The Fuss Over the Election

 I wanted to give some perspective as I see it on the election last week.  As we all know, there has not technically been a winner declared, despite the media trying to "project" the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, as the new President.  Fact is, there is a lot of controversy surrounding these election proceedings, and President Trump and the Republicans may have reason to cry "foul" in this one, as there seems to be some questionable ballot counts in many states.  This election is at center stage of national attention right now as there are a lot of things at stake, perhaps more so now than in any previous Presidential election.  So, what does that mean for us?  That is the reason I wanted to share some thoughts today.

When Trump was elected in 2016, I didn't vote for him - honestly, at the time I like many thought this was more of a joke than anything, but at the same time when he was elected I gave a big sigh of relief as it meant the chaos of the Obama era was effectively over.  However, as Trump took his place as leader of the most powerful nation in the free world, I must admit he pleasantly surprised me.  The reason is, unlike so many other Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) who were essentially career politicians and not worth two squirrel turds in a walnut shell, Trump was something different, and he was what many of us needed.  He was not a politician by any stretch - as a matter of fact, some have called him the "anti-politician" because he was a businessman rather than a bureaucrat, and he actually listened to the people. Was Donald Trump perfect?  Not by a long shot - he tended at times to run his mouth when he should have been quiet, and perhaps his constant activity on Twitter was a deterrent.  But, at least he possessed something many career politicians did not - honesty.  What he said he was going to do he did, and for the most part the past four years were good ones for me personally.  Of course, the "Establishment" was not happy - I mean, how dare a President actually do what he says he's going to do, and how dare he listen to these poor schlubs that pay taxes and have to be governed by the laws!  That is what got the dander up for some characters like the drunken Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her Senate concubine Chuck Schumer.  It also equally got the proverbial goats of career Republicans like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, who didn't like their comfort zones being upset by a maverick as President who actually made them accountable to the voters.  In short, the Establishment hated Trump, and they did everything in their power to get rid of him - the Russia hoax, the whole impeachment sham, etc.  But, Trump withstood all that vitriol from the Establishment career bugs, and he prevailed, and the people loved him.  But, 2020 presented new opportunities for the Establishment Democrats and their Republican collaborators - a thing called Coronavirus significantly altered life worldwide, and the Democrats were sure that this would dethrone Trump; it almost did.  But, Trump rose to the occasion and actually led the nation while the Democrats and their Republican patsies whined and pontificated, aided by people such as Dr. Fauci (who resembles Rick Moranis's character Dark Helmet in the movie Spaceballs - I guess that makes Pelosi President Scroob?), and other so-called "experts" who recently decided to try to force people to not celebrate Thanksgiving (a decree I will choose to ignore, because it is stupid frankly), not go to church, not work to pay their bills, not allow their children to be educated, etc.  What is the deal with this COVID-19 thing anyway?  Was it as bad as it was made to be, or is there an ulterior motive which is inflating its significance?  Let me talk about that briefly.

It is of interest to me that this virus had its origin in China, and interesting enough, for all the so-called "Russia collusion" BS the Democrats have been trying to pin on Trump, I find it odd how many of them have a vested interest in the Chinese government.  I believe that this may be the real collusion - leftist Democrats, many of them radicalized socialists, are I believe being bankrolled by the Chinese government, and perhaps this little pandemic was the gift of the Chinese to the Democrats to ensure they seize power.  I of course cannot substantiate that at this time, but it is just fascinating and may explain the obsession many on the left have with President Trump and the "Russiagate" BS.  In time, all will be revealed, and it is just a waiting game.  However, I believe the odds are high - high enough I could wager a bet - that there is some connection somewhere between the Democrats and the Chinese government.  Too many things just look odd.  And, maybe not even China - the Democrats are bankrolled by a number of billionaire corporate interests (Silicon Valley demagogues like Zuckerberg and Dorsey, as well as people such as Bill Gates and no doubt the Antichrist himself, George Soros).  My estimation though is that both the corporate billionaires (Silicon Valley satrapies for one) and China may have a stake in American politics, and the will of the common man on the street does not matter because the guy who drives the big rig hauling canned soup or the local farmer don't have the big bucks to buy politicians, and the main force behind American politics is not the democratic process - it is who can be sold to the highest bidder.  Chinese dollars earned by Pelosi in her pursuits may explain why she can eat $15 pints of ice cream, not to mention the gallons of vodka she swills. One day too, this shall come to light as well. 

