I was walking with Pope Leo and Billy Graham by the Tower of Siloam

And I noticed the tower had fallen and killed many people.  In my distress I turned to them, and Billy Graham told me there is much suffering in our fallen world.  I am no doubt suffering too.  In fact, if I'm honest, my whole life has been missing something, and as I look at that tower I can see the problems of the world that have always been.  But  it's time I admit that the only solution to my distress and depression is to turn to God by repenting and coming to Christ Jesus, to make Him Lord of my life, and then I will find what my life has been missing.  Oh, and then I should make sure I find a local church and become part of it.

I then turned to Pope Leo, who assured me that the world is filled with injustices and suffering.  He likewise assured me that God would be there for me in my own struggles and suffering, to give me the sense of His Presence, and to bring us all to be united as one family in this world.  Once I realize that, I can then get busy and start working on how to make sure no more towers like the one at Siloam fall, or that oppressive regimes can no longer mingle the blood of the innocent with their sacrifices as Pilate did.  

I thought of that when I heard some of the words of Pope Leo in Spain.  I've been listening to Pope Leo quite a bit, eagerly waiting that moment when he finally says 'Yes, Griffeys, the hell you went through to become Catholic was worth it, for there is no more pressing need in all creation than walking with God through Christ in the Catholic Faith.'  Or similar.  

Instead, I heard things that reminded me more of a Catholic version of Rick Warren's A Purpose Driven Life, with a touch of socio-economic and political concerns tagged on the end. Not horrible stuff, but in the end, I just keep getting the impression that it's all about me.  Not me in the sense that it's imperative I repent and draw near to God.  But somehow as if God is a means to an end that ultimately comes back to me.

In fact, it dawned on me that if it was up to the last couple popes we've had, I never would have become Christian, much less Catholic.  Not that they don't act like Jesus or God or the Christian Faith are important, at least from a Catholic POV.  They just aren't - necessary, at least from a modern POV.  Or at best they aren't exclusively necessary.  And there never seems to be any demand on me at all, apart from seeking justice for the oppressed and the immigrant and concerning myself about the world's climate and economic woes.  Big, lofty problems that never really put me on the spot for my own personal life choices and behaviors. 

Out of strange coincidence, as I've listened to Pope Leo, I saw an old clip of Billy Graham a few days back.  It's been a long time since I heard him.  It brough back memories.  Even as an agnostic, I always respected Rev. Graham.  As I told people then that I didn't believe in Christianity, but I knew he did.  And that meant something.  Especially compared to other prominent celebrity ministers in those days.    

Which is why, when he had his famous Crusades on television, I would sometimes watch.  Even in college, if other roommates were out and about, I'd turn him on and listen.  I must admit - and  I know people will probably find all sorts of problems with his theology or ministry style - but when he preached, something often stirred inside me.  He said much of the same thing the last popes have said. Hurting people, hurting world, injustices and all, feeling lost and alone.  But somehow he pointed past the worldly and material to the New Jerusalem (though I wouldn't have identified it as such).     

And he made it clear it wasn't a blank check. I  had to meet God halfway.  A covenant, so to speak. A new covenant, but covenant nonetheless.  God is eternal love and grace and forgiveness, but not on a one-way street. I would have to confess, to step out, to make Jesus Lord of my life for the world to see.  And let me tell you, as an agnostic, the thought of stepping out and saying I believe in Jesus publicly was like begin asked to go to the front of the class and do a calculus problem on the chalkboard.  Because something about the invitation made me think that would be a major decision on my part, nobody to hide behind or nowhere to run.  It was me and my decision or not, and I would have to live with the consequences one way or another.  Let me tell you, that was a powerful idea. 

Despite the dread I had when pondering that, I often entertained the thought.  I think, IIRC, I once actually called that hotline they had at the end of the broadcast. I don't recall if anything happened.  But that's how much it touched me.  I should say, as a Protestant minister, I often got the same zingers in my soul when I listened to Fulton Sheen.  I had never heard of him growing up, but in Louisville there was a station that showed reruns of his old TV show.  Wow, could that fellow preach.  As one from a denomination that put a huge premium on mach schau when it came to sermon delivery, I often stood in awe of Sheen's communication abilities.  A reputation Catholic priests were not always associated with. 

And, like a Catholic Billy Graham, he laid it on the line.  He didn't shy from the issues of the day. Far from it.  But it was always wrapped in higher things.  It was, you might say, a reminder that however many towers we lament or authoritarian atrocities we decry, we need to make sure we - that's me, Dave Griffey - are right with God.  And it isn't going to arrive in the mail with a picture of Ed McMahon on the envelope.  I was going to have to meet and accept God's gift; to be prepared to make the call and follow through.  

I just don't get that from so much of the Church today, including its popes.  As I said here, dignity seems to be the big idol before which our leaders bow (yes, I saw the headline). But is seems to reinforce that modernist idea that it's really all about me isn't it. God's here to give me a purpose driven life, which mainly means, in terms of obligation that I get with the picture and fix the things of the world, as opposed to come forward and confess Christ before men, or repent and sin no more.  

I should add one more thing.  I was chatting with one of my sons, as you're aware I often do.  We were talking about the heavy emphasis on such things as 'fix the problems of the world will you' that is everywhere today.  He said that's one of the things that drags so many younger people down.  The idea that they have no business being anything but miserable unless they invest themselves in fixing vast geopolitical problems that have evaded the leaders of the world since time immemorial. Again, I thought of that when I reflected on Pope Leo's call to trust that God loves us, but make sure we use this realization to get out there and be those social justice warriors that the world wants.  As opposed to focusing on anything terribly eternal in our own personal considerations.  

