Friday, November 11, 2016

"We sold ourselves for love but now we’re free"

It was announced yesterday thata truly wonderful person, a gifted artist, whose poetry, music, and prose touched and enriched the lives of many people, including my own, Leonard Cohen, passed away. He was 82.

Leonard Cohen


Like David Bowie, who passed away in January (2016 busts us in the chops coming and going), Leonard Cohen released an album on his final birthday before his passing. On Friday, 21 October, his eighty-second birthday, Cohen released You Want It Darker? Like Bowie's Blackstar, Cohen's You Want It Darker? is masterful, a fitting going away present that largely captures the essence of his art. The title track off his final album was our traditio just few week ago (see "Leonard Cohen on the ascesis of marriage").

This week's traditio then is Leonard Cohen singing "Treaty" off his final album for this Friday that is all at once the feast of the converted Roman soldier who became a holy bishop, St. Martin of Tours, Armistice day, marking the end of the Great War (World War I), Veteran's Day here in the United States, and my 51st birthday.



Do yourself a favor and read the lyrics for "Treaty," which you can find here. I also urge you to read some of his poems, many of then can be pulled up here.

I had a difficult time deciding which of Cohen's songs to put up as our traditio. I considered his standard and probably best known song "Hallelujah." I also thought about one my personal favorites, "Everybody Knows," which features these lyrics:

And everybody knows that you're in trouble
Everybody knows what you've been through
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows it's coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows

In her biography of Cohen, I'm Your Man: The Life of Leonard Cohen, published in 2013, Sylvie Simmons noted, "In spite of his deep involvement with Buddhism, Leonard insisted to anyone who asked that he remained a Jew. 'I have a perfectly good religion,' he said, and pointed out that Roshi [his Zen master] had never made any attempt to give him a new one. When Bob Dylan went public with his conversion to Christianity in 1979 'it seriously rocked [Leonard's] world,' said Jennifer Warnes, who was staying at that time at Leonard's house. He would, 'wander around the house, wringing his hands saying, "I don't get it. I just don't get this. Why would he go for Jesus at a late time like this? I don't get the Jesus part.'" (316).

Cohen was raised in an observant Jewish home, had 2 children, Adam and Lorca, with Suzanne Elrod, who was also Jewish, albeit from a secular background, and raised his children as observant Jews. "Kohen," or Cohen, is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for priest. Leonard was well aware that his surname was taken to mean that he was a direct, patrilineal descendant of Moses'brother Aaron, Israel's first high priest.

Leonard Cohen was a gentleman in the very modern sense of the word, meaning the good sense of the word. A man of culture, manners, and grace, not a member of the landed gentry. A man who could not only handle the grit and grimness of reality, but a bit of a prophet who could transform it into beauty, into song, into poetry.

The passing of Leonard Cohen leaves us all poorer. But he left us an am amazing inheritance. May perpetual light shine upon him.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

A few thoughts on the presidential election

Well, the presidential election over. I don't know about you, but I am breathing a big sigh of relief. I'll be honest, I was as surprised as just about anyone that Donald Trump not only won but, at least in terms of electoral votes, beat Hillary Clinton convincingly. I actually favor the Electoral College and think it is an important part of our republican system of government. This election is an example of why that is.

It appears as though Clinton won the popular vote by some 200,000 votes. She won most of the densely populated states along both coasts, which also have a density of electoral votes, the 435 seats in the House of Representatives being apportioned according to population. The Electoral College is precisely what gives citizens in less densely populated states a chance to have their say in how our nation is governed. Trump won 29 of the 50 states. He also captured one of Maine's four electoral votes. Along with Nebraska, Maine gives the electoral votes it has based on its two seats in the House of Representatives to whichever candidate wins each congressional district. The two electoral votes it has based on its two Senate seats (every state has two seats in the Senate) go to whomever wins the state overall. My support of the Electoral College does not wax and wane. I support it no matter who wins the presidency. Even though I always maintained the possibility, given the peculiar dynamics of this year's presidential contest, that Trump might win, I honestly didn't think he would. To be even more honest, it took me a long time to take his candidacy as anything other than a schtick.

