Farewell

 In January 2010, I started Sacramental Present Truths as a platform for my own reflections and teachings on Biblical and theological issues, with a bit of conservative political discourse thrown in.  This was an evolution from an earlier venture I had called Present Truth Trumpet, which was a print magazine I created from roughly mid-2002 to the beginning of 2004. The problem with the Trumpet was cost - it had to be professionally printed and assembled at a Kinko's then, and that ran into about $100 for 10 copies, which was outrageous. I unfortunately had to shelve the Trumpet after just over a year due to its cost, and also the fact it had very low circulation then - I had very few subscribers, and it wasn't worth the expense to just print up a few at an enormous cost.  For a short time, I kept the Trumpet online and just printed it on-demand for people who wanted it.  However, it wasn't meant to be, so I had to put it to rest at the beginning of 2004.  

I always had a need to express my thoughts, so over the next six or so years I hand-wrote content in notebooks with the anticipation of publishing it at some point.  My break came finally at the beginning of 2010, when I discovered the art of the blog, and Sacramental Present Truths was born.  The good thing about SPT was that I could publicize it better, and it actually reached a wider audience.  However, at times the theological and Biblical content could be a bit heavy, so I wanted to also have a platform to share other interests, and that is where David's Mountain Memories was born.  I also wanted to have a separate page for my other passion - cooking - so in 2011 I launched David's Kitchen, later David's Culinary Page.  The DMM blog was actually more stimulating, and it appealed to a lot of people who shared common interests such as music, genealogy, and other things.  The culinary page also was a good success, and in time I had people very interested in my recipes and restaurant reviews, and I have even been asked about making a cookbook (yes, that is in the works too!).  However, beginning in 2020, a lot of circumstances necessitated my attention and I was not able to write as often as I used to, so at the end of 2023 I began contemplating how I could streamline my blogging to accommodate a changing schedule.  The best solution was to reduce the number of sites I managed, and in deliberation over that decision, I was taking into account which of these three platforms had the least traffic, the least new activity, etc.  The one that demonstrated a reduction in activity was this one, SPT.  Therefore, as of this week, SPT will be officially retired.  I will still leave content up for people to read on it that has been published, but any new material will now be published at DMM instead.  

After a 14-year run on here, I wanted to say that I appreciate those of you who have been regular visitors, and also appreciate some letters and emails I have received over the years from people who have been impacted in some way by the insights I present.  I am grateful for you all, and please continue to follow me on DMM if you would like to do so.  At some point in time, I may actually take SPT down completely as I am also exploring other blog sites besides Blogspot to publish on, and if that happens, all of the content here will be moved to and consolidated with the new site.  That is still being deliberated though, so it will be a while before that happens. 

Given I have published several series on here, I plan on making those available in book form for those who may be interested.  Given I am in the process of completing a Ph.D. now, I will more than likely be making books of the Genesis series I wrote and a few other things available as print books, and I will keep you posted on that as well.  

Speaking of some of those series, I wanted to make SPT originally a forum where I could transcribe classes I taught for church in a Sunday School I had years back for a wider audience, and the Genesis study was the largest one of those.  I may do more serials like this later on my other platform as I am able, and these studies are a sort of testing ground for potential books.  Genesis needs to be made into a Bible study book, and as I get ready to edit and format that for publication, I will be expanding it as I also have a lot of new material to incorporate into it that I have obtained since initially teaching this years back. I will probably also publish a book of my original sermons that I preached in churches when I was younger too - I published them all here about 10-11 years ago, but they should be in their own book as well.  On my other platform (DMM), I will keep everyone posted about this also. 

Again, thank you for your diligent following of my content on SPT, and even though it is officially retired now, I plan on still writing a lot, so come on over to DMM to continue following my content.  God bless each of you, and will see you soon at the new place!  

Scandal in The Vatican - Cardinal "Toucho" and Sex Talk

 In all honesty, not much surprises me anymore about the crazy stuff that the sitting pope, Francis Bergoglio, promotes.  Whether it is the Pachamama idols, suppressing traditionalists who differ with him, or the recent document allowing for informal "blessings" of same-sex couples, Francis has become a magnet for controversy.  I am frankly very disappointed in the Pope right now, and as I am a convert to the Church, I am sure like other converts have done, I have started to second-guess my decision for reverting back to the Catholic Church.  However, I am also reminded that Francis is not the Church, and as Pope he is also a fallible human being and that we are not obligated to take anything he says as gospel.  That being said, I want to say something up-front just for clarification, as it will preface the entire discussion.

I am not a sedevacantist by any means, and despite my own misgivings about Francis, he is a validly-appointed Pontiff.  That being said, he has failed in the duties of his office, and perhaps it is time for him to step aside because he is creating more discord than he is providing spiritual guidance, and this cannot go on forever.  This discussion is not so much a commentary on Francis as it is on one of his henchmen who has recently garnered some attention for a series of writings, and that person is Victor Cardinal "Tucho" Fernandez.

Victor Fernandez (born 1962) is an Argentine-born Cardinal and theologian who currently heads the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, which effectively places him as a sort of second-in-command to the Pope.  This is a serious situation given Fernandez's office, and it makes things even more complicated.  Unfortunately, unlike Francis who is an octogenarian, Fernandez is also still relatively young (at 61, he is 7 years older than me right now).  In the event of Francis either abdicating the Chair of St. Peter, or his passing, this guy would be the front-runner for the next Pope.  However, the problem with Fernandez is that essentially he is somewhat weird - he is essentially Alfred Kinsey in a cassock, in all honesty.  I don't think since probably the emergence of Pierre Tielhard de Chardin has there been a more dangerous prelate in such a position of power, and the reason for this is his radical ideas on human sexuality.  He was the one, after all, who drafted Fiducia Supplecans, the controversial document that was released last month which allows now for the "blessing" of same-sex relationships in an informal setting.  Compared with some of his earlier stuff though, Fiducia is benign at least in its language!  That is what we want to delve into now, as recently one of his earlier books was disclosed and it is, well, graphic - Hugh Hefner would be using it to train his Playboy girls at his mansion, I will just put it that way.  So, let us get into that, shall we?

Cardinal Victor "Tucho" Fernandez

The book that stirred so much controversy recently was a book Fernandez wrote in 1998 with the translated title Mystical Passion.  The really problematic part of this book focuses on three chapters, 7 through 9, and is perhaps the most graphic in language.  It talks about masturbation, gay sex, orgasms, and it also seems to have a fixation with the word "clitoris." The text of those chapters is so graphic as a matter of fact that many podcasters who are reporting about it refuse to directly quote anything from it in fear endangering their own souls with mortal sin - that is pretty bad, in all honesty!  This book preceded Mystical Passion by three years and was titled Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing, which was published initially in 1995 and many are speculating that it was somewhat autobiographical in the way he described his experiences.  Any way you look at it, stuff like this has definitely caused some commotion, and rightly so.  So, what are the problems with the books that Fernandez penned? Let us first clarify a few issues.

Sex is in reality a beautiful gift of God, and it belongs solely within the context of a loving, monogamous, heterosexual (one man and one woman) union of holy matrimony.  A man and woman who are in a loving marital union should fully enjoy being with each other, and the gift of sexuality is something beautiful in that context.  However, because it is a special bond meant for only one particular type of relationship, Satan has found ways to exploit, cheapen, and abuse sex in many ways to corrupt and confuse humanity.  This corruption takes several forms - solo masturbation, sex outside of marriage, adultery within a marriage, homosexual relationships, polygamous and other "group sex" arrangements, pornography, child sexual abuse, prostitution, bestiality, rape, fetishism, and lewd language that cheapens sex to a joke and makes sexuality a comedic act.  And, while in proper context there are good Christian books out there on sex and marriage (Tim LaHaye's The Act of Marriage and Ed Wheat's Intended for Pleasure are two excellent ones) that can discuss the topic with candor, these books by Cardinal Fernandez do not do that.  On the contrary, they seem to glorify the wrong ideas on sexuality, and they are perhaps a little too graphic to be used for religious instruction.  And, that is the core issue. Oddly, I have seen Cardinal Fernandez's ideas in print before, and what they seem to echo is even more sinister.  Let me talk about that now. 