And now a few passages to ponder: 

For this reason, he added that those who allow themselves to be enlightened by the Gospel “also develop a critical perspective regarding a social system that does not place the person at the center and gives rise to situations of injustice and existential poverty on various levels.”   Pope Leo XIV  

"True repentance is a turning from sin... Humanly speaking, it is our small part in the plan of salvation. Our part is repenting. God will do the converting, the transforming, and the forgiving." Billy Graham

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”  Emphasis mine. 

To my thinking, one of these passages is not like the other two, even if there are similarities. 

BONUS REMINDER:  For those who grew up in the Faith, this is what people outside are often looking for when they've been primed to seek God.  It would be nice if modern Church leaders remember that:

Musing on Dignity

As folks are spending more time unpacking the latest encyclical than I ever will, I noticed something. Something I've seen a lot of in the Church, even before we came into the Church all those years ago. It's the emphasis on Human Dignity, almost as a hub around which all considerations, including the Gospel, must forever rotate.

Now, some Protestant traditions, usually evangelical free church congregational ones, have what is flippantly known as 'Once Saved, Always Saved.' It's a fusion of Calvinist and Arminian theology. Unlike Calvinism, my free will ultimately decides if I accept Christ or not. No irresistible grace there. But unlike Arminianism, where I can thus lose my salvation, it is preserved instead, just as Calvinism teaches. No matter what I do. Once I freely sign on the dotted line, it's off to heaven I go. Not that I should do bad, or not do good. It just doesn't matter. I can rape, pillage and murder and it's off to heaven. Something both traditional Arminianism and Calvinism would reject, BTW.

When I see the modern Church's emphasis on Human Dignity full stop, especially within the context of the post-war Me Generation mentality, it seems like a materialist version of that; a sort of 'Once Dignity, Always Dignity.' It matters not what I do. My dignity (read: salvation if it was from a religious angle) is first and foremost what matters and it's mine, all mine, no matter what, and nothing can possibly be true if it challenges that fact. I can rape, pillage and murder, and it's still all about my dignity here in the world. It seems like Once Saved, Always Saved, but for a secularized, post-Christian era.

And yes, I know that we do have a dignity born of the fact that we are created in God's image and likeness. But historically, God's unending love, forbearance and endless blessings was not a blank check. Which was always the problem with Once Saved, Always Saved. I'm not so sure it's less of a problem when we secularize it and make it all about me and my dignity in the here and now. Especially if we still believe in eternal consequences for our various life choices. After all, what does it gain me to maintain my dignity and lose my soul? It would seem scant comfort in such an afterlife to say 'At least I have my dignity.' Assuming we still believe in such things.

I hope Pope Leo is wrong

Denied!

So the press, opponents of Israel and America and Trump, and all Catholics who swing left of center are no doubt dancing in the streets as Pope Leo has strongly and loudly proclaimed:

[Jesus] does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them

Yep.  Take that George Washington.  Take that Founding Fathers.  Take that FDR.  Take that Eisenhower. Take that Pope Urban II.  Take that Joan of Arc.  Take that - any leader who has ever waged war in or out of the Bible.  Apparently God has ignored every prayer by these and others because - of course He does.  

He's the God of Love and Peace.  Not right or wrong.  Not defending the innocent against evil. Not justice.  Not good or bad.  Not anything really.  Just the assurance that as long as we don't wage war against evil, whatever evil does is small beans. Barney the Dinosaur never said it so well. 

Of course I'm reading into this.  It was likely just a swipe against Trump and the war against Iran. Likely without much thought about the larger, yet entirely logical, ramifications of what he just said.  A lazy, sloppy, social media era postmodern dig. Like most of our postmodern leadership and scholarship. It's true now because it jabs Trump.  It tells us what we want and owns the other guy.  Later it will be revised for obvious reasons that a modicum of historical studies will reveal.  Such is post-Truth modernity.  We won't even get into the Protestant anti-Catholic talking point that Catholics believe popes and God merely swap nameplates.  Which is why, apparently, popes can always say just what prayers God is and isn't listening to.  

Like his predecessor, I'm getting the feeling that Pope Leo will speak the words beloved of modern post-Western globalism, whether or not it stands up to common sense scrutiny, much less historical Catholicism.  Like Pope Francis, he speaks the words the modern World wants to hear.  The impact it has on the faithful, the faithless, or the Faith in general, increasingly seeming to be of little concern.  

I hope this if fake news

It's a story that Vice President Vance formally invited Pope Leo to attend America's 250th Birthday party, but Pope Leo declined.  Some versions have Pope Leo instead going to stand with immigrants on July 4th.  I don't know.  Most places I've seen this are merely social media outlets, or other sites that don't seem entirely credible, like this one.  

I've not found it in the MSM, Vatican or other official Catholic outlets. I don't know if Catholics on either side of the pope debates have mentioned it.  Again, blacking out on Lent over these things does make it tough to get to the bottom of things, since you'll sometimes find links you don't when following the modern press.  

I hope it's not true.  In my protestant days, one of the endearing stereotypes was that Catholic clergy prefer a world where God makes kings and popes and peasants to grovel before them.  That's why the Church has always chafed at this new American Experiment hoopla.   

So imagine my delight when I encountered such places as The American Catholic, or Mark Shea, or countless others who assured me that being Catholic does not mean having to say you're sorry about being an American.  Imagine how nice it was to learn that was a stereotype, and the Church has not always preferred any other reign of terror to God Bless America.   Of course that has changed on many fronts, especially within the vaunted Protestant Converts to Catholicism club.  