I will be honest about a couple of other matters too. I voted neither for Trump nor for Clinton. Nonetheless, all along I have feared a Trump presidency far less than a Clinton presidency. Many of the reasons why this is so were summed by David Harsanyi writing for The Federalist. In his piece "Democrats Have Only Themselves To Blame For Trump: Eight years of unilateral rule. A decade of vacuous identity politics. A dreadful candidate. It all adds up to President Donald Trump," he observed
ever since Barack Obama’s unprecedented passage of Obamacare, his party has lost more than a thousand seats nationally in three wave elections. From 2010, the electorate demanded Washington share power, but the president didn’t listen, relying on executive power, the bureaucracy, and judiciary to pass agenda items without consensus or compromise
More to the point, Harsanyi noted:
In all their vast coverage of agitated right-wingers, it may have escaped the attention of many in the media that over the past eight years the Democratic Party has moved dramatically to the left on an array of issues. It’s now a party of cultural imperialists and economic technocrats who want to rule through fiat. It is a party more comfortable coercing Americans who see the world differently than in convincing them. It is a movement propelled by a liberal punditry that’s stopped debating and resorted to smearing millions they disagree with
If you go back and listen to many of Clinton's campaign speeches, she didn't just attack her opponent, but she routinely went after people who supported him, including but by no means limited to "the basket of deplorables," who she said made up half of his supporters. I warned Trump supporters about being too eager to adopt the "Deplorable" label. Why? Because the vast majority of them are not only not deplorable, but decent, honest, and hard-working. It's difficult to deny that Trump certainly seemed at times to chum the water for the deplorables. I didn't support Trump and I don't have a lot of confidence in him, but it is kinda nice to see the people Harsanyi described receive their comeuppance.



On everything from Planned Parenthood, to the HHS contraceptive mandate, to re-defining marriage, to the Department of Education mandating gender confusion in schools, to immigration, to trade deals that cost people good jobs, many people in the U.S. have been bullied into silence, made to feel powerless, and told time again that some of their most fundamental beliefs had to change. All of this is, well, very un-American.

Donald Trump has certainly made a lot of promises and commitments. He's set the bar high for himself. By no means do I agree with everything he proposes- building a wall and denying entrance to Muslim refugees fleeing the chaos for which the United States bears much of the responsibility, to name just two. Looking at Trump's agenda for the first 100 days of his presidency, I see some good things too. There is no area in which I am more in agreement with Trump than when it comes to foreign policy whether it's about the future of NATO, our relations with Russia, or our reckless interventionism across the Middle East from the Maghreb, through the Levant, to Mesopotamia. We can only hope that a Trump presidency brings the reign of neo-conservative belligerent bellicosity, which stretched from the presidency of Bill Clinton through that of Barack Obama, to an end.

Even though, as a Republican, President-elect Trump will hold majorities in both houses of Congress, he will often have to win over members of his own party to get things done. Only time will tell how successful Trump will be.

Another aspect of this election worth mentioning is voter turnout. While my own state, Utah, saw an uptick in voter turnout, by some calculations turnout was down nationwide, lower than any election since 2000. If the report from Independent Journal Review on which I am relying is accurate, it marked a nearly 8% decline from 2012. But I've also seen reports that claim voters turned out in increased numbers. Clinton's losses in key states (i.e., Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina) indicate to me that she was unable to generate enough enthusiasm to win those states. It also bears noting that nearly 21% of Utah voters went for independent conservative Evan McMullin.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Father Pavone's bishop responds

Fr Frank Pavone's ordinary, Bishop Patrick Zurek of the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, issued a statement today concerning Pavone's likely profanation of an altar and the desecration of the body of an unborn child: Statement from Bishop Patrick J. Zurek.

Below is the full text of Bishop Zurek's statement:
November 8, 2016

• Priests for Life, Inc., is not a Catholic institution, but a civil organization, and it is not under the control or supervision of the Diocese of Amarillo.

• Father Frank Pavone has posted a video on his Facebook page of the body of an aborted fetus, which is against the dignity of human life and is a desecration of the altar. We believe that no one who is pro-life can exploit a human body for any reason, especially the body of a fetus.