The original Spanish edition of "Mystical Passion," Cardinal Fernandez's quasi-pornographic sex book he published in 1998

The other more-nuanced graphic book of Fernandez, "Heal Me With Your Mouth," published in 1998

As many who are reading this know, I am currently working on my Ph.D. dissertation, and the topic I am actually addressing is the ideological influences upon the Nazis and what the Nazis evolved from.  Of those four areas that I touch on in my research, two of them - the occultic worldview of the predecessors of the Nazis and the open acceptance (and later implementation) of Darwinian eugenics by many influential precursors to the Nazis - intersect and deal with sexual deviance in a very positive light.  The one person who has figured prominently in my research is the former (defrocked) Cistercian priest and occultist Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels (1874-1954).  In 1905, Liebenfels authored and published a very odd text entitled Theozoology, and in it he justifies things such as polygamy and even homosexual acts in the name of "racial superiority," and he uses graphic (indeed, almost pornographic) language in doing so.  Since part of his whole ideology was viewing different races of humanity as different species, he used the Biblical training he had as a former priest to radically redefine terms such as "sodomy."  Essentially, what Liebenfels did was say that homosexual acts between two people of the same sex, as long as they were the same species, was good (this echoes Karl Heinrich Ulrichs' idea of the "evolving third sex" theory in regard to homosexuals, which was later appropriated by Magnus Hirschfeld and also to a degree incorporated by individuals such as Simone de Beauvoir - the modern transgender ideology more or less possesses a version of this thinking), but he defined "sodomy" as the male of one species having relations with another male of a different species (here he means race).  Therefore, while bestiality would be discouraged by Liebenfels, he radically altered the perception to say that a relationship between two people of different races was a form of bestiality. However, sexual relations between any two individuals of the same species was fine, and he even encouraged promiscuity as a way to propagate and multiply the "master race."  This was an idea which was codified into policy by Himmler for his SS men, who were encouraged to father as many "pure Aryan children" as possible.  The thing to note here is that Liebenfels couched all this in Biblical language, and he even attributed a sacramental dimension to such behavior.  Eerily, this is exactly the same thing I saw Fernandez doing in the more controversial chapters of Mystical Passion, and it is that very thing that makes this more disturbing. I know people will probably read it and on first glance say nothing is wrong with Fernandez's work, but when he talks about French-kissing witches of all things in his books and also comparing erotic sexual intercourse to the Eucharist, that raises some questions.  And, this is why things are so controversial with anything this prelate writes. 

When I watched Dr. Taylor Marshall's podcast addressing this earlier, he made a very important observation that bears serious consideration.  Marshall said that heresy, schism, and sexual immorality feed upon each other, and one will inevitably lead to the others.  If you want an example of that, just look at the Mormon Fundamentalists in the west like Warren Jeffs and the Kingstons - they used a schism of a schism (Fundamentalist Mormons are a branch of the official Mormon Church, which in turn was a heretical sect that arose out of Campbellite Restorationism in the early 19th century) to quickly justify child sexual molestation and trafficking in the name of "plural marriage."  Jeffs molested his own daughter as a matter of fact, and he is serving a very long prison sentence due to the perversity he embraced and forced on others.  Fernandez unfortunately is probably closer to Warren Jeffs in his views than he is to great Catholic leaders like Pope St. Leo XIII, and with his open endorsement of perverts such as "Father" Rupnik and "Teddy" McCarrick, Fernandez is himself only a step away from being the leader of a sex cult that would be in schism from the true Catholic Church.   And, in using many of the same Scripture-twisting eisogetical hermeneutical tricks as Liebenfels, Fernandez is treading on very dangerous soil right now.  The impact of that on his own soul is serious enough, but what is tragic is who he will take down with him.  Just like "Father" James Martin, the "Rainbow Jesuit" who prances around at pride parades like a drunk ballerina, Fernandez is scandalizing the Church.  When the Protestant Fundamentalists read Fiducia Supplicans for instance, it will be a "gotcha" moment for them as it justifies all of their allegations against the Catholic faith, and therefore Martin, Fernandez, and even Francis himself are doing great damage to the Church's evangelization efforts.  So, what is a faithful Catholic to do?  

If many of the great saints and visionaries are accurate in what they saw coming over the centuries, I am fairly certain that a schism in the Church is coming, and at this rate it could be really soon.  The confusion caused by a misreading and misinterpretation of Vatican II, followed by the recent sex scandals of the past 20 or so years that rocked the Church, and now all this crazy garbage Francis is serving up - first, he denied essential Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception by saying Mary was "born in sin," then he attacked Biblical creationism and instead opted for the Tiehardian view of theistic evolution.  And, if that was not enough, there were the Pachamama idols in the church in Rome, followed then a couple of years later by Traditiones Custodis, which restricted the Traditional Latin Mass.  Then, there were his vindictive actions against Fr. Frank Pavone, Bishop Strickland, and Cardinal Burke.  And, finally, we have Fiducia Supplecans, thanks to his henchman Fernandez, which further muddied already turbulent waters.  I know I will probably incur the wrath of sincere but ignorant Catholics who have a misplaced loyalty in Francis, but let's please be honest - Francis is a failure as a Pope, and he seems to be proud of that, even bragging about "dividing the Church" at the beginning of his pontificate.  Thankfully though, the true Church still is there, and it belongs to Christ, and nothing Francis, Fernandez, or any other wayward hierarch does will change that.  If a schism does happen, it will be they who are the schismatics, not us - I will always be on the side of the true and orthodox expression of our faith personally, as should you as a faithful Catholic.  This is the silver lining - we know the end of the story - God wins!  Therefore, instead of a mass exodus of faithful Catholics to the ranks of sedevecantism or the more conservative/traditionalist episcopi vagantes of the Old Catholic movement, let us dig in and wait this out, and remain faithful to the true faith.  If we do that, then it will all work out.  Fortunately for me, I belong to a very solid, orthodox parish with a wonderful priest who loves God and also loves the faith, so I am blessed with that.  It is my hope that many of my readers here will be as fortunate.  Thank you, and God bless. 

A Few Random Thoughts

 The new year of 2023 got off to a bit of a chaotic start for me - some challenges to overcome as the year began.  But, I have also been pondering several things too, and I felt it was time to give a little bit of perspective on relationships and related issues.  

I am going to deal with two specific things in this talk today, one being appearance, and the other being relationships for Christians.  There is a lot of very bad information out there on both of these areas, and a common-sense approach is needed.  So, let's talk about appearances.

In recent years, there has been a discussion about something called "fat-shaming," and I think it is time to really say something about that as there are some extremes on both sides of that issue.  For one, the liberal/leftist "progressives" want to insert more plus-sized models into advertising.  However, some who are conservatives think this is bad, as they have a fixation with Uma Thurman-type stick-models who look perfect.  Both of these exclusively are very wrong attitudes to have.  From the leftist/liberal side, it is wrong because it promotes oftentimes the ugliest of things, as ugliness seems to be a major thing the postmodern leftist likes.  For the conservatives, it is wrong because it promotes an unrealistic image of what a woman is, and I think that is about as damaging as postmodern ugliness is.  In the real world, supermodels don't naturally exist - they are manufactured.  Most women have imperfections of some sort (and most men as well, including me) and the whole supermodel thing sets up an unrealistic expectation of what the "ideal woman" is supposed to be.  On the other hand, the postmodern iconoclasm that seeks to destroy everything that is true, good, and beautiful is also detrimental, and it likewise creates unrealistic expectations.   And, if a man has to look to a woman on a magazine cover as his "ideal," he will miss out on what God may have for him as a soulmate.  So, here is my perspective on that.

When a man and woman fall in love, and if they are meant to be, there is something that takes place called chemistry.  This chemistry is something exclusive to that relationship, and what it means is that the couple see in each other something that attracts them.  They may not look like much on the outset - one or both may be slightly overweight, there may even be a skin blemish or something else, but for a couple in love those things don't matter.  To a man, the woman he loves is the most beautiful woman in the universe, and in his eyes she is perfect.  And to him, she is - she is the perfect soulmate for him.  It works the same way with her too - in her eyes, her man is the perfect man.  That is true love, and it transcends so many things - it transcends race, ethnicity, size, past baggage, etc.  It is, believe it or not, the same type of love Jesus Christ has for us - the Church is His Bride, and let's face it, she is not perfect!  Yet, He loves his Bride anyway.  The only difference in that relationship is that Jesus is the perfect Groom - He is God, so He is perfect in every way.  A man and woman in love do not share that same perfection with Him, but in the eyes of each of them the other is perfection.  So, OK, the match is made and the man and woman are in love, so a relationship ensues.  What about that?  As Christians, there are lots of theories and things that bandy about, and to be honest, one has to be careful what they listen to.  Let's get into that briefly.