The stakes in the election are indeed high ones, and if we are to maintain our way of life and keep our freedoms, it is imperative that someone like Donald Trump is elected rather than a Chinese puppet like Joe Biden.  The radicals who have taken over the Democratic Party are hell-bent on what some have called a "Great Reset" - tearing down everything that is, and then building their own utopian vision which would benefit them and not anyone else.  It is important that we try to preserve our traditions, our families, and our property from these forces of evil that would seek to subjugate us and remake an America in their image which would be a dystopian nightmare for the majority of us.  The stakes are so high that many people are depressed over it, and some are obsessing about it in fear - I don't think this is productive honestly, and we have to try to keep cooler heads in all of this, regardless the outcome.  That is why now I wanted to just offer some encouragement to those who are, like myself, people of faith who may be trying to make heads or tails of  what is happening.

For the Christian, it is important to remember the words of Scripture, in particular Romans 8:28, which reminds us that all things - the order of current events and even our elections - work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose.  What does that mean exactly?  Essentially, it is a simple message - God is in control of things, and we just have to trust him to take care of us.  Luke 12 kind of expands this a little by reminding us that as God takes care of the birds and the grass, how much more will he take care of us who are created in his image?  Looking at Luke 12:26, we see that a bit of wisdom about situations like this is imparted to us by the Lord Himself - he tells us that if we do not have power to do the least, why worry about the rest?  In other words, we are simply not the ones in control of things - God is.  Therefore, we are admonished to trust Him for what we need, as Philippians 4:19 reminds us that He will supply our needs for us, as His resources are without limit - after all, the entire universe (including us) is His, and He created it.  So, when adversity hits - including pandemics like COVID and the possibility of a corrupt Democrat being elected for President - there are two things we need to do.  First, we obviously pray, and we also come together to support one another, as many will be discouraged and scared.  Second, we go on about our business and don't let these circumstances distract us from what's important.  If we do that, then we will have a healthier outlook on things.  The ultimate hope is the story of redemption itself - for those of us who believe, we know the Author of the book, and we know how the story ends; God wins.  Therefore, we must not let ourselves get discouraged and sidetracked, because whatever the circumstance it is only temporary. 

Like many who may read this, I don't know what is going to happen in all of this - we could keep Trump for another four years as our President (which many of us hope will happen), or Biden may actually win the Presidency and then we will have our work cut out for us.  Our duty now is to be vigilant, stay focused, and honor those responsibilities of life we are entrusted with.  If we keep busy, it also means that we won't have time to get depressed or scared, and we can be proactive in doing what we need to do without letting this stuff derail us.  I hope these rambling insights will provide some comfort and encouragement to you who are reading them today, and just be encouraged and as Red Green says, "Keep your stick on the ice."  Blessings to you until next visit. 

Coyote Catholicism, and the Current Crisis

It has been a while since writing, and I have a few reflections to note.  Have any of you reading this ever seen a coyote?  It is a dog, looks like a dog, and even acts like a dog in many cases.  Yet, there is a huge difference between your pet Fido and a wild coyote.  For one, the coyote would kill Fido in a minute - my mother-in-law lost a pet chihuahua she had to a coyote who cannibalized her.  The coyote will wag its tail, and you can probably approach it, but it will tear your butt up if you touch it, believe me!  That analogy today relates to a situation I want to address now.

In the Gospels, Jesus told a number of small stories in order to teach His disciples some truths, and we call those stories parables.  The parables Jesus told were often lessons in how to live in the kingdom of God, both here and in the hereafter, and in many cases he does some contrasts between those who really are of the kingdom and those who are not, even noting that at times it is hard to tell the difference based on externals.  One of those parables, found in Matthew 13:24-30, focuses on the metaphor of wheat and tares in regard to this principle.  If you recall the story as Jesus told it, a farmer was sewing seed, and unbeknownst to him there were some weeds called tares mixed in among the wheat.  First, what is a tare exactly?  In common terms, it is called a cockle, but it is also known as a darnel, darnel ryegrass, or poison darnel, and its scientific Latin name is Lolium Temulentum.  It is a pest/weed that often grows among wheat fields, and in its juvenile state looks identical to the wheat plants until it matures, and then it yields toxic seeds and also is susceptible to LSD-producing fungus.  If too many of them are found in a harvest of wheat, they can taint and damage the wheat and render it unusable.  It is these weeds that Jesus is referring to when He talks about them, and much like a coyote resembles a dog but is dangerous, so a tare is likewise. 

As the Church has grown over the centuries, many tares have ended up in the harvest field, and some have been so deceptive that they have managed to get into leadership of the Church both on the universal and local level.  One such notorious individual was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who perhaps is responsible for some of the nonsense we see in the Catholic Church now.  But there are others who serve in strategic positions on local parish councils, in leadership in the Knights of Columbus and other apostolates, and they may even be sitting on the church pew next to you.