Nonetheless, I'd like to think that as an American, Pope Leo will demonstrate the same pride in his own country as we saw with Pope Francis and Argentina, or Pope John Paul II and his native Poland.   I'm still holding out hope for Pope Leo, and that this is just some partisan hackery.  After all, we almost have to. This is the twentieth anniversary of our entering the Church.  A few weeks back, one of our sons made the poignant, and devastating, observation that we entered the Church twenty years ago this year.  In that time, however, we have yet to hear a sitting pope suggest there was a pressing need for us to do so.

Given what our family went through over the years, that's tough. I think if anything else was a problem, it would be easier to swallow.  But the idea that we could have happily stayed where we were (and me, subsequently, getting close to a nice retirement), and simply supported the proper political and ideological narratives and agendas, makes it go down rather bitter, I must admit.  And Pope Leo living up to everything you expect from that approach to the modern world - better anything but the West - will go a long way toward convincing the gang that my son's observation continues to be affirmed.  

Cardinal Cupich and the question of why bother being Catholic

 So here is his reaction to the Australia and Brown University shootings:

Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, on the Shootings in Rhode Island and Australia

December 14, 2025

Español | Polski

Once again, I write to offer solace and hope to people shocked by loss of life in places where our brothers and sisters sought to gather in places of peace and learning, yet were subjected to violence. On an Australian beach, terrorists consumed with hatred rained bullets on a celebration of the first day of Hanukkah, killing 16 and injuring many more. If anyone doubts the ancient sin of antisemitism is alive and strong today, here is proof.

Closer to home, two students preparing for final exams and a joyful holiday were murdered and a dozen injured by a gunman in the latest of a too-long series of college-related shootings.

We pray fervently for those directly affected by these attacks. But we also resolve to act against the circumstances that gave rise to them. In one case, hatred was strong enough to overcome even Australia’s strong firearms regulations. As we make ready to welcome the birth of the Christ Child to Jewish parents, let us recognize our own roots as people blessed with this tradition, speak against hatred and stand with our brothers and sisters as they claim their right to respect, safety and religious liberty.

And may we not be immunized to murder, including the latest United States campus shooting at Brown University. We must recognize that our leaders may say life is precious but act in ways that communicate it is cheap, that our children and the terminally ill are expendable. We cannot roll back mental health services and keep firearms more accessible than health care and then display outrage when the predictable consequences occur. Only if we soften the hearts of those in power can we hope to see a future where parents no longer send children to college with equal parts pride and terror. Only if we safeguard freedom of worship, including for minority faiths will we live up to the principles on which our nation was founded. Until then, we are speaking hollow platitudes about an America that is an ideal, not a reality.

Not surprising in the least.  It says everything we would expect, and carefully avoids saying everything we would expect.  Unlike his reaction to the Charlottesville shooting, in which we were treated to a lengthy essay that included Naziism, white nationalism and the history of racism in our country added to by a pinch of ISIS reference (read it here), he joins the mainstream Left by using the vague 'antisemitism sure is a problem' assessment, never bothering to mention the specifics.  And we all know why. 

But it's what isn't said that's even more telling.  He does mention the coming of Christmas, with the standard progressive emphasis on the group identity of the Christ Child being Jewish.  He brings up the terminally ill, though no clue why, since I'm not aware of that entering into the motive for any of the shooters. Of course he mentions guns, and the obvious assumption that gun control is the single hope for solving the violence we witnessed, which is why it's almost always the only thing we will talk about.  And mental health.  Apparently because the almost exclusive emphasis on mental health and subsequent tens of billions of dollars in funding we've seen over recent decades, even as the problems mental health is supposed to help have gotten worse not better, suggests the solution is more of the same.  

Nonetheless, it's that this could have been released from a politician's office.  It could have come from a mayor, a concerned corporate CEO, a celebrity.  I wouldn't be surprised if some informed and invested pop culture figure had something like this released.  There just isn't any 'there' there.  Certainly not if 'there' means even Christianity in a generic sense, much less a Catholic sense.  Heck, I've taken in more Christianity watching the original Ghostbusters than this. 

If there is any truth at all to the historical Christian Faith, or if there is any need for the Catholic Church to exist, then I'd say this whole release was nothing but a hollow platitude.  It certainly didn't suggest there was any hope beyond accepting progressive activism, narratives and policy solutions.  And it isn't as if this is the only example of such a statement I've seen since we became Catholics. 

Once again, allow me to tap into something one of my sons observed some time ago.  He said we became Catholic almost 20 years ago.  And in that time, we have yet to hear a contemporary pope suggest there was any pressing need for us to do so.  Upon reflection since he mentioned that, I have to say he's right.  And the good Cardinal Cupich simply adds one more page to the question of 'why did we become Catholic in the first place?' that has yet to be answered by those you'd think would provide such an answer. 

A reminder

If you sound like this when someone on the other side does something wrong:

But sound like this when someone on your side does the same thing or worse:

Then yeah, you're a big part of the problem.  I thought of that when I saw this:

Pretty rough condemnation.  And not unwarranted.  I know little of the reporter in question who was murdered.  I recall it from back in the day.  But I think that, unless the guy was Himmler redux, he deserves a little more than a shrug and 'things happen'.  Especially from our president.  And I'll stand by that.  But I don't think Trump's response is anywhere near what we have seen regarding some activists' and prominent professionals' reaction to transgender shooters in schools, or women who cross transgender activism, or heck, the Charlie Kirk murder.  Yet regarding such things as the Charlie Kirk murder, the good deacon's response was:

Now, maybe it's me, but I see a definite tonal difference in how the actual murder of Kirk was addressed versus responding to President Trump's statement.  Again, I think, as usual, President Trump's response was lousy.  It goes a long way toward conveying a disregard for human life and suffering at a time when we need just the opposite.