Many years ago, there was this guy named Bill Gothard who started an organization called Institute in Basic Life Principles.  I want to talk about this a little bit, because there are many aspects to this which bear discussion.  Gothard was an Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian speaker who wanted to find a way to apply Biblical principles to everyday life, and he got quite wealthy holding seminars and classes at mostly Fundamentalist Baptist churches across the US.  Although around 2014 or so he was forced to abdicate his position in disgrace, Gothard had a very detailed system in place for his model.  In all honesty, the idea he had was not bad - I am a bit of an ideologue myself, and even models I disagree with can be inspiring because they can provide some impetus for organization.  It was designed to give a structure to the family that in turn would have the objective of transforming society, so there was a classic evangelical dimension to his method too.  However, it had some problems.  One of the first and biggest problems was Gothard's own belief in Sola Scriptura, which in all honesty is a belief that cannot be carried out honestly, as ultimately it is the interpretation of Scripture by the proponent of this position that has the real authority, and so it was with Gothard.  Others have similar models they implemented, notably Denny Keniston of Charity Christian Fellowship in Ephrata, PA, who had a similar series called "The Godly Home" that shared a lot of Gothard's ideas but was more Anabaptist in focus than it was Fundamentalist.  When people take these positions, especially from a hard-line Sola Scriptura framework, some pretty bizarre things result from it.  Nowhere is this more evident in Gothard's model than the courtship/dating aspect of male/female relationships.  According to Gothard's model, dating (if allowed at all) is to be strictly regulated - no touching, no kissing, and always with a group or chaperone.  Along with strict dress codes and a prohibition on things such as certain music or even other entertainment, it meant the "date" between a boy and a girl looked more like a formal business dinner than it did a courtship, and to be honest it is not either realistic nor is it even Biblical.  It leads to soulless marriages devoid of passion and romance, and it also causes other problems too, as we saw with Gothard himself as well as one of his most dedicated disciples, Josh Duggar, a few years back.  Even in dating and courtship, there has got to be a little spark and some romance - it doesn't mean that the couple jumps into bed and has sex at every opportunity either, but a simple kiss or a cuddle will not lead to fornication - it is crazy to even think that honestly.  Therefore, this led me to my own idea of how courtship and dating goes.

I am in reality a self-professed and self-admitting prude - I have always been very conservative in how I present myself, and to be honest the first date I ever had I ended up married to later, and that marriage lasted 29 years.  I am not into things like casual sex - sex for me, which I would agree with Gothard on, is strictly for marriage.  I am also not into a lot of openly public displays of affection either - even husbands and wives need to keep some of their romantic expression private honestly.  But, I would not go to the extremes that Gothard goes to either.  For instance, I do not have a problem with sharing a romantic kiss, nor do I have an issue with cuddling with one's sweetheart to watch a movie or something - kick your shoes off and be comfortable with each other.  And, if the couple does have strong faith convictions, they will know how to control themselves, especially if they are adults who are dating.  And, you do not need to date in gaggles like a flock of geese either.  It is perfectly fine to take your beau to a romantic candlelit restaurant and just enjoy each other's company holding hands, sneaking a kiss, and gazing lovingly into each other's eyes.  That is romance and it is integral to the relationship.  I may be conservative, but I want to show the woman I love how I feel too.  That is called being a normal man.  That type of romance was the subject of many wonderful songs from around the 1920s into the early 1960s - it was innocent and beautiful love, and it has been a part of our experience from time immemorial.  I would argue that when a Fundamentalist (and there are some Catholic trads who are equally as strict) tries to suppress that, they are in essence trying to deny the nature God gave us, and thus it makes temptation even more intense.  Look at what happened to those Duggars for instance - I remember watching their show about 15 years ago when their oldest son Josh got engaged.  All they allowed that poor boy to do was shake hands with his girl!  Are you serious???  Then the truth came out a few years later - Josh was hooked on porn from an early age and he also molested his own sisters, and he is now I believe in jail serving time for that.  And, you see that over, and over, and over among Fundamentalist Protestants who have these puritanical mindsets.  What is worse in those traditions is that when a couple does marry, it is almost as if the woman becomes a baby factory and she loses her dignity of personhood - her sole objective in life is to be a maidservant to her husband and pop out as many kids as possible.  Sex, then, is diminished to merely being procreative and not a beautiful expression of love to be shared between a husband and wife.  Do not get me wrong - procreation is good, and if one is blessed with children that is a gift of life.  But, God designed our bodies to be more than just manufacturers of life - he made the sex act desirable and pleasurable for a reason. However, the other extreme is equally as wrong, so let's talk about that.

The secularization of society has meant several things.  For one, it is a diminishing of truth, beauty, and goodness.   Also, it is a breakdown of God's intended plan for mankind, including the relationship of a man and a woman.  Secularism exalts self above all else, and in doing so, it does not share any compassion, empathy, or anything else of value with anyone - the self is one's own god in that mindset, and therefore serving the self is the highest virtue of the secularist, which is why the great Russian Orthodox theologian, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, defined secularism as "the absence of man as a worshipping being."  Sexual ethics are perhaps one of the greatest casualties of the secular mindset and it has resulted in many bizarre and even unnatural things - the evils of abortion and euthanasia, the rise in STDs to almost pandemic levels, the blurring of sexual identity, high divorce rates, radical feminism, the whole LBGT (and everything in between) mess, and so much else.  People in the US now base their sexuality on two things - either appearances by watching shows like America's Top Model or The Bachelor, or by the glorification of the bizarre and ugly (androgenous couples, "furries," and other freakish junk). True romance is all but dead in today's society, and it is not uncommon now for sex to be reduced as a recreational sport just to make one or more of the partners feel good without regarding the consequences.  But, in a lot of ways, the Gothard prudishness and this secular antinomian attitude are both equally responsible for what has happened.  Therefore, I propose that both of these be rejected soundly for something more common-sense. 

My model for a romantic relationship is realistic, simple, and yet also within suitable boundaries.  If you are going to have a relationship, first of all it needs to be with someone of the opposite sex - I do not believe "same-sex love" is true love at all, and I will probably be targeted for saying it.  The true conjugal union is one man with one woman, and that is it.  Anything else is counterfeit and a perversion.  Secondly, the sex act is a privilege of marriage, and not a right of anyone to just have because they want to get their rocks off.  The sexual union is a very special one, and it is meant to bring into union a man and a woman as something new - each completes the other.  Anything that does not seek that goal is wrong.  But, a relationship has to be cultivated to lead to the matrimonial state to have that conjugal union - so that is where romance comes in.   Not everything romantic is sexual - for instance, as a dating couple you should spend time together getting to know each other, establishing a bond of trust, and letting love in the relationship blossom.  You cannot do that with the platonic, sterile nonsense that the Gothard/Duggar model proposes.  While courting and during the engagement, get to know each other - talk together, share that passionate kiss, and kick off your shoes and cuddle on the couch watching a movie with each other - it's OK.  Go to the candlelit bistro and have a romantic dinner in a private booth in the back of the restaurant, and share a kiss, a glass of wine, and lovingly gaze into each other's eyes - that is OK too.  Dating is not a group sport, in other words, and especially if you are adults you don't need chaperones to micromanage your evening.  Proper romance during courtship and engagement will kindle a fire between you that will burn bright when you say "I do" and put rings on each other's fingers later.  That is just a normal relationship, a loving relationship.  And, every couple needs that too.  However, the greatest thing a couple can do for each other is to put God at the center of their relationship - this too has been misunderstood as well.  What it means exactly is you can pray with each other, and you can express your faith.  And, it also means that if God is at the center, it will help create boundaries to not go for home plate when God wants you at second base.  You will have the conviction to know each other's boundaries and to respect the integrity of each other.  Now, what is not putting God at the center of one's relationship?   Fundamentalists of the Gothard brand think you should essentially say grace every time you kiss your wife or husband, and even bow in prayer before having sex as a married couple.  That is frankly absurd - having God first does not mean you have to turn every date into a Bible study or prayer meeting.  I mean, what guy, before kissing his girl, actually says "Thanks be to God for this kiss I am about to receive..."  They would lock that dude up in a funny farm, not to mention that any relationship he hoped to have with that gal is now history.  What it really means by putting God at the center of the relationship is this - when one of you is upset or is facing something, pray together.  Also, a couple's Bible study or Rosary, or something else devotional, is not a bad idea either, and a regimen can be set up for that too.  And, attend church together - it is important that both partners be of one faith:  maybe not the same denomination of church, but at least worshipping the same God.  Little things like that are putting God at the center of the relationship.  Also, in one's private prayers, always pray for your significant other - if you have a morning or nightly devotional regimen, pray for your beloved by name; pray for their health, their happiness, their protection, as well as asking for God's guidance in your relationship.  You cannot go wrong doing that.  That is just some practical dating advice I would give to a young man or lady who was in a serious relationship.  Now that we talked about that, let us now turn back to the first subject.