Some of this will come as no surprise, as there seems to have been some subversive elements long before de Chardin and others which have been trying to destroy the Church from within, and in his book Infiltration, Dr. Taylor Marshall details the existence of a secret society called the Carbonari which met in secret groups called alta venditas, and one purpose of these groups was that they wanted to subvert both the Catholic Church and traditional monarchy.  My guess is, however, as Benjamin Wiker notes in a number of his writings (notably the book Politicizing the Bible he co-authored with Scott Hahn) that the roots of this go back even further - Descartes, and even back to people such as Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham.  It was based in the mentality of the Enlightenment in other words, and as such has at its roots a deliberate divorce of faith from reason, and a relegation of religious faith to human reasoning.  As Marshall notes though, the ultimate goal of such things was to create a new religion, a selfish, man-centered faith that denied the supernatural and was guided by a series of secret societies, notably the Freemasons (Marshall, Infiltration. Manchester, NH:  Crisis Publications, 2019, pp. 9-11).  This in turn led to the secularism that was touted by people beginning with Darwin, Freud, Marx, and later adding such "revolutionaries" as Simon de Beauvoir, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, Saul Alinsky, and others who sought not just to merely add an "alternative" to the Judeo-Christian worldview, but to destroy and replace it.  The way many proposed to do so was insidious - infiltrate the Church (and even Protestant denominations) with rationalist-based mentalities that radically altered theology and ethics, and thus in Catholic circles you get Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and in recent years, James Martin. Among Protestants, it was a string of theologians actually starting with Karl Barth and culminating in radical revolutionaries such as James Cone.  The tainting of Catholic teaching is evident in who many notable Catholic theologians and philosophers kept company with - Henri de Lubac's friendship with Teilhard de Chardin, Jacques Maritain's acquaintance with Saul Alinsky, etc.  Vatican II was largely hijacked by such people, and the result has been about 50 years of major theological deficit in many sectors of the Church.  It started in the seminaries and universities, and has especially infected the Jesuits within the past century.  And, as academia and the religious tier of the Church was so infected, it trickled into the pews, and thus the reason why I am writing this now.  I had an encounter with one such individual in recent days in our own parish, and I wanted to tell the story of that encounter now.

Greg is the name of a parishioner in our church, and as such he is not just a mere parishioner.  For one thing, Greg has several positions of leadership on the parish council, as well as serving as a Eucharistic Minister, usher, and RCIA sponsor in the parish.  He is also active in our local Knights of Columbus council, where he is a past Grand Knight.  If you met Greg in person, you would think he is a wonderful guy - he is friendly, and honestly, despite what I am about to share I really don't think he is an evil man as he does display some commendable virtues that are sincere.  But, in being "friends" with him on social media, a few disturbing things came to light in recent months that need to be addressed, because Greg represents an example of a tare/coyote in the field, and there are many more like him in parishes across the country.  This is due in part to a lack of sound discipleship and catechesis on the part of the leadership of the Church - unfortunately many bishops are more like bureaucrats than they are spiritual leaders and shepherds, and they cannot tell the coyotes from the sheepdogs in their flock (nor are they very discerning a lot of times of the difference between a sheep and a goat).  The recent sex scandals in the Church are a glaring reminder of that.  It is a problem that numerous orthodox Catholic writers on both the Traditionalist and pro-Vatican II side of the spectrum have addressed, ranging from Michael Rose's 2000 book Goodbye Good Men to Dr. Taylor Marshall's 2019 book Infiltration aforementioned and referenced.  With that all being said, let us now talk about the specifics of the conversation with Greg.

Due to the recent looting/rioting in response to the unfortunate and tragic murder of George Floyd in Minnesota by a corrupt cop (a whole other issue I will be addressing at another time), there are many people now flouting the "Black Lives Matter" (a terrorist organization which is more White than Black, as it is primarily made up of virtue-signalling White liberals) cause, and many of us who are conservatives are trying to remind the public that the greatest enemy of Black Americans is not Donald Trump, Republicans, or even all White people, but rather White leftists, in many cases the very ones who virtue-signal "racism" about everything.  This is evident in the travesty that is abortion, which if you read Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, and what she actually believed, you quickly see she thought of Blacks as "human weeds" and "inferior" and a big part of her eugenics plan was to abort as many Black babies as possible (she also targeted Catholic immigrants, poor Appalachian people, and others too).  I posted the following meme several days ago on my social media page concerning that, and of course it garnered attention, primarily from Greg.