But so did the murder of Charlie Kirk, only a million times more!  And that includes those who defended and celebrated it.   But what did you get from Deacon Greydanus the day Kirk was murdered?  A platitude. Something that would fit on a bumper sticker.  And not even his own.  He had to quote others, saying he was too busy to address Kirk's murder.  I note he wasn't too busy to comment on President Trump's statement.   As for condemning such things as, say, the horrifying attacks on JK Rowling from transgender activists, I've asked for examples from him doing so but as of now have not received any. 

That sort of morals by partisan plot point has no place in the Church, or decent society.  If we want to bemoan President Trump or the society we've built that saw Trump's ascent, by all means.  But that is only worth anything if we look at the broader culture and society we've built, even if the evidence for that declines points sharply back to the side with which we clearly sympathize. 

It must be Catholicism

Mike Lewis, over at Where Peter Is, chimes in about the whole kerfuffle in Charlotte.  That is where some documents were apparently leaked (a popular trend I'm no fan of) that suggested a willingness by Bishop Martin of Charlotte to go after the Latin Mass in a way that would make McCarthy blush.  There was backlash, not surprisingly.  

The whole assault on the Latin Mass and the traditions of the Church, that reached a fever pitch during the pontificate of Pope Francis, is one of those things that reminds me I'm Catholic. Because as goofy as Christians can be in living up to Jesus' observations about the Children of Light v. the Children of this age, Catholicism usually wins hands down.  

At a time when the world is pulling itself apart, suffering and misery exploding, paganism is coming back in vogue, global elitists are musing about euthanasia, human sacrifice and even cannibalism, and a growing number of people are leaving the Faith or staying and insisting they don't buy most of the BS anyway - an entire swath of Church leadership has decided the important thing is to abolish the Latin Mass.   You know, that part of Catholicism that even non-Catholics have traditionally associated with the Church.  It's like the Allies saying in 1944 that before we storm Normandy, we need to take care of these squirrels in the yard. 

Eh.  That's the Catholic Church for you.  Lewis' take is everything you would expect from Lewis or any contributor at Where Peter Is.  But most who visit my blog have likely seen responses from those upset at Bishop Martin's actions, so this is another point of view.  

FWIW, the only reason I went there was to see if anyone at the site has mentioned Pope Leo's June 1st emphasis on the families, babies, moms and dads and all, as the rest of the world moved into the month of pride as virtue where sex is concerned.  So far, unless they have a hidden page, the answer would be no. 

Deacon Greydanus responds

To the piece by Mike Lewis explaining his swing to the left of center.  Apparently Lewis's piece is getting quite a bit of attention.

The response is copied from his Facebook page below. Ironically, I had blocked the good deacon some time ago because I grew tired of his playing fast and loose with honest discourse.  I hated to see him slip into the same pit I've seen far too many, especially to the left of center, slip.  That 'words speak louder than actions' trick that defines so much dialogue with those who tack progressive gets under my skin color.

Nonetheless, I thought better of it. I'm not a fan of blocking or banning people.  Especially fellow believers. It makes me think of retreating into a room in the church basement and locking the door to keep 'those other believers' out of our hipster church club.  I concede it must happen sometimes.  But it should be done like it was in the olden days of the Internet - rarely and only because of the worst cases (threats, calumny, personal attacks without stopping after multiple warnings).  So I unblocked him, only to have him block me.  That's because I finally called him out on his 'good cop/bad cop' tendency of threatening to block people who even challenge a leftwing mantra, saying he only wants the best behavior on his pages, while standing back and letting people like Shea and Rebecca Weiss and other leftwing readers rip into anyone challenging their leftwing sympathies with endless name calling, accusations and personal attacks.  So that was the end of me.

Nonetheless, there are others I know and follow who haven't been banned, and other sources that still follow him.  So from those sources this came to me, which I thought was every bit as telling as Mr. Lewis's piece (that's why no link, BTW).  What think you?  Do you notice what I notice in his reasoning?  

Apparently someone challenged the 'only those MAGA types are the real problem' template.  Deacon Greydanus's response is to that comment.  First the comment: 

All of this irritates me to no end. Fine, people on the right are too factional. So are people on the left. Every single Catholic group my wife and I ever been involved in (including breastfeeding groups, homeschooling groups, and pro-life groups) fall into the same trap of constantly pointing at someone else and saying “They’re factional!” The devil knows its a perfect trap: Factionalism is really bad, and to constantly complain about factionalism only deepens factionalism. It would be much better, I think, to spend time promoting the good that Jesus Christ offers the world and how that instantiates itself in various proposals. We never get to do that because we always say, “First of all, look what a jerk the other guy is. Now let me tell you about Jesus.

And his response:  

I have something to say about this. I don’t think your response is adequate. I don’t think you’re entirely reckoning with what this discussion is really about.

Here’s what I think you may be missing: People like Mike and me (along with many people in this thread, as you can see for yourself) are not just angry or upset about “factionalism,” or people being “jerks.” We are wounded souls processing trauma and grief over the loss of one-time heroes and friends whom we watched in dismay and disbelief as they turned against us, and against, so it seems to us, the heart of the faith we thought we shared with them, in the process of building a militant, powerful Catholic subculture organized around entrenched resistance to the pope (if not to Vatican II), a string of culture-war shibboleths (e.g., knee-jerk repudiation of anything associated with “wokeness”; deep hostility regarding any attempt to treat people who identify as LGBTQ with respect and welcome), unfettered enthusiasm for the hardest possible line on immigration, and, ultimately, uncritical, quasi-religious support of Trump/MAGA.