Coat of Arms of the Diocese of Amarillo

• The Diocese of Amarillo deeply regrets the offense and outrage caused by the video for the faithful and the community at large. The action and presentation of Father Pavone in this video is not consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

• The Diocese of Amarillo is opening an investigation about all these matters.
Priests for life incorporating as a civil, not a Catholic, entity, was the result of the dispute between Bishop Zurek and Fr Pavone.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Desecration & sacriliege in the service of the truth? Never

At least to me, Fr Frank Pavone's Facebook Live (video) stunt yesterday demonstrated one of two things: either Fr. Pavone, founder of Priests for Life, has lost his mind or he deliberately desecrated the body of an aborted child apparently on an altar while announcing his support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and warning people about supporting Hillary Clinton. If it was an altar, I believe he also committed sacrilege. I will not post a link to the video. If your morbid curiosity gets the better of you, you should have no problem finding it on your own. The Washington Post's Sarah Pulliam Bailey wrote an account of what happened: "A Catholic priest put an aborted fetus on the altar in an appeal for Donald Trump."

In my view, the personhood of the aborted child whose body Fr Pavone used was not respected. Handling the dead body of a person requires reverence and respect, care and concern, love. Burying the dead is one of the Corporal Works of Mercy. It is stunning to me that a priest would use the body of a dead child to pull a political stunt.

A few years ago he kind of "won" a public battle with Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, his ordinary, over Priests for Life lack of financial transparency and accountability. I am still not quite sure how he avoided what his bishop initially intended to do, but I do know his ministry outside his diocese was restricted.

What I find almost as horrifying as Pavone's stunt is how many people are falling all over themselves to justify his perverse act. What he did is not morally defensible. Not only isn't it morally defensible, it is self-defeating. Due to the ministry of many dedicated and loving pro-life people, the vast majority of whom are laity, Catholic and Protestant, many people are beginning to re-think abortion. In other words, when it comes to abortion, the pro-life position is making steady progress. Stunts like the one Fr Pavone pulled only serve to undermine and counteract these efforts. I seriously doubt Fr Pavone has a following beyond those committed to ending abortion. So, at the practical level, setting aside the moral reprehensibility of his action, it is doubtful his using the naked body of a child murdered by abortion in such a brazenly political manner changed anybody's mind. I am sure it will be used by many who support legal abortion to demonstrate how crazy pro-lifers are.



On the political side of things Republicans in Congress and Republican presidents going back decades have little to show for all their promises to end abortion. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City policy, the latter of which, disallowing U.S. government funds to be used by NGOs who work outside the United States to support or provide abortions, has not been made into law as it should be, even during the Bush presidency when that party held the presidency and both houses of Congress.

On the final day of this excruciatingly painful presidential contest, I think it also bears noting that Supreme Court justices and federal appellate court judges are not appointed by presidential fiat. All such appointments require Senate confirmation. Beyond that, what makes Trump supporters think their candidate, who was publicly pro-abortion up until several months ago, will make protection of human life, including the lives of the unborn, a priority? This is the man who, once he realized he had to strongly oppose abortion in order to gain votes in Republican primary contests, immediately started to spout off about punishing women who have abortions as criminals, which is not what most pro-lifers support.

Maybe next for his next trick Fr Pavone can screen some of the vilest forms of pornography in the sanctuary to warn us of the dangers of sexual immorality. The moral axiom that ends don't justify means applies always and everywhere to everyone regardless of intentions or circumstances.

What should've happened? I'll let a priest answer: A good priest writes Fr. Pavone.

In light of his desecration of a human body, his likely sacrilege, and his single-handed effort to set the pro-life movement back decades, it seems to me that Fr Pavone's priestly faculties should be suspended and before any discussion of restoring them takes place he should go somewhere peaceful where he can pray and reflect. He owes the Church and the pro-life movement an apology. Failing the proper handling of this at the local level, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his immediate universal jurisdiction, should step in.

Consider a monarchy? We did and said "No thanks"

According to the diary of Dr. James McHenry who, at age 33, was one of the youngest participants in the Constitutional convention, upon leaving Constitution Hall on the final day of the convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a certain Mrs. Powell, "Well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?" To which Franklin replied, "A republic, madam - if you can keep it."

On the eve of this tumultuous election I think it remains a big "if" unless we begin to do the work required of citizens of a free republic. One way to do this is by rejecting oligarchy. The most obvious manifestation of this in our time is Bushes and Clintons running to succeed each other. Are we Perón's Argentina? Do we really desire to become a Banana Republic? In my view, another way to resist oligarchy is to break the two party duopoly, especially given that some 60% U.S. of citizens admit neither party represents their views or interests, thus making us agents of our own repression.