About "fat-shaming," I want to address this.  Both sides of this issue are wrong, and we said why.  But, what does that mean exactly?  Well, for one thing, it is important to try to keep oneself as healthy as possible, and if one feels the conviction to lose a couple of pounds, that is perfectly fine.  But, they should not be bullied for being overweight either.  Not everyone who is a little rotund is that way because they are lazy, gluttonous, or some other stereotype of the "fat person."  In many cases, the older one gets, the more likely a "spare tire" will develop.  I know it has with me, as I went from being rail-thin in my early twenties to being rotund now, and to be honest I eat less now than I did then too.  As a 20-year-old, I could polish off a whole 16-inch cheese pizza by myself.  Today, if I only eat two pieces of a 12-inch pie, I am full (and that is even with my favorite thin-crust pizza I love!).  So, eating habits cannot explain why I have a spare tire at 53 I didn't have at 23.  That all being said, to be honest, there are some very beautiful women out there who may be a little on the heavy side (that model Stephanie jmedia comes to mind on social media), and they are as attractive as the skinniest Victoria's Secret model.  As a matter of fact, many men like their woman a little more filled out, as to be honest the "Twiggy" persona looks rather sickly.  I am not sure why the skinny model is considered by so many to be a 'sex symbol," as there is something just so plastic about them many times - yes, they are beautiful, and in many contexts they do look good, but there is an insincerity about that image that just never really appealed to me.  Therefore, if a company or magazine wants to use a beautiful full-figured gal as a model, go for it!  But, don't do it to make a statement - if you are modeling her because she is a little heavy and nothing more, then that is virtue signaling and doesn't serve any purpose.  But, if such a girl is being modeled because of her beauty and her talents, then by all means she should have the opportunity.  It is time we get back to Martin Luther King's ideal of judging according to character and not just appearances.  

And, that leads me into another discussion about this.  Over the years, interracial dating has really gotten more popular, and there is even at least one dating website totally dedicated to that.  I think this is a wonderful thing, as love is not judged by race or ethnicity, but rather again chemistry between said man and woman.  If a Black woman falls in love with a White man (or vise versa), God bless them and give them a great relationship - as long as it is mutual attraction, true love, and strong chemistry, it is a beautiful thing.  True romantic love transcends externals - if a man and woman fall in love, then they are not going to care about what each other looks like or what even their past histories are.  It will not matter.  Nor should it matter either - as long as it is a man and a woman, that is what counts.  There are some in religious circles though - again these Fundamentalist and even legalistic Pentecostal types - who actually say that "race-mixing" is prohibited in the Bible.  Is it though?  In my reading of Scripture, I see two things:

1.  All humans are created in the image of God

2.  All human beings have a common pair of ancestors (Adam and Eve)

For those who would say that interracial romance is wrong, they often try to cite passages such as Genesis 6 - referencing the "sons of Seth" and "daughters of Cain" - to justify their positions.  However, context means everything, and as I taught in my Genesis study earlier in this blog that passage has nothing to do with race-mixing - it has to do with "sons of God" (fallen angels) rather than "sons of Seth" having unnatural relations with human women, and the correct wording of that is not "daughters of Cain," but rather "daughters of men."  For many Church Fathers and others, those incidents led to the creation of Nephilim, and the departed souls of those became demons. So, it has absolutely nothing to do with relationships between fellow human beings.  Much of the hoo-hah surrounding this in relation to interracial marriages stems back to Darwin rather than historic Church doctrine, and this is an instance where Darwinian racism even entered the most traditional/conservative of Christian beliefs, although many holding such views would deny it. The reason I say that is that it was Darwinian evolution that proposed that different races and ethnicities were "different species," something that Darwin's disciple in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, took to the degree that it was gobbled up by Theosophic occultists in Germany and Austria who were the genesis of Hitler and the Nazis, and we know that story.  More racist Fundamentalists later took this, and by theological applications relating to procreation within the same kinds of creatures, they labeled Black/White marriages as "sinful" and even as "bestiality."  The Mormons even took it to a greater degree by calling Blacks the "sons of Cain" and saying Black people were cursed and that no White person should marry a Black person.  It is rooted in racism, and both Blacks and Whites have been guilty of espousing these views for the same reasons.  Other than that very weak premise though, I do not see any evidence in Scripture that prohibits a Black woman and a White man (or vice versa) from marrying and loving each other.  The people who hold to that erroneous view of Scripture need to repent, because it is not divine revelation they have, but rather social Darwinism masquerading as a Sola Scriptura belief. I would even go as far as to call it a form of heresy that should be condemned, because it goes against every other contextual application of Scripture.  My own step-grandmother espouses this crazy interpretation of Genesis 6, and one thing she always prefaces this with when she starts to enunciate her views is "Now, I am not prejudiced, but..."  If someone has to do that prefacial disclamor to what they are going to say, it is probably going to be a racist rant of some sort.  As my step-grandmother is in her 90s now, she would do well to rethink her life and repent of that nonsense too (she has issues too from her past, but that is not a warranted discussion here).   Any rate, I say now that interracial relationships are not a problem, and they can even be beautiful.  Racism against anyone is a demonic sin and should be rightly denounced as such.  And that especially is true in the sacred love between a man and a woman, regardless of race or ethnicity. 

I think I have pontificated enough today, but sufficive to say, we need to get past externals.  This is especially true when it comes to love and romance between a man and a woman.  If we can do that, I feel a restoration to Biblical order will happen in our society, for as love starts at the basic level of human relationships, so it will spread to the greater society.   Thank you for allowing me to share today. 

Cancel Culture and Deficiencies in Church Hierarchy - Some Thoughts

 As we reach the end of the year, a lot has been on my mind regarding the state of our Church.  One major incident that caught my attention and motivated me to write this was the laicizing of a very prominent Catholic priest, Fr. Frank Pavone.  Fr. Pavone is the key leader in the Priests for Life organization, and he has perhaps done more for the sanctity of life than anyone I know.   Also, during the whole COVID mess and the subsequent weeks I was unable to attend Mass regularly due to lack of transportation (I have things to say about that too later, believe me!) Fr. Frank was a lifesaver - I watched his Masses on YouTube and he was a tremendous blessing to me.  He had very sound and inspiring homilies, and there was a comfort I got just watching him celebrate Mass.  However, there are recent events that robbed many of us - including Fr. Frank - of that, and I will give a brief synopsis of that now followed by some commentary. 

Fr. Frank Pavone

At the end of November, the Vatican laicized (let's be honest - they defrocked him!) Fr. Frank due to a couple of issues.  First, it entailed a comment on social media, where Fr. Frank replied in anger to someone supporting our inept President, Joe Biden, by saying "G** d**** Biden" or something to that effect.  The second had to do with him displaying an aborted baby on a table in his study to make a point about how damaging abortion is, and he was accused of putting a dead baby on an altar.  Fr. Frank soundly responded to these by noting that although he did take the Lord's name in vain, he confessed and repented of it and acknowledged he had a moment of weakness.  As for the aborted baby, it was not on an altar, but rather a sort of utility table in his office, and he also did provide the child with a proper burial and thus nothing technically was desecrated. Those are the facts that led to the decision to laicize him due to a charge of "blasphemy" and also something to do with defiance of his Ordinary Bishop. There are problems with this though, and I want to address those now. 

I want to take first the issue of Fr. Frank's use of the "GD" phrase.  Was it blasphemy?  I don't think so honestly.  Was it wrong? Yes, it was, but Fr. Frank also acknowledged that and took the appropriate steps to rectify it.   Also, Fr. Frank has not been opaque with what he did - he was very open and up-front about the whole thing, and that should be appreciated.  However, here's the rub on that.  Who in this world hasn't on occasion said or done something wrong??  Romans 3:23 reminds us that all of us have sinned and fallen short, and a guy with a collar is no exception - he is still a human being who, like the rest of us, relies on supernatural grace to elevate, heal, and perfect his concupiscent nature, which by the way we all have - read Genesis 3 again.  And, in all honesty, I have myself uttered some very volatile words in a moment of anger too - I have dropped an F-bomb or two on occasion, and I tend to beat the living crap out of my computer when it malfunctions, and I would not honestly repeat some of the names that I call it in my head!  And, like Fr. Frank, I have to also repent of that, and I do so in the proper way.  Bottom line is, while it in no way justifies the action, I believe that Fr. Frank handled himself properly and well, and therefore if Jesus forgives him, so should we.  In accusing him as they did, the bishops who sanctioned him over it forgot a very integral part of sacramental theology - once something is confessed and forgiven, grace has been imparted and the Blood of Christ covers the sin.  If the bishops (and I am speaking in particular of Bishop Zurek in Amarillo, who was Fr. Pavone's Ordinary and had a vendetta against him) cannot acknowledge the grace afforded by their own office, then that means they are bringing damnation upon themselves - remember, Bishop Zurek, the words of Jesus - He told us that if we are unable to forgive, He will not forgive us.  So, Bishop, perhaps Dante's prophetic words in The Inferno apply to you - one day, your skull will pave the path to hell unless you repent of your unforgiveness.  I have a feeling that Dante knew what he was talking about, considering how many bureaucrats and political hacks there are right now in the hierarchy of our Church - it is a scandal.  Not to mention the sex perverts that they let run rampant in parishes and seminaries.  It is sick, and it is a reason so many people are leaving the Church for either Evangelical Protestant groups or more traditionalist movements like the SSPX.  Thank you, Bishops, for doing Satan's job for him.  A special shout-out to some of our more notorious bishops and Cardinals that enable evil - you know the ones: Cupich, Gregory, Zurek, and so many others.  These guys are the ones who should be laicized, along with their wingmen such as "Father" James Martin and that priest who molested 9 nuns as well as that other pervert in a collar in Louisiana who desecrated an altar with strippers.  Yet, for some reason, those guys get to run amok while faithful priests like Fr. Frank and Fr. James Altman get cancelled by the hierarchy.  In looking at what is going on, I am reminded of some prophetic things I read from some saints and visionaries in regard to the Church, so let me share those now.  