We have heard these things said from pulpits, from episcopal offices, and in Catholic media spaces. We have been told—by people we respected and cared about, whose words we used to hang on—that we are not really Catholic if we see things differently.

I’m not saying progressive, dissenting Catholics can’t be factionalistic. I’m saying we who don’t (or, in some cases, who once didn’t) dissent from the Church never expected progressive dissenters, or any dissenters, to model Christian unity and integrity. We did expect that of our heroes and friends. Their betrayal—compounded by their accusation that *we* are the traitors—is an open wound from which we continue to suffer.

Cardinal Burke was one of my great heroes, a rock star of fidelity, erudition, and sober judgment in my eyes. To see him brought low by so absurd a rightwing canard as Covid vaccine microchip conspiracy theories was bad enough. Worse was his violence to basic canon law principles—Cardinal Burke, doing violence to canon law!—by redefining “apostasy” to include Catholics like President Biden whom he considers to have “publicly and obstinately violated the moral law,” and his quite literally scandalous “just asking questions” engagement with sedevacantist speculation about Pope Francis being invalidly elected (in discussion with Patrick Coffin, who has repeatedly platformed the likes of E. Michael Jones, among other gross things).

That’s just one example—and I don’t even know Cardinal Burke. I’ve been insulted and attacked in every way imaginable by people I once called friends. I am a fallen and flawed human being who has made many mistakes, and not every ugly word flung my way has been undeserved or incomprehensible. But some of them are simply because I believe God is doing good things in the Church through Pope Francis. Because I believe my Black neighbors and brothers in Christ when they say racism is still a significant problem. Because I believe in treating people who identify as queer first as human beings created in God’s image. Because I believe that immigrants who have lived here for decades have rights that must be respected.

Cardinal Ratzinger, shortly before his election to the chair of Peter, talked about the danger posed by those who talk about God but live contrary to him, and how this opens the door to unbelief. He talked about the great need for people who, by the enlightened faith they live, “make God credible” in the world. Our crisis, our wound, is that the very people who once made God credible for us have now turned out to be people who talk about God but live contrary to him. This has led many to doubt, to struggle with unbelief, to fall away from the Catholic communion, or to lose their faith altogether. This is not about mere factionalism. This is about making God’s love visible in the world, or distorting it in the pursuit, ultimately, of political power.

Over at US Catholic

We have an excellent example of chipping away at the Gospel to conform to the Left's narrative of Oppressed v. Oppressor as the only way to understand reality.  Professor Kaye Oaks jumps into the growing post-2020 narrative that we Christians can have forgiveness, like almost everything else, all wrong.  

She employs a tactic very common in modern post-Western thought.  We're told that something generally considered a virtue has actually been a tool for the dreaded oppressor who alone has the power.  People use this virtue badly or wrongly and cause more harm than good.  

By now people trying to be of good will are getting nervous.  This is actually a powerful way to undercut traditional virtue and holiness.  People who want to do the right thing will begin questioning themselves. I thought forgiving someone was a good thing, but could I be causing harm?  Might I be doing it wrong?  Could I be guilty of aiding the oppression of the oppressed?  I ran into that a lot in counseling ministry.  People would tell me that so much was put on not doing or saying the wrong thing, they preferred to avoid the situations altogether.   

I think part of the destruction of basic human interaction we see in our era of loneliness today has been by injecting the fear of a million subtle wrongs done in the name of doing the right thing.  The road to hell and all, an oft quoted phrase in this context.    

Professor Oaks turns to Judaism, which has become an increasingly popular place to run for those who remind us why Christians have been missing the mark all these years (in defending legalized abortion, M. Shea has argued extensively that Jewish Americans aren't  hung up on all abortion being bad, so America shouldn't be either).  Like most non-Christian religions and philosophies, Judaism espouses the idea of forgiveness, but nowhere as broad or absolute as traditional Christianity.  The same goes for Islam.  The same goes for most philosophies and moral systems in the world that speak of the virtues of forgiveness.  Forgiveness is typically seen as a good thing, under particular conditions and within certain parameters.  

But it was Christianity that threw down the gauntlet and elevated it to almost unachievable levels.  For it was Jesus who said 'Father forgive them' as they nailed Him to the cross.  A lofty standard to be sure. And because of that elevation, we've had a civilization that, no matter how often it failed to live up to those loftiest of expectations, still ended up shooting mighty high in the annals of human redemption and reconciliation in the attempts to reach such a high standard.   

Since 2020, however, no small number of those on the Left openly excused and defended violence and harm and death for the worthy cause.  Likewise, they have stood by as the heroes, heritage and history of our civilization have been scorched under the presentism of unforgiving judgmentalism and condemnation.  Thus we're seeing people in the folds of Christianity scramble to tell us that when those in power say it's time to put the brakes on unfettered forgiveness, then clearly Jesus would agree.  And this article is simply one of a growing number of Christian outlets reminding us that forgiveness, like anything else the Church has taught for 2000 years, has been misunderstood and should only be applied when in conjunction with modern leftwing sympathies and agendas.     

