of Nazareth is also God incarnate. This is evidenced by the actions of Jesus, in particular, the Resurrection.

Most important to the subject at hand is that God (in the person of Jesus) created the Catholic Church. Jesus did this by installing Peter as the Church's first pope. "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock [a play on Peter's name] I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18). It is this statement by Christ combined with the events of Pentecost that testify to the truth of Catholicism.

Apologetics, like faith itself, is illative. That is to say that apologetics is composed of a series of inferences. Of course, some inferences are more persuasive than others. In the preceding essay, I have endeavored to provide a brief overview of one such method called classical apologetics.

Christianity is meant to be the religion of love, a religion whose adherents follow the way set by Christ in his ministry, a way which includes helping those in need. Paul, therefore, tells us that those who are “strong” are to take care of the “weak,” instead of merely focusing on their own wants and desires at the expense of others:

We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves;  let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him.  For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached thee fell on me." (Rom. 15:1-3 RSV).

There are those who are physically strong or weak, such as those who are in good or ill health, so that those who have good health should look after those who do not. There are those who can be said to be “economically strong,” that is, those who are wealthy, and  those who are “economically weak,” that is, those who are impoverished, and in this context, those who have money should use it for the sake of the common good. There are also social strengths and weaknesses: society gives privilege to some, and those who have such privilege should use it to help those who are not so privileged, indeed, to do what they can to reform society so that those who suffer as a result of social biases find their suffering eliminated as they are welcomed as an equal member of society. This is why Christians should be at the forefront in the work for social justice.

But, there is also those who are “spiritually strong” and “weak.” That is, those who are spiritually strong have attained some level of holiness, or had some sort of spiritual experiences which have enlightened them, while those who are weak, either find themselves far from holy, or not having many, if any, spiritual experiences. Those who have experiences with God, such as mystics, should not selfishly get so caught up in attaining those experiences time and time again at the expense of those who do not have any, such as was suggested by quietism; rather, they should use what they have experienced to help others either learn what they have learned, or better yet, to find a way to have spiritual experiences of their own. Those who are spiritually weak, such as those dominated by some sort of sinful habit, should not be abused by those who are spiritually strong. This is why no one should go out of their way to judge or condemn those who are “sinners,” for those who do that are not using their own spiritual strength to help those in need, but are undermining them, leading them to the edge of despair. For, we must remember, in relation to God, we are all spiritually weak, and whatever we have is as a result of God and God’s grace; what would we be like if God treated us as we treated others?

We must, therefore, be hospitable and welcoming, for, by doing so, we follow Christ, who has welcomed us in our weaknesses: “Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7 RSV). Indeed, throughout the Gospels. Jesus used his strength to help the poor and needy, while he admonished the rich and powerful who hurt them. Similarly, he forgave those sinners who came to him seeking his love and grace, while he warned those who were so-self-assured in their righteousness and social worth that they were not all they thought they were.

Jesus turned everything upside-down and inside out, which is why he often repudiated those who thought they were favored by God because of their material or spiritual gifts, even as he healed those who were in need, those who were often deemed worthless by society. Because he could do so, he was quick to heal those who came seeking his help:

 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.”  When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”  And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly charged them, “See that no one knows it.”  But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.  (Matt. 9:27-31 RSV).

When Jesus healed people, not only did he take care of their physical maladies, he offered them the grace they needed  for spiritual healing. Those who came to him with faith and love accepted the love he offered them and so they found themselves transformed in body and soul. He didn’t treat anyone who honestly sought his aid with contempt. Rather, he gave them his love, even if society did not. We should do likewise. We should help those who are in need, those who are weak in some way we are strong, especially if their status in society, or even in the church, has had them suffer all kinds of abuse. We should not turn a blind eye to their maladies. If the problem is social, we should change society, that is, work to change things so that social injustice is no longer acceptable. If they need physical healing, we should make sure they get what is available, working, likewise, to overturn the burdens put in their way from receiving what is otherwise available to others (as, for example, happens to those who are poor or social outcasts).Christians must, as Paul said, bear not only with the weak, but their failings, which is why we should never use such failings, such as sin, as an excuse to justify ignoring those in extreme need. For, if we do that, then, we, who are also weak, risk creating the conditions by which we will lose out what God has offered us, for we will be turning to way of love to unlove, and with such unlove, turn ourselves way from God because God is love.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

N.B.:  While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.

The decision in the case, City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson Et Al was written by Justice Gorsuch, joined by the other five legally "conservative" Justices. Note that it wasn't the Supreme Court's task to solve the problem of homelessness. It simply overturned a lower court ruling that disallowed enforcement of the prohibition of ongoing occupation of public property. Justice Gorsuch explains why such a prohibition actually helps the homeless, rather than harm them.

I won't bother to add all the italics. I've added some paragraph breaks for the sake of better readability. All bolding is my own.

*****