I want to recommend a book to you that is vital to read, especially in these days - it is Desmond Birch, Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph: Before, During, and After Antichrist (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1996).  I know Dr. Birch personally, and he has done a magnificent job in presenting Catholic eschatology in a comprehensive light.  The book is huge (636 pages including the index) and it also is not something you want to do as leisure reading, but rather it provides a ready reference to different things.  In looking up some information about the Great Apostasy, I came across this on page 434 - a sample list of traditional teachings of the Church regarding eschatology.  The second thing on that list was this - a great apostasy or religious defection.  If you pair this with the fourth item on the list - the conversion of the Jews after the "fulness of the Gentiles" - here is the scenario.  Quoting Scripture from II Thessalonians 2:3-5, these are events that precede the Tribulation and the emergence of the Antichrist (Birch, 446). It also follows an Age of Peace, which in Catholic tradition is called the reign of a great Catholic Monarch, but Protestant Dispensationalists flip it on its ear in calling it the Millenium and place it after the Tribulation.  Now, here is where we have a dilemma.  First the Gospel has not yet been preached to all the world, a prerequisite of the Age of Peace.   Second, the Age of Peace has not arrived yet, so what is going on now??  I would have to do more research on this, but I would wager that there are two Great Apostasies, and if that be the case, we are facing one of those now.  Never in the history of the Church has there been so many proverbial tares in the wheatfield, and the tares seem to be overcoming the wheat at this point (see my previous articles on that topic).  In the highest echelons of the Church hierarchy, there are weeds - nasty, evil weeds.  And those weeds are not happy with the wheat that is trying to grow, and thus they want to suck the life out of it and take over the whole field.  This is a huge reason why Fr. Frank gets punished harshly for something that he should not be punished for, while openly heretical "priests" like James Martin, the "Rainbow Jesuit," can go prancing around at "gay pride" parades like a drunk ballerina and he gets rewarded.  It is also why exposing the evils of abortion in a very graphic way as Fr. Frank did is a greater sin to the hierarchs than a pervert like "Uncle Teddy" McCarrick having a Grinder account is.  It is a scandal in the truest sense.  A lot more background could be given on this, but I would recommend two other books for that which can be read at your leisure.  The first is Taylor Marshall, Infiltration (Manchester, NH:  Crisis Publications, 2019), and the second is Michael Rose, Goodbye Good Men (Washington, DC:  Regnery Publishing, 2002).  Both of these books shed light on some of the scandalous behavior of the hierarchy in the Church, ranging from promoting "wokeness" to denying the priesthood to more worthy candidates in preference to degenerates who abuse others sexually.  Therefore, while it is tragic what happened to Fr. Frank (and the fact they did this to him just before Christmas, and now his father passed away - please keep him in your prayers), it also should not be surprising.  This is a fruit of apostasy, and not the root - that runs much deeper.  

The second thing addresses Fr. Frank's placing an aborted baby on the table in his video.  As I understand it, the table he used for this was just a utility table in his office and not a sanctified altar, and although he has celebrated Masses on it, the table is in this case just that - a table.  And, while more "sensitive" people may have found this extreme, I must remind those same individuals that sometimes-extreme actions are necessary due to the gravity of the situation being addressed.  And, if people are offended by what Fr. Frank did, I would challenge them to read some of the lives of the saints, in particular a class of saints in the Eastern Christian tradition called the Yurodivi ("Holy Fools").  The antics of some of these types of saints could easily be dismissed as mental illness - they did some pretty crazy things!  Yet. God used them.  One of them I recall reading about actually slaughtered a goat or something and went to the Russian Czar and threw it on the table in front of him.   This particular czar was not a nice guy and had been massacring people even during the season of Lent.  So, the saint's message to the Czar was simply this - if you are unrepentant about killing innocent people, then go ahead and eat meat during Lent because you are basically going to hell anyway! The lesson was that unless Lenten fasts were taken in the right attitude - contrition and repentance - they were of little use in the larger picture of the salvation of one's soul. It took an extreme action to get the lesson across.  Fr. Frank was not near as extreme as that, or even as some of the Doctors of the Church - remember when St. Athanasius basically smacked the heretic Arius upside the head, and I believe even the beloved St. Nicholas threw some punches at heretics too (which means the character of Santa Claus in the 1988 film Ernest Saves Christmas was probably more authentic than many because one scene has him popping a movie director in the nose for making a movie terrorizing kids).  And, in a culture like ours that has become more jaded and secularized, perhaps a little extremity is necessary because no one listens to reason much anymore.  If you try to reason with the opposition, they will cancel you and ruin you, so more aggressive measures may be warranted.  So, in essence, I do not believe that Fr. Frank did anything wrong with the aborted baby, especially since he also took the effort to provide the little one with a proper burial.  Some have even argued that because the relics of the martyrs are often found in altars, it may have perhaps been justified to have a modern martyr - an aborted child - on display in a holy place too.  I mean, it is a hell of a lot better than occultists do with their human sacrifices - you know, like the ancient Aztecs who ripped beating hearts out of people and then danced around in their flayed skin until it rotted off, but oh, that is OK because it is "cultural appreciation."  The devaluing of human life is an abomination, and Fr. Frank was making people aware of that.  The fact that people were more concerned about a baby on an altar (which was not actually an altar) than they are with the fact that an abortionist murdered that baby speaks volumes too.  And what is worse is that our bishops are either too stupid or too desensitized themselves to get the message.  I think it is time for new bishops. 

To learn more about Fr. Frank's situation, it is best that you learn it from him yourself, so I encourage you to visit his site, www.frfrankpavone.com, and there you will find documentation and other items that will make you more aware of his position.  In the meantime, too, pray for him and other cancelled priests, because they need our support right now.  Thank you for allowing me to share. 

Navigating Rough Waters

 For many of us, 2022 was a rough year, a sort of climax of the previous two years with the pandemic and everything.  What often accompanies that is a feeling of uncertainty about the future, and it is only natural to feel that way.  Keeping this in mind, I wanted to do an end-of-year devotional reflection on that to help others if possible. 

The Bible, as far as I have seen, does not really address an allegory of rapids, but it does talk a lot about stormy seas, and the same idea is conveyed.  Isaiah 43:2, for instance, says "When you face stormy seas I will be there with you with endurance and calm; you will not be engulfed in raging rivers."  A raging river and a turbulent sea represent the same allegory - the storms we face in life.  In the case of a raging river though, there may not be a storm, but rather some treacherous rapids and waterfalls to navigate, and that requires a lot of quick thinking.  Using this verse, I want to talk a little about that. 

The above picture is of Blackwater Falls, which is about 14 miles northeast of my hometown in West Virginia. It is a local tourist attraction, and it is beautiful to look at from a distance.  But, trying to take a boat over those falls would be an act of suicidal stupidity, in that the rocks in that river would break every bone in someone's body if they fell - the likelihood of surviving such an accident would be very low.  As water approaches a waterfall like Blackwater Falls, it creates eddies and rapids that can cause a navigator to lose control of a small boat easily, and thus one is at the mercy of the falls.  However, if one is skilled enough to do it, there is a way to circumvent the danger, and that is by navigating to a nearby riverbank or looking for a channel to navigate in before approaching dangerous currents that would sweep a boat right over those falls.  A channel could be a small creek that flows into the river and would be possibly a detour around the more turbulent waters of the falls, and although the boat may not fit into such a small stream, it would provide a way to descend the elevation the falls flow off of and it would save lives.  It would take somewhat more effort obviously, but it could be done.  There is a very rich lesson in this for us if we know how to see it, especially when we are going through turbulent circumstances in our own lives.  