Of course I'm not saying that forgiveness, like anything in the world, can't be abused or misused.  Just like care for the poor or the widow and orphan.  People can say they're doing the right thing or that they really care and it's obvious this isn't true.  After all, for four years liberals, including liberal Christians, stood idly by and ignored or outright denied the pain, suffering and misery under Biden because, well, he was their guy with the power, that's why.  Yet they still insist all was well and simply fulfilling the call to reach out to the least of these. 

So it happens.  And of course it can happen on any side of the debate.  But don't be burdened by our busy-body intellectual class.  The ones who endlessly tell parents everything they do will ruin their kids, who tell us everything we eat will kill us, the ones who tell us saying the wrong thing is so bad it's best to stand by and say nothing.  The ones who do it out of intellectual hubris or subtle agendas. Just ignore them.  

If you've been wronged, forgive.  Jesus said so. He said seventy times seven when the disciples tried to pin him down on the limits of the teaching.  He said God has forgiven us our tens of billions worth of sin, so it's the least we can do to forgive our neighbors their thousand dollar sins.  Because that's really what the teaching has always been about.  Our sins against God are grievous beyond our ability to understand, compared to what we do to each other in our worst of days, at least when seen from a spiritual, not a secular or atheistic, perspective.  

So trust Him.  Think as God thinks, not as men think.  He has forgiven us, therefore there is nothing anyone else could do to us that that should excuse us not forgiving them.  Forgive them in the same way God forgives us.  Which is a forgiveness far and away removed from articles like this, where if that is what God has in store for us in terms of forgiveness - assuming Ms. Oakes understands that to someone else she may well be the oppressor in power - then my confidence of bliss in the hereafter can't help but be shaken. 

An odd observation from Pope Francis

So apparently Pope Francis came out and warned against religion that stokes divisions.  Mr. Divisions himself.  But then, he is the postmodern pope.  And with postmodernity, our 'yes' is forever 'maybe', and our 'no' is 'it depends'. 

It's true.  Pope Francis seems to have no problem saying that it's a sin to apply adjectives to people - like those rigid types over there.  He condemns those who are too rigid while being about the most rigid person  I know when it comes to promoting his own views.  So it shouldn't be surprising that a pope who has more than once invoked the 'me vs. them' template is suddenly bothered by religious leaders who cause divisions.  

And as for those who have felt marginalized by Pope Francis and targeted by Pope Francis and villainized by Pope Francis, I have seen the following Bible verse quoted time and time and time again: 

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

Yep.  Because apparently our Faith is all about dividing the sheep from the greatest of all time, all about bringing a sword, all about speaking in parables for the expressed purpose of the inner circle enlightened Catholics who always get it.  Yet now, it turns out religion shouldn't do what his supporters have more than cheered him for doing, which he himself seems to have had no problems doing time and again.  

I fear Pope Francis, while having made some good points over the years, has nurtured two very, very bad developments in modern thinking: 

    1. That Christianity is entirely optional as opposed to the importance of fealty to worldly narratives and     agendas.  Oh it's nice to have and Jesus and all, but one can happily reject the Gospel as long as you are     in line with the proper activism and political advocacy.  And

    2. Words definitely speak louder than actions, which is why 'do as I say and not as I do' is a perfectly         appropriate approach to ministry in the postmodern global spotlight.  Something that almost defines, I      should add, those Catholics who proudly hang on every word of Pope Francis unless he criticizes             something left of center. 

An image that is never far from my mind

 From my old WW2 history days, is this:

The saluting officer is Hans Langsdorff.  He is noted for losing the Battle of the River Plate. His ship, the German cruiser (pocket battleship) Admiral Graf Spee, was trapped and he ordered it scuttled.  Contemporary accounts say he made sure his crew was taken care of.  After that, he retired to a room on shore, wrote a letter accepting full responsibility for the loss of the ship, then committed suicide.  

Legend says that before he took his life, he stretched out the traditional imperial naval ensign and laid down upon it.  He did not use the infamous Swastika flag of the Nazi Party.  If you look at the photo, you'll notice something that gives credence to the tale. 

He's the one saluting traditional style.  And what are so many around him doing - including those who are obviously clergy within the Church?  Yep.  That would be the famous salute to der Fuhrer.  Because Nazism was not universally scorned across South America at the time, heavily Catholic though it was.  

Today, of course, it's everything from communism to Marxist influenced Latin American Liberation Theology that is the rage south of the border, and at times to the north.  Pope Francis has, on more than one occasion, given hat tips to the better side of communist thinking.  Quite a few Catholics on the Internet have joined mainstream media outlets in singing praises to various forms of Marxism, certainly socialism, and in the odd case or two, full blown communism.

This doesn't address the legions of Catholic leaders with their heads down about so many growing evils in our modern age. From openly race hating Caucasians, to surgically altering the bodies of minors, the cheering for increased abortion rights, to bringing our porn sex culture to the youngest of these, to turning a blind eye to non-MAGA types cheering for the killing of Jews, to persecuting Christians for refusing to conform to this madness, to ending antiquated notions of equality and sanctity of human life, it's stunning to hear the sounds of the Church's silence.    

Though in fairness, the best we often get from believers is silence. That's because other believers rely on attacking anyone trying to stand up to the madness.  They might not openly support the manifold evils and absurdities being mandated by our corporate expert class.  But they focus on always attacking those trying to stop it.

Then you have the Catholics - leaders and otherwise - who are the modern equivalent of those in the photo giving their loudest Sieg Heils!  They embrace and endorse whatever the World throws our way. Even when the World says the best scholarship has proven the Bible was bunk, those believers are right there trying to  accommodate.  Plus they will happily join with that other group in attacking anyone who does otherwise.   