After posting that, one of the first people to jump on and comment was Greg, and what he said revealed a lot about himself.  Greg is very politically liberal, to the point that he actually defends Marxists such as Saul Alinsky, and what followed in the discussion was an alarming revelation that he values his politics over his faith.   When the sin of abortion, and the fact that the Church affirms life begins at conception and that abortion is the sin of murder were brought up to him, he said this:

 "It is easy for the church - a clergy of men - to say that those unborn are the most vulnerable - how about the more than 75,000 families ripped apart by government action at the border with children being molested, traumatized and raped BY GOVERNMENT agents ? How about the denial of adequate food to children and critical medical care to them once born?"

The second part of this discourse he posted is an argument that is virtue-signaled by leftists all the time, and is easily refuted - many of those same leftists, if they were really honest, would support a neo-Malthusian agenda that is evident on the Georgia Guidestones in which the population would be reduced by them to what they feel is an ideal number.  Do they care about adequate food for children and critical medical care?  Some may, but most don't - for the majority, it is a talking-point only with little substance. He calls the Church "a clergy of men," and even said that he would rather be excommunicated than let a group of "old men in robes" (in reference to the Catholic episcopacy) force him to deny a "woman's right to choose."  My question to Greg was a simple one, and he dodged the answer - why, then, ARE you Catholic??  I already know that answer without trying to even indulge the question - Greg is a "cradle" or "cultural" Catholic, meaning he was raised in the Church but never made a conscious choice to embrace and follow the Church's teaching.  As a wealthy attorney, Greg is one of those people that used parish membership, his involvement in the Knights of Columbus, etc., as social-climbing skills to advance his own status.  Like I said, it doesn't mean he is an evil man - as a matter of fact, in other areas he has displayed some admirable virtue - but it does mean that he is Catholic for the wrong reasons.  When you come into the Church, by participating in its sacramental life you affirm that you believe what she teaches, even if you don't quite understand it.  When a Catholic man joins the Knights of Columbus, he also confesses an oath and a promise that he will uphold and defend the Church and her teaching even under opposition; that is actually part of the First Degree ceremony as a matter of fact.   For Greg to say what he said indicates that he is dishonest when it comes to his faith - he is part of the Church for the wrong reasons, and that can be a dangerous game for his soul to play.  Sometimes, it takes either converts or those who are "cradle" Catholics that have a true experience with Christ to educate other Catholics as to what their faith really entails, as many do fall short.  That is not judgmentalism either, but rather a fact of life and a reality of authentic faith.  Greg has yet, unfortunately, to learn that. 

This encounter with Greg from the parish led me to seek counsel from trusted sources I know, and there are many individuals that gave me some valuable guidance - Dr. Desmond Birch, Charles Coulombe, and even written sources such as Scott Hahn, Regis Martin, Taylor Marshall, and others.  What they told me was the same thing essentially - Greg's flippant dismissal of the Magisterium, in particular the Episcopate of the Church, as merely a group of "old men in robes" and a "clergy of men," invokes a challenge he needs to face.  The "old men in robes" he so flippantly dismisses in favor of his own sentiments also entails the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church, people such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others, and many of them explicitly condemned abortion as murder and a mortal sin.  Also, those "old men in robes" are the successors to the Apostles, and have been ordained with their authority by Jesus Himself, who established the Church and its leadership, so in questioning that Greg is calling Christ a liar and not taking seriously Christ's authority.  That is some pretty serious stuff when you really look at it.  Now, that being said, let me address some of the bishops we see today who act more like bureaucrats or activists than they do the successors to the Apostles - those bishops have valid office, and as such they should be respected as far as the office goes.  But, when they say or do something that is contrary to the Magisterial teaching of the Church, they too need to be called out on it, as they are in defiance of the very Lord and Savior who ordained their office.  And, that even includes the Pope where he is wrong.  So, as a side note, it isn't about the "clergy of men," as Greg so flippantly said, but rather about something much greater - Apostolic authority, coming from Christ Himself, embodied in the Deposit of Faith.  The problem with Greg and so many others is that they are ignorant when it comes to the Deposit of Faith.  I have even seen it with my 6th-graders I teach as a catechist - one girl even asked the question "what is a Gospel?", which unfortunately she didn't know, and many kids that age now cannot even recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ave Maria from memory - these things are basic catechesis that they should have learned at least 3 years before they come into my 6th-grade class!  So, it is not only a social crisis, as well as a faith crisis, but is at its root a catechetical crisis - ignorance is rampant, and where ignorance is rampant heresy and apostasy flourish.  The first-grader who is not adequately catechized will become the Greg of tomorrow - leftist, obstinate, and more self-involved as well as ignorant.  They become Catholics in name only, with their church membership being nothing more than a means unto their end and no serious commitment to follow Christ and His teachings.  This is tragic, and is a scandal of high proportions.  Until it is effectively addressed, the Catholic Church will suffer, but it also can be seen in Protestant denominations too now, even those who historically have been more conservative and Evangelical.  