One important aspect of being able to navigate turbulent waters is to have an experienced person who knows how to find the safe channels and steer out of the currents so we don't get swept over the falls.  As noted in Isaiah 43:2 as shown above, we have that as faithful followers of Christ - we have Christ Himself to guide us.  As a matter of fact, guidance is one of three promises of favor that God gives us in Scripture, and those are as listed:

1. Provision (Philippians 4:19)

2. Protection (Ephesians 6, James 4:7, Psalm 91:4-5)

3. Guidance (Psalm 119:105, Proverbs 3:5-6, James 1:5-6)

All of these are interconnected, and they are not promises directly related to the Atonement (there are only two of those I am aware of, salvation and healing) but they are promises given to those who walk in God's grace.  And, although not to be taken to the extremes that some "Word of Faith" TV preachers do for the wrong reasons, they are still promises regardless and we can stand on those.  More than provision and protection though, guidance is the one that should be sought the most, as the others tend to fall in place once we have proper direction.  That can be hard, and I want to address a couple of things about that which I relate to personally. 

One huge problem is time - God transcends time and space, but we are confined to it.  So, when a bill comes due and money is short, we don't have the luxury of time to pay when we feel like it.  And, if you tell your creditors that you are "waiting on the Lord" to give you the money, they will probably recommend you for the loony bin!  That is an example of turbulent waters, and at that point is when we really need God to navigate us so we don't go over the waterfall.  And, that can be scary!  God has the tendency of waiting until the last minute sometimes to give us breakthroughs, and that can be emotionally taxing. But, as he said in Romans 8:28, God works all things together for good, and that warrants trust in his judgment.  In reality, that is easier said than done, but I have learned there are two important lessons in this we need to apply in order to make it easier:

1. Stay focused on what your current responsibilities are.

2. As God has brought you this far, it is only fitting to trust him in this too. 

A second issue I have faced is trying to actually hear God's voice. In times of adversity and challenges, a lot is going on in our heads, and clarity is important to navigate properly.  But, the dilemma is this - God is often a "still small voice," (I Kings 19:11) but he is also not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33).  The challenge I have faced in my own experience is trying to reconcile those two things, and that can be tough!  In many situations, there is no room for error or bad judgment, so you face the dilemma of which "voice" is the voice of God, and how do you get him to turn up the volume so you don't miss it?  In that, we then start to ask for certain things, such as some sign God is hearing us or that he is giving us clearer direction.  This takes a number of forms, such as the example of Gideon with the fleece, or seeing some proof that God is in the situation, much like St. Thomas needed at the Lord's resurrection.  I cannot say whether doing that is right or wrong, because I have done my own seeking like that too, but sometimes it is what we have to work with, and therefore I think God will understand that we are trying to do the right thing.  And, in many cases, he has actually answered me with the direction I needed in that way.  And, there are other times where you will get angry and impatient with God - I can testify for a fact that I have had more than one heated exchange with our Lord over things when I just got to the end of my proverbial rope.  Of course, you do feel bad about it later and if you are consistent in your faith, you will repent of that and I believe God is big enough to handle that - he knows human limitations too and I do not believe he faults us for those even if we can end up being really nasty with him (and I am not too proud to say I have been there too!).  The good thing is that we are not alone - remember Jacob in Genesis 32:22-32?  Jacob had to wrestle with God to get the blessing he needed, and some of us have been there too.  The thing that actually sets the Bible apart from other religious texts is its divine authorship, and the fact that part of that is that often the heroes are shown as pure human beings with normal emotions and limitations - there are no "super-beings" in Scripture outside of Jesus Christ, and Scripture is written in that way to show us that we are not alone.  So, the ultimate gift of guidance is the Scriptures themselves, but sometimes we just need a little more personal guidance that relates specifically to our own circumstances, and God knows that too.  

Navigating rough water requires God's guidance - we need to look to him as our Navigator to steer us into a safe channel to avoid the waterfall, and if we do so, he will be faithful to take care of us and our needs.  Guidance is the foremost need we all truly possess, and in the lesson of the boat on the rough river approaching a waterfall, we learn we have no choice but to rely on God's guidance.  May we always see God as our Navigator, and also listen for clarity of his voice.  Thank you, and have a blessed holiday season.  

The Reality of Spiritual Abuse

 This week, I had a rather tense confrontation with someone I used to consider a friend.  The whole thing was a HUGE misunderstanding on the person's part, and I am still sort of wondering what on earth brought it on.  Essentially, this person had posted on social media that they were selling tickets for some sort of event at a Ukrainian Catholic parish in Florida that I had actually visited a couple of times, and in response to their post I said, "Well, that is neat. Is that such-and-such church on such-and-such street?"  An innocent question, and under normal circumstances a normal person would be like "Why, yes it is!" and maybe engage in some small talk about the parish or something and the mutual experience we shared with visiting there.  However, nothing about this conversation would be normal, as within about 5 minutes after my response on this person's post, I get this nasty, angry email accusing me of putting the parish in danger, etc., etc., etc. But, it got even worse.   Due to some bad experience this person had some years ago, they got into a more mystical/quasi-charismatic form of Catholicism that stressed spiritual warfare, prophecy, and all this other stuff, and the mindset of this person often colors their judgment.  So, when this individual did not feel I "apologized" enough, they went on the attack and all of a sudden they claimed the Holy Spirit was showing them that I had some "sex sin" or something, and they went off on the craziest tangent about that.  I finally had to block the person for harassment on social media, and after that little exchange, I had this eerie feeling because I was there before, years ago.  Many already know that story, but for those who don't, let me give you the "Reader's Digest" version.

When I was in my early 20s, I attended a Pentecostal church of the Foursquare denomination in Midland City, AL.  However, a couple of years into going there, things got bizarre, as the pastor and a number of the laypeople got themselves entangled in "deliverance ministry" and they were reading these bizarre books such as Rebecca Brown's He Came to Set the Captives Free as well as Frank and Ida Hammond's book Pigs in the Parlor.  For those of you who know these books, you are aware that they are written by crackpots who look for demons under their coffee tables and also get off on "personal prophecy" to justify some of the crazy conclusions they reach.  This Foursquare church was into all that, and even would have those iconic bonfires to burn things they thought were "possessed;" one lady would even hold up a T-shirt and say "Look at that - the demon is glaring at me!" and then rebuke it ("in the name of Jesus" of course) and burn it.  After a while, because I didn't conform to their image, I was targeted by this stuff, and it led me to eventually leave that abomination of a church and would aid in my own conversion to the Catholic faith some years later.  In time, that "church" was served justice - they suffered a split, after which the church closed for good, and the pastor retired and later ended up dying of Alzheimer's (which he also claimed was a demon in that church - talk about irony!), and in time the church building was sold to a Hindu community and is now a temple to Shiva or something.  It took many years of recovery for me from that sort of spiritual abuse, and when this person who attacked me yesterday did what they did, it drug up some unpleasant memories.  That is why I wanted to address that here.  

First, let's give some Biblical background of this whole thing.  People who engage in this type of behavior often appeal to certain Scripture passages to affirm their calling, notably Ephesians 4:7 and I Corinthians 12:10. Often, people who subscribe to a more extreme charismatic understanding will point out that the "office of prophet" and the "gift of prophecy" are two different things.  While there are some merits to this, and throughout the history of the Church people have possessed these gifts, in the last couple of hundred years a variety of movements, cults, and denominations have made them central in that "anyone can have the gift of prophecy" whether they do or not, and the potential for abuse is quite high.  I don't know if my former friend claimed to be a prophet or not, but they often bragged about a "gift of discernment" and to be honest, in the time I have known this person I have been a little wary of that, especially since this person also claims to be devoutly Catholic.  And, that leads to some further observations.

The purpose of one of these gifts, if one truly possesses them, is for the edification of the Church as well as evangelistic in some circumstances.  And it goes back to this whole notion of "charismatic," which in Greek is a word that comes from charis, meaning literally "gift."  However, in the context of where that gift comes from, it is also historically understood that these are gifts of grace, meaning we do not do anything to earn them and they really are not to be promoted as a status symbol.  And, the root Greek word charis also related to another Latin word, caritas, and both of these convey that the gift is also given in love (caritas is also the root of the English word charity).  Therefore, the etymology alone of the word charismatic suggests that these gifts are conveyed by God's grace to witness Christ's love.  Prophecy is one of these gifts, and it is something that although not as prevalent as a genuine gift is nonetheless to reflect supernatural grace and divine love.  However, like anything, this is something that can be misused, and sadly it often is, and it has caused damage to the Church on a major scale. Heretical sects, and sincere but misguided individuals like my former friend, not to mention a wide array of opportunistic hucksters, have been the greatest culprits in the abuse of these important gifts, and it is an epidemic in the Church that needs to have attention devoted to it to correct. 