That's just the way it is.  From the Golden Calf to feeding their babes to Baalim, God's people have always produced a bumper crop of followers willing to throw in with the principalities, the powers, the rulers of the darkness of the age, and the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.  And there's not much we can do, other than not fall into the same pit.  Instead, consider this from the letter to the Church at Sardis: 

‘These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’

Be like those few in Sardis who didn't defile their garments.  Be like the 7000 who did not bow a knee to Baal.  Heck, even be like Hans Langsdorff. Hardly perfect (he was on the wrong side after all), but a damn sight better than what many of our leaders and fellows in the Faith are doing today.   And don't be like she who doesn't bow a knee, but won't call out Baal and will turn on you in preference to taking a stand.  At the end of the day, it's all the same alliance. 

Jimmy Akin unpacks modern Catholicism in a nutshell

From L-R: Western Christianity, the World (and we all know it)    

That is, you just thought you knew what Catholicism teaches. 

I can't think of anything more devastating to the Christian witness ot the modern world than what we're seeing today.  On any given day, we have people - and I mean leaders including some popes I know - act as if what we always thought Catholicism taught was wrong.  Or incomplete. Or mistaken.  Or a bit off the mark.  Or you just never know.  Or it's open to debate. 

In our age, where people in the dying West are perishing from misery, pointlessness, depression, drugs, suicide, mindless violence, and a general malaise of existence, taking this message into the world is like bringing gasoline to a house fire. It's telling people today that what secularism has been saying for years is true: Religions in this objectively valueless world are just made up fables and rules because none of it is true.  Therefore all is whatever, it's all up for grabs, life sucks and then you die. 

This is exacerbated by the modern Church and its leaders constantly changing, modifying, or casting doubts on what the Church seems to have always taught. Or so you thought.  As my son said after one of his college classes that dealt with Christianity, the Church continually acting like Catholics have been getting it wrong all these years plays right into the secular hand.  

And it isn't just this or that petty custom over which we're casting shadows of doubt.  The  things you're hearing people and leaders cast doubt on cut to the base of reality for the Christian: Are the people and events in the Bible true or fiction?  Deacon Greydanus says there are several things in the Bible that can be dismissed as myth.  Others will no doubt add more to that list than Deacon Greydanus would concede, and then you have yet another problem.   When does it end?  Who is right?  Which ones are myth?  Or if this is suddenly myth today, how can we know that those stories over there won't be myth tomorrow? 

Or consider salvation.  Is Catholicism even that important when it comes to being saved?  Is Jesus?  Apparently it's nice to believe in Jesus, but if you don't it's hardly a deal breaker. How about morality?  Sexuality?  Heck, abortion.  I'm seeing quite a few supposedly 'pro-life' Catholics modifying the Church's opposition to abortion by adding such terms as 'elective' or 'convenience', as if other abortions might be fine.   Or Hell?  Hell, can we even know now if there is such a thing or possibility?  Or is it that the Church never technically said anyone would certainly be in Hell, so clearly nobody might be there, and turns out Jesus never even talked about the topic in a clear way. If Catholics before thought otherwise, just chalk it up to one more thing the first 2000 years might have gotten wrong.  You just never know what we should have believed.  

It reduces learning the Divine Truths to nothing other than a polite debate around the water cooler. It makes religious belief into anything but indispensable.  Does the world approach debate about climate change that way?  About racism?  About gender?  About feminism?  About DEI? About European Imperialism?  About the Transatlantic slave trade?  Any polite discussions there?  No fundamentalist tent revival preacher was more assured of the indisputable truth than the modern World is about its proclamations.  If you want something willing to question anything it believes, I'm afraid you'll have to look to the modern Christian Faith. 

It's getting to where I can't rightly say the Church has always taught a growing number of things, at least if I pay attention to the conversations today.  The only ones sure about anything are the non-believers, the secularists, the youth weaned in our atheistic society, and others who know Christianity and flying saucer cults are practically one and the same.  That's why we change the rules.  The rules were always based on no better than the Tooth Fairy all along.  And our constant willingness to change to order does nothing other than reinforce that teaching. Hence my son's point. 

Oh, and before we evoke development of doctrine, or historical debates over theology, or that we always need to instruct the faithful on the true teachings of the Faith, we must admit youthful hipsters are also honest. They know all of these sudden debates about what we only thought the Church taught is a direct result of the Church buckling before the World.  It is not clarifying orthodoxy in the face of heresy.  They see the World push, and the Church retreat.  No St. Bonifaces or St. Patricks here.  We're not about to tell the World it's wrong.  The World changes the rules, and we begin asking if there were ever rules to begin with.  That's not explaining that God is not an angry child wanting to hurt us because people mistake God's justice and mercy.  It's saying we're not sure if God cares what we believe at all since the World has already said there is no God, so it doesn't matter what we believe. 

And not just the youngsters, but the World at large sees it for what it is:  The World compelling the witness of the Apostles to be changed to fit the World's latest demands. And if we think that will reach people for the Gospel, I'm sure we also believe that the Brooklyn Bridge is finally up for sale. 

Blessing individuals in same sex unions

Here are two of the millions of guesses as to what this means:  

This one from Larry Chapp

This one from Dawn Eden Goldstein

If you don't like either, fear not.  The different readings of this latest declaration are indeed legion, for they are many.  And perhaps, more than anything, that is the saddest part of this entire papacy. After a decade of Pope Francis, I'm afraid modern Catholics could teach Protestants a thing or two.  

When I read the translation of Pope Francis' response to the cardinals' dubia

 Why did this come to mind? 