Yesterday's New York Times featured a piece by Nikolai Tolstoy, who serves as chancellor of the International Monarchist League (such a league could certainly not have something as lowly as a chairman), in which he argued that the United States of America should consider establishing a monarchy. His argument struck me as rather convoluted and his examples cherry-picked. Perhaps the best argument against Tolstoy's case for monarchy is that constitutional monarchies didn't spare many European countries ceding their sovereignty to the E.U., of which Queen Elizabeth II is merely a citizen. Is this the French Revolution succeeding by other means? The folly of this was highlighted in an article featured in the current edition of The New Criterion by British MEP Daniel Hannan, who was driving force behind the Brexit vote: "Populism, III: Insects of the hour."

George Washington, by John Faed

Tolstoy invoked the decision by Truman and MacArthur not to oust Emperor Hirohito at the end of World War II as a tacit acknowledgement that monarchy is the best form of government. It really serves no such purpose. It was an exercise in the kind of pragmatism missing from our recent Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, and Syrian adventures. Churchill's blaming Hitler on the U.S. is laughable. Let's talk about Treaty of Versailles, which the U.S. Senate refused to ratify, forcing us to make a separate peace with Germany. In addition to being opposed to joining the League of Nations on the grounds it would negatively impact U.S. sovereignty, some thought it too punitive and counterproductive, which it turned out to be.

Tolstoy cites Edmund Burke in favor of monarchy. But he leaves out that Burke argued in favor of granting the American colonists representation in Parliament, a move that more than likely would've avoided the American Revolution. One might ask, where was the wisdom and saving grace of monarchy when that reasonable argument was made? Our own history, including the madness of King George (a great movie, by-the-way, is The Madness of King George with Nigel Hawthorne playing King George III), remains the best argument against a monarchy.

Of course, George Washington vehemently declined to be crowned king. When he voluntarily left office after serving two terms as president, no less than King George III said he had "the greatest character of the age." I am not a thorough-going republican. In other words, I don't favor the abolition of British, Spanish, Belgian, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, or Thai monarchies. But the United States was founded as a republic and can only be true to itself by remaining one.

A monarchy? If you're a U.S. citizen, be a patriot and perish the thought. Then get to work keeping our republic. You're never beaten until you quit.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Faithful citizenship: the love of God & "the endurance of Christ"

Readings: 2 Mac 7:1-2.9-14; Ps 17:1.5-6.8.15; 2 Thess 2:16-3:5; Luke 20:27-38

We use the words "freedom" and "liberty" a lot. We typically employ them either to mean freedom from something or the liberty to choose among many choices. If you choose differently from me, well, that's okay. When it comes to many, many things such relativity is just fine. I choose cherry pie and you choose chocolate cake. I like the Raiders, you root for the Jets. I drive a Toyota, you prefer a Chevy. But when it comes to more fundamental matters, this kind of easy-going relativity cannot hold and it certainly cannot hold us together.

Rightly understood, while freedom is freedom from tyranny, unjust oppression, etc., it is more essentially freedom for realizing the end for which you were created and redeemed. If there is one consistent theme I encounter when hearing or reading critiques of Western-style liberal democracy it is this: given this tendency towards relativity, there is no way of arriving at a mutually agreed upon understanding of what is good, or true. If you're a U.S. citizen, however, our nation was founded on an ecumenically arrived at moral consensus. It is only to point out the obvious to note that consensus no longer exists. Among the things on which the founders of the United States agreed was that our experiment in liberty relies on virtuous citizens.

In the United States we experience our disintegrating moral consensus in an intensified way every four years when we hold our presidential election. It's safe to say that we are experiencing it this year in an even more intense way. As a result, many Catholics, clergy and laity alike, rail against our bishops, demanding that they either tell us for whom to vote or at least tell us for whom we shouldn't vote. What our bishops, acting collectively, have given us is Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Not only from the perspective of U.S. citizenship with its emphasis on the citizen as acting moral agent, but consonant with our Catholic faith, it is not the role of the bishop to make our choice for us. Mother Church does not desire to give birth or to raise moral automatons, but truly free children. As good shepherds, it is the role of bishops to assist us in forming our consciences so that we can be faithful citizens of our democratic republic.

It is no exaggeration to write that when it comes to voting, being a faithful Catholic citizen of these United States is becoming increasingly difficult. Voting certainly requires the faithful citizen to make some compromises. In compromising, however, we must act prudently. A well-formed conscience is what enables us to make reasonable and good prudential judgments.