Human beings are limited - a concupiscent nature was given to us at the Fall in the Garden of Eden, and it takes supernatural grace to elevate, heal, and perfect our nature in order to restore us to how God intended.   The problem is that Christians are not yet totally exempt from concupiscence, and oftentimes we even mess up within the context of the Church, and when spiritual gifts are involved it can get downright dangerous.  In my former friend's case, she used her "prophecy gift" or "discernment gift" (still not sure which she claims to have) as a weapon against someone (me) that she was angry with. When that happens, it means that the person exercising the supposed gift is being irresponsible and disobedient with its practice, and may even be seduced by a lying spirit. The enemy loves to corrupt and manipulate things like this in order to cause others to stumble, and it is really sad when it happens within the Church.  Outside of the Church though, it creates a counterfeit which is known as witchcraft or the occult, but within the Church it has another name - Charismatic witchcraft.  Trying to use a supposed spiritual gift to manipulate others to impose one's will - especially when it is falsehoods that are being said - is a classic definition of magic, and is not the operation of the Holy Spirit.  The person committing this atrocity may actually think they are hearing God, and may have the best of intentions, but they are no better than a witch in all honesty.  And, especially when using a gift of grace as a weapon or in anger - that can be very harmful.  The person I had the encounter with did just that, and it was a little unsettling for me as I got creepy feelings from this person that were reminiscent of that Foursquare church in Alabama I experienced in my younger years.  I am older and wiser now and of course I know better, but it is still unsettling when people behave like that.  Now that we established the groundwork, I want to now briefly talk about spiritual abuse and what it entails.  

In my days of experience in that Foursquare church in Alabama, I came across a very good book that was a huge help for me, and it is Ronald Enroth, Churches that Abuse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).  On page 29, Enroth gives essentially a definition of what spiritual abuse is when he says it entails psychological and spiritual damage inflicted upon people by those who are considered authorities, such as ministers and other leaders.  They use their position to abuse the authority they are given, and the results can be catastrophic - a violation of trust, a falling away from faith, broken families, and spiritual confusion.  When people are subjected to this, it causes emotional and spiritual scarring that often makes it a struggle to readjust to normal life, and in extreme cases it has even caused death through either direct/indirect action by the abuser or tragically, suicides.  Enroth, who as a sociologist has researched this sort of thing in great detail, notes that there are some major aspects of the abuse that are to be identified:

1. Authority and Power

2. Manipulation and Control

3. Elitism and Persecution

4. Lifestyle and Experience

5. Dissent and Discipline

Using the acronym AMELD, these characteristics may or may not all be present in every group, but they are traits that do show up.  In my former friend's case, there are three of them - 1,3, and 5 on the list.  My former friend claims authority by saying she has the "gift of discernment," then uses manipulation and control to try to impose her "insights" on others, and finally if you resist what she says you are somehow some sort of pariah and hellbound.  The Alabama church had all five of these actually.  Now, here is where we have problems though if one acts like this.  Let me get into that.

If a person has a true spiritual gift, they are not typically going to flaunt it because they know they did not merit it but that God chose them to have it.  So, a legitimate gift is exercised in humility.  Also, if said gift is given, it is for the encouragement and uplifting of others in the Church, and is never to be used as a bludgeoning club against someone you may not like.  Finally, the encouragement or guidance offered by said gift is respective of the free will of the person receiving the manifestation of it - it is given as guidance or encouragement only, and is not something that is punitive or coercive.  God will not strike someone dead who maybe rejects a prophetic word or something, and the Holy Spirit is gentle and not like that at all.  On that note, especially when I personally seek God's guidance, I wish the Holy Spirit's voice was louder, but often it is not.  Another aspect of this too is that the person who possesses such a gift cannot "pull rank" and exalt themselves - if they do, it detracts from the focus of the gift, which is God.  A person who has a spiritual gift or vocation is only a vessel, and they cannot in any way claim status for having a gift or vocation; God has his own reward for his faithful stewards.  Finally, exercising the gift in the right spirit is integral.  A spiritual gift is not a weapon against a fellow human being, and should not be used as such. So, if you possess a gift like discernment or prophecy, check your attitude when claiming to exercise it.  My former friend failed miserably on that last point, and as a result a friendship was sacrificed, and it made them look like a deranged psychopath rather than as a true instrument of God.  On that note, I have a couple of concluding thoughts.

For Catholics, this whole matter takes on a whole new dimension of accountability than it does with our Protestant brethren.  Any spiritual work, just like any doctrine, must be in conformity with both Sacred Scripture and the Magisterial teaching of the Church.  If it fails in that, it is to be rejected outright as being not in line with the Church.  Likewise, while we can appreciate our own accomplishments in some areas, when it comes to spiritual gifts, we cannot assume that we are holier than the Communion of Saints (the Church Expectant in Magisterial teaching).  Their holiness was recognized by others often long after their death, and only when the Church recognizes their charism enough to warrant canonization or beatification, then and only then is the gift considered authentic and valid.  Even the Popes rarely speak ex cathedra about matters (I think that has only happened a few times in the whole history of the Church) so why do these people claiming gifts of this and that think they are so special??  If that were the case, many people the Church recognized as saints over the centuries would be disqualified, as people who claim to have discernment, etc., are actually saying they are holier than the saints, but are they though??  I am not proud enough to admit I sure ain't!!  I have had some supernatural experiences, but here's the thing about those - often those were for myself to give me guidance, and on the rare occasion when they were for someone else, often they were encouraging and were speaking to something that person was experiencing at that moment - timing is crucial too.  However, I never claimed to act as "God's instrument," and if the recipient of my insight was Catholic, I would always encourage them to check out what I said in line with the Magisterium and Scripture, and if something was not right, they could throw it out.  A responsible channel of God's grace should always have the humility to do that.  My friend will eventually learn that I hope, and I hope they do so before it is too late and more damage is done.  

Thank you for allowing me to share a lesson on this, and if you are the victim of spiritual abuse, there are a couple of things to remember.  First, you are not alone - many of us have been there before.  Second, if you are a fellow Catholic, this is something you can address in the confessional too, as it will aid in the healing process to just talk to someone about it.  We must remember, the confessional is not just a place to confess sins - it is also a place of healing, and nine chances out of ten many confessions are probably opportunities for the priest to counsel someone who struggles.  And, we should utilize that, as it does wonders for one's mind and heart.  Of course, if you come from a spiritually abusive background, the confessional will be a tough challenge - you have had your trust betrayed before, and are understandably somewhat skittish about this, but it is OK.  In that case, just talk to someone you feel you can trust - a spouse, a close friend, or even the priest in a less formal setting like the parish office or something. If you talk to the priest in particular, you can tell him about your apprehension about the confessional, and he will counsel you on that too.  As we learned in RCIA and as we read in the Catechism, the priest represents Christ as sort of an ambassador, and when you talk to the priest it is as if you are talking to Christ directly, hence the role of sacramental grace.  That may take some time for you too coming to that realization, so don't worry too much if you have issues at first, as any good priest will understand that too. Of course, the hardest part often is forgiveness.  Let me address that really quick and then I will wrap it up.

That church I told you about I attended in Alabama when I was younger was very abusive, and in all honesty they were indirectly responsible for the breakup of my first marriage.  My ex-wife and I are actually still good friends today because we both understand what happened, and both of us were victims of the same thing in different ways.  I have days I feel really resentful against that bunch of nuts honestly, and it is something I am still working through.  But, I have learned to embrace forgiveness of these people, as in a poetic sort of way they got what they deserved anyway and God took care of that for me. But, it is not healthy to hold onto resentment, and in all honesty I am a little stung by my former friend who attempted to be spiritually abusive to me, but at the same time I pray for their soul and hope they will one day mature in their faith enough to repent of what they have done and maybe get some much-needed help for themselves, as this individual has their own spirituality colored by a negative experience.  The individual in question is a female, and she needs healing and restoration too, as she has done this to other male friends she has had before too and there is a bigger problem under the surface, and she uses her "spiritual gift" as a way to project her own resentment onto others if she is triggered.  I feel sorry for people like her honestly, as their whole religious experience is built upon fear and paranoia and they lack having the joy dimension of their faith.  Until she finds that joy, she will never be complete either.  So, pray for her, and I will as well.

Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts, and hopefully this will be an encouragement to someone else.  Blessings until next time. 

  

Student Loans and Forgiveness

 There is an issue I have wanted to tackle for a while, and it is an issue that has a very personal interest to me.  In the past couple of months, the Biden Administration enacted a student loan forgiveness plan that essentially reduces a maximum of $20,000 from a person's total education debt.  Naturally, this has stirred up a little controversy on both sides of the political spectrum.  The Left complains that it hasn't gone far enough, while the Right is complaining that they will be saddled with student debt of others.  However, are either of these a valid concern?  I want to now examine that in some detail and then I have a solution of my own to propose. 