I really, really hope and pray that what I think I'm seeing happen in the Catholic Church isn't what is happening.  

Making the Christian Church irrelevant

Ages ago, during my journey into the Catholic Church, I stumbled upon Mark Shea's old blog Catholic and Enjoying It.  Later, I had the chance to meet Mark at the EWTN studios.  We chatted for a while.  He seemed somewhat engaged as we discussed my conversion.  Mostly he rose up and took notice when I mentioned that, before I entered the Church, I spent years looking into the Catholic Faith.  What I found, more often than not, was people who told me that being Catholic means, well, whatever you want it to mean.  Catholics believe all sorts of things really, at least nowadays.  Most seemed to find that refreshing.  Which sounded to me more of a Protestant caricature than most Protestants I knew.

Mark made a quip about Catholics being the biggest obstacle for non-Catholics entering the Church.  Or some such.  He assured me that this was NOT Catholicism.  Catholicism is not a salad bar, where you can pick and choose your beliefs and favorite doctrines.  It isn't Protestantism, where you chase after your own version of the Faith and build a new church based on the latest.  You can't just take parts of the Church's teachings and ditch them because you don't like them.  In answering a question I emailed him requesting more specifics, he made it clear that the Magisterium isn't the latest opinions about Church teaching.  And we can't just go back through church history, find obscure teachings or writings by even the Church Fathers, and then use isolated statements to reject what the Church has universally affirmed and taught through the ages. 

Which is why I link to this.  I mostly ignore Mark at this point.  But this is worth noting.  Mark has linked to Orthodox firebrand David Bentley Hart.  To traditional and little-o Orthodox Christians, Hart is a bit like John Dominic Crossan of the infamous Jesus Seminar (Mark Shea used to eviscerate Crossan for his liberal theological approach to the Faith).  Or John Shelby Spong, who incorporated a liberation emphasis with his already liberal theological approach.  That is, not only can much of the Faith be dismissed as erroneous, but let's not forget the evil sexism, racism and other phobic teachings.  Or, in older days, Hart might be a Moltmann, or a Bultmann figure, or any one of the 20th Century liberal theologians of the Protestant world assuring us that large swaths of Christian teaching must simply be left behind. 

In short, Hart rejects fealty to the historical faith. He has absolutely no problem saying the Church has gotten it wrong for, oh, these last 2000 years.  Like many who tack left, he has a knack for displaying contempt for those yokels who haven't seen the light. An Orthodox writer I followed during my time with the Orthodox Church posted on Hart's book, in which Hart calls for an end to the concept of heresies (smart move), as well as the doctrine of Hell, and an even more extreme form of Theosis, or becoming like God:

Obviously not a fan.  And a bit harsh for my taste. But he's defending the Orthodox Church against the same attacks that liberal theologians have been launching at the Western Church for generations.  Attacks grounded in the same secular and theologically liberal interpretations of the Scriptures and the Church's history.  You know - you can't take the miracles seriously, the prophets were written after the fact, as were Jesus' statements suggesting foreknowledge, that Isaiah or much of the New Testament was written by anyone other than who tradition says, we can't believe there ever existed a Noah, Moses, Abraham, David (or in recent years, the apostles), or that many of the teachings of Scripture and historical Christianity are from a barbaric time of the past to be rejected.  That sort of thing.  

What is noteworthy is how Mark, who once railed against this liberal relativism where the historical Christian Faith is concerned, seems to hang on Hart's every word.  He does say he's not prepared to embrace Hart's certainty that the Church has been full of BS where the doctrine of Hell is concerned.  Nonetheless, he appears to exalt Hart, allow for that particular revised take on Church doctrine, and all while Hart is doing what Mark insisted should never, ever be done.  At least what should never, ever be confused with Catholic teaching. 

In addition, look at the comments.  Notice the casual way that commenters say they used to believe in Hell, but they're felling much better now.  Thanks goodness they threw that doctrine out the window.  See Mark's statement to me about not being able to do that.  

Yet such is post-Christian era neo-Christianity. We can actually say - with a straight face - that the first twenty centuries of Church teaching is not a deal breaker.  In our post-Christian era, it's as if we are prepared to rewrite the entire Christian faith in our image.  Or at least the image demanded by our post-Christian age.  

I can't imagine anything that will render not only the Catholic Church, but the Christian Faith as a whole, more irrelevant than the constant call to reimagine and reject anything and everything from the Faith's first 2000 years.  It doesn't seem to be working, as more and more young people are turning away and outright denouncing everything the biblical witness brought to the world.  Which makes perfect senses.  They've been taught by our society for generations that religion is a lie we tell ourselves anyway.  This merely confirms the lesson.  Plus, who's to say we're right this time?   Certainly it's questionable we're right about some invisible God in an invisible heaven with an invisible Spirit, when the Church can't seem to get a grip on the basics.  Best to use Sunday mornings to sleep in at this point.

BTW, in case you're wondering, for many Orthodox Christians, Hart was a sort of Scott Hahn, or for Protestants, a James Dobson type.  A layperson they admired because he is quite brilliant, a deep thinker, and not afraid to say what he thinks.  And for a long time, his energies were directed at stomping for adherence to the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints.  Somewhere and at some time, however, he turned a hard left, and more than one Orthodox observer has echoed the concerns and anger of the fellow above.  How and why this happened is, I'm sure, a bigger story than this little blog can speak to.  But it has caused as much concern in Orthodox circles as the rise of liberal critical rejection of the historical Faith did to us Westerners.  Or at least concern among those who take the historical teachings of the Faith seriously.