Circling back around to freedom and liberty, it is important to point out, as did those American colonial leaders who declared independence from Great Britain, that these freedoms are God-given, not government-granted. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," our Declaration of Independence proclaimed, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As Catholics we conceive of our faith, at least as expressed doctrinally, as a "'hierarchy' of truths," which "vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith" (Unitatis redintegrato par 11). I think our freedoms, or liberties, often expressed as rights, are hierarchical too. During his lengthy pontificate, Pope St. John Paul II frequently insisted that the first and most fundamental right, without which none of our other rights mean much, if anything, is our right to life. Then, in his faithfully progressive manner, he asserted that immediately following our right to life, our freedom to exist, comes religious freedom. In a letter he wrote to then-U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, a few short months after being elected Pope, John Paul II stated: "religious freedom...is the basis of all other freedoms and is inseparably tied to them all by reason of that very dignity which is the human person."

Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception; Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States of America


In our first reading today from 2 Maccabees we read about martyrdom. It can't be pointed out too often that the word martyr means "witness". Bearing witness to the truth is what every Christian is called to do everyday, in all the circumstances of our lives. We can bear witness to the truth, even at the risk of our lives, because in Christ, by virtue of his resurrection, about which he taught firmly in his dialogue with the Sadducees in today's Gospel, the hope that allowed the four brothers to act so courageously in our first reading, we have been truly freed. Christ has conquered our ultimate enemy, death. This is what allows us to live as free people, even under oppressive regimes, as so many martyrs, that is, witnesses, have showed us, especially over the last century or so.

Politics, while important, are not ultimate. Politics are provisional. This means nothing other than that politics are a means, not an end. In Letter VII of his Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis has Screwtape's uncle, Wormwood, give his nephew, a novice demon, this advice on luring a Christian away from faith
Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacificism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which religion becomes merely part of the 'cause', in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacificism. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes it very little difference what of worldly end his is pursuing
In place of the British war-effort during World War II and pacificism, one can plug in virtually any political cause.

As St Paul noted in the passage from his Second Letter to the Thessalonians that is our second reading today, "the Lord is faithful; he will strengthen you and guard you from the evil one. We are confident of you in the Lord that what we instruct you, you are doing and will continue to do. May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ" (2 Thess 3:3-5).

In light of Jesus' dialogue with Sadducess on the matter of marriage in today's Gospel reading, it can hardly go without comment that, at least in the democratic nations of the West, with the exception of the moral obligation to protect human life from conception to natural death, there is probably no issue on which Christians are at odds the state more than on the issue of marriage. Given the nature and purpose of marriage, it merits being fostered, protected, and encouraged by the state.

What can we do? The most important thing we can do is bear witness by living our faith fully and joyfully. This certainly means living marriage as the sacrament Christ intends it to be. Given the horribly unjust HHS mandate that seeks to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptive coverage in violation of our consciences, which mandate also has the effect or restricting religious freedom merely to freedom to worship, we must strive to live faithfully. Faithfully and joyfully living the Gospel is what gives any arguments we we make in the public square credibility. We must remain faithful even as doing so begins to cost us personally. Fidelity, not worldly success, is what matters in the end. More than Letter VII of Lewis' Screwtape Letters, St Justin Martyr's Second Apology, addressed to the Roman Senate, addresses the connection between a Christian's hope in Christ's resurrection and faithful citizenship.

Friday, November 4, 2016

"Silence reveals"

In a post almost a year ago I drew attention to an internet radio station here in Utah, KCQN: The Next Wave of New Wave. The station was named after the old KCGL, Utah's first New Wave station, and it's follow-on KJQN, known simply as KJQ. The effort was geared towards getting the station on the air. Well, they've succeeded. 103.1 FM is now on-the-air. If you're northern Utah, I urge you to tune in. If not, listen on-line.

The Go-Go's

As I was out and about yesterday listening to The Next Wave of New Wave, I heard a version of The Go-Go's "Our Lips Are Sealed" by Fun Boy Three, a British New Wave band from the early '80s. Like my post from last fall, which featured "Mirrors" by Broken Silence, I won't sully this with a lot of commentary.



Tragedy challenges God's love

No sooner did I finish my reflection on this week's second reading from Romans chapter 8 about the all-encompassing nature of God's...