With Biden in office and Democrats having the majorities in both chambers of Congress now, in all honesty the news is not good.  Biden's stupid energy policies as well as the crazy out-of-control spending has placed our nation on the edge of a recession it hasn't seen since Jimmy Carter was in office (Funny how one party causes a lot of financial chaos, isn't it?) .   And, this Ukraine conflict now has caused more issues with our economy.  Add to that the past two years of draconian COVID nonsense, and it is causing a bit of a predicament for most normal Americans.  So, in many ways, perhaps a little relief of student debt isn't such a bad idea.  But, as Republicans point out, eventually this is going to cost somebody, so that means more taxes if the Democrats have anything to say about it.  America is at a boiling point.  At a future point I am going to talk a little about the Ukraine conflict, but for now I want to focus on the student loan relief.

For many of us, student loans are a fact of life - I have been in school over 30 years now myself off and on, and in the pursuit of three degrees (I am in the process of finishing up a Ph.D. now, my terminal degree), and in that time I have amassed a student loan bill of over $200,000.  So, in all honesty, I welcome a little relief!  There are factors involved though which would probably put me at variance with those on both sides of the issue.  So, let me just talk a bit about that. 

There are two foregone conclusions that need to be stated to begin any discussion:

1. No one willingly chooses student loans - often they are an only option

2.  College education has been ridiculously priced for decades.

And, that leads to a third conclusion:

3. The standards and bars are set high for people to have qualifications for jobs, but too many of us don't even get considered by companies. 

Here is the thing.  For decades, college education was encouraged - parents encouraged it, the business community encouraged it, and of course aggressive recruiters at colleges encouraged it.  Many young people, fresh out of high school, were promised the moon on a silver platter if they got a college degree, but once they walk the aisle and can put a BA or BS after their name, often they end up unemployed for years after, and the career counselors at many of these colleges are frankly useless. So, then Corporate America ups the qualifications - good-paying jobs now require Master's degrees, so that means the poor candidate has to do more school and take out more loans to meet that criterion.  So, they walk the aisle again and receive an MA or MS, but the employers still don't call.  Instead, the poor candidate for a job is told they need training in this, or in that, and a professional certificate in this, that, or the other, and that is more money.  At this point, the hopeful college graduate has degrees, but also has amassed a hefty education debt of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but there are crickets when expecting responses from potential employers.  So, without income, the college debt becomes a burden to that person, who also has to eat and keep a roof over their heads and needs to do so often by accepting jobs they are over-qualified for.  Some very well-educated people even end up on the street too, which is tragic.  This scenario is where now I want to address my fellow conservatives who think student loan liability is the fault of the borrower.

While I am definitely a conservative politically, and am very unapologetic about that,  but that does not mean I accept everything conservatives stand for, and this student loan issue is one I have big differences with my fellow conservatives on.  To begin with, some conservatives blame the borrowers, as if they should be punished for going to school and trying to learn something useful.  Yet, the problem with that mentality is this - many people do not have student loan debt by choice, but often that is their only option to get ahead in life.   Many who work hard and excel in obtaining their degrees often do so with little or no support from extended family.  You don't see their families helping them to go to college, nor do you see even any moral support from family members a lot of times.  That makes things more challenging for a student at a university.  They were pushed all their lives to do their best, and they do, but then they get no support and often even outright opposition from family members just because they are trying to better themselves.  This is unfortunate, and unfortunately more so those holding "conservative" values are often the worst offenders.  Here is what they need to hear then - if you didn't invest any encouragement or support into helping someone achieve their dreams, then you need to keep your mouth shut about their student loans and other issues.  If you were not there for that student, you have no right to judge that student, simple as that.  Maybe if you had been, they would not have needed the student loans.   That is something that even some of you reading this now really need to understand and digest a bit.  

Now, let me move onto the employers.  Jobs often have high bars set for potential candidates, and while I understand that the company has a stake in investing in top talent to insure its own success, there is a serious problem.  In setting sometimes unrealistic goals for hiring, many companies screw themselves by looking past talented individuals who could be assets to them.  People who really want these jobs are working hard to get them - that is why they do all the degrees, certifications, and everything else asked of them.  But, after all that work and investment, the poor candidate never hears a word back from an employer, and that can really be crushing for someone.  So, to employers I say this - perhaps instead of treating people as commodities and mere means unto your greedy ends, maybe you should really get to know your candidates to truly assess their talents, and maybe it is the employer who needs to restructure what they do in order to allow talent to blossom and flourish.  If you as an employer set these high educational bars for your candidates, at least have the decency to not disrespect their efforts by throwing their resumes into a trash bin.  And, that being said, let me give one of my proposals for student loan forgiveness.  Big corporations in particular get a lot of tax incentives, so I believe it is time to take some of those away and maybe start charging the corporations penalties for lack of interest in qualified candidates, and these penalties can then be applied toward a better student loan forgiveness program.  Yes, I know - it sounds like a Democrat "tax the rich" scheme, but there is a clarification.  Only the biggest and richest corporations would be subject to such a penalty, and not the small mom-and-pop business endeavors - many of the latter are actually more likely to hire decent people than are the big corporations.  This proposal is not perfect, and this is more or less a draft version of it off the top of my head, but it would solve both the problems of student loan debt as well as employment statistics.  Definitely worth our politicians thinking about. 

I now want to address colleges and universities.  The cost of tuition is the primary impetus for student loans, and the problem is that colleges and universities often inflate tuition prices to ridiculous amounts, and in many cases they are designed to be ridiculously expensive just to qualify for Federal aid.  What is worse is that the students invest all this money, and then they are not even compensated for the education they worked for - employers do not hire them, and the jobs they do get are insufficient to cover the liability of their education costs.  College tuition is something that needs to be more monitored and regulated honestly, as it should be considerably less than what it is.  

Now that I have named the culprits, it is time to give a proposal for a solution.  For one, I believe student loan debt is necessary, but it should not be universal - for those with ability and income to pay their monthly payments, they should do so.  While there are things such as IBR and ISR programs that make payments more affordable and do provide eventual forgiveness, there needs to be something more.  What I propose is actually very common-sense and would more or less give concessions to both sides of the debate.  First, in reducing tuition costs at universities, the liability would be lessened that way.  Also, imposition of penalties upon large corporations for their hiring practices would ensure that graduates would get positions they are qualified for.   Third, for those graduating college, there is already a grace period in place of I believe 18 months maximum with no accumulated interest, and that is a good start.  However, I think an additional benefit should be implemented - if a graduate fails to land a job in that time that is comparable to their qualifications, then there should be an amnesty in place to forgive student loan debt if they are under a certain income threshold.  However, payment agreements should remain in place for those who are able, with a safety net for them as well in case an unforeseen circumstance impairs their ability to pay.  We do have currently in place deferments and forbearances, and those are good for temporary relief and should be still kept in place, but a more long-term solution should be implemented to help those who are really struggling.  This way then, there is not an excessive burden on the taxpayer, nor is there one on the student borrower either.  While there are details to work out on all this, I believe this basic plan will be a good thing for everyone involved. 

And, one final word on this.  The whole universal student loan forgiveness debate, the high cost of tuition at universities, as well as some bad and very inadequate indoctrination by leftist faculty, has caused college education to be viewed very negatively now by conservatives, and that is unfortunate.  I am a bit chagrined for instance at the flippant comments of some toward people who have degrees yet are not hired in jobs they trained for.   Comments such as "well, go flip burgers at MacDonald's to pay your bills" are not only ignorant and stupid, but they are also unrealistic on two levels. First, do you really think that someone who has graduated with honors is going to be happy flipping burgers when they possess either a Bachelor's or a Master's?  My guess is that person probably wanted to move beyond that in the first place, so why should they settle for that just to pay a stupid bill??   Second, do you think that MacDonald's is going to hire a person with a Master's in some field to dump frozen French fries into a basket and stick it into a deep fryer??  More than likely, the word "overqualified" will emerge, and the MacDonald's manager would end up hiring a high school senior or a retiree to do that job.  To suggest that to a college graduate is also simplistic and unrealistic.  I have even heard some prominent "Evangelical Christian" writers - one that comes to mind is a hack named Mary Hunt - say crap like this.  All that being said, let me just end on this note - do not knock people who have education, and also do not be so quick to dismiss higher education.  After all, the doctor that may do open-heart surgery on you one day will have a higher education, not to mention the attorney who may assist you in a legal issue, or the CPA doing your taxes, etc.  While those are more practical examples, we also need dedicated and educated people to preserve our civilization - good educators, clergy, philosophers, etc., are integral to civilization.  That is why we do not want to dismiss higher education in general.  While it is not meant for everyone, higher education is still integral, and it must be encouraged.  A way to encourage it would be to reform both the tuition system at universities and colleges as well as the whole student loan issue.  Thank you for allowing me to share.