I wrote all of this today to address some serious problems.  We all encounter them on social media almost on a daily basis, and it is daunting at times.  If one dwells too much on it, the whole thing can be depressing as well.  But, hope is there - it starts with you, with me, and every individual Catholic.  We make the change in our own homes, we commit to spiritual growth and educating ourselves on what our faith means to us, and we even challenge ourselves as to why we are Catholic and Christian in the first place.  Mostly though, we need to let the Holy Spirit impart supernatural grace to us to elevate, perfect, and heal us so that we may be the type of person God called us to be.  And, the greater responsibility rests with the leadership of the Church as well - they need to set the example.  Thank you, and God bless until next time. 

Avoiding the Extremes

If one wanders around in theological discussion groups on social media or elsewhere, it is inevitable that at some point there will be someone you disagree with, or you will say something that will fire up someone else to come after you.  Dogfights on social media these days are an unnecessary but unavoidable reality at times, and even with our best efforts, nine chances out of ten even the most innocuous thing you say will tick off somebody.  That is equally true in political discourse as well. With this being an election year, coupled with the recent Trump impeachment issues, the tension among people is thick enough to be cut with a knife honestly.  So, as a person of faith, how would one handle this?  That question has compelled me to expound upon this openly.

Recently, one of my cousins posted that she was getting kind of sick of politics and hearing about it, especially the hateful vitriol she (and I am sure others of us as well) has been exposed to.  She is perfectly right to feel that way, as those issues will wear you out physically, mentally, and even spiritually if we allow them to get out of control and eat up a lot of our time and energy.  It was her comments that led me to explore this, and she has some valid concerns I believe many of us share. 

For someone of Christian convictions, religious and political issues are inevitably intertwined, as what we believe and where we exercise our faith determines much in the shaping of our worldviews.  The Assemblies of God pastor that actually officiated my wife's and my wedding, Rev. John Broome, said once in one of his Sunday sermons that "every issue for the Christian is a theological issue."  Of course, he was right, and to be honest, I have taken that to heart and still agree with that to this day.  As a result, how we vote is determined by how we pray, in other words - that is, if we take our faith seriously.  Can we get some things wrong though, and is there room for growth?  Of course, as the fact is we are all fallible human beings, and even our best intentions can sometimes need some work.  That is another reason I wanted to write this today, as at times we do need to step back and reassess a few things as we grow in our faith.  Fundamental convictions that are universally true are not what changes, as God's laws are eternal, and the natural law that is subject to God's sovereignty is also immutable as well.  However, how we view those convictions and act on them may require some "tweaking" if you will, and for the remainder of this discourse, I want to focus on something I read recently.

There is a friend of mine who I have known for years who operates a website in which she gives her perspective on issues, and this particular friend and I have a long history - her grandfather, who was a retired minister, was our landlord at one time, and her brother was for a short time the pastor at the church we attended years ago.  Her father, likewise, served as the Dean of Students at my alma mater where I received my Bachelor's years ago.  So, she has a deep heritage in her faith tradition.  On many things she has written about I actually agree with her, but she does tend to be problematic in other areas - she is virulently anti-Catholic for instance, and she also tends to come across somewhat harsh and callous in her convictions at times, even outright condemning people.  She serves as an example of how often there is a fine line between right belief and wrong action and conviction, and one issue stands out concerning some things this person has written that I want to address.

Over the past several months, my friend has been tackling the issue of premarital sex on her blog, and the issue of children being born out of wedlock was front-and-center of the discussion.  First, let's address what I agree with in regard to what she said.  One, premarital sex is a sin, and it is wrong - it is known as fornication, and Scripture does forbid it.  Two, there is no doubt that the laxity in sexual morality in our society has led to an upturn in couples cohabitating without the virtue of a marriage covenant, and in many cases, children are produced from those disordered unions.  On both of these, there is no dispute.  Three, many people doing this are also professing to be "Christian," and that does create a contradiction between faith and action on their part, and thus a lack of proper discipleship and other issues are at the root of the problem.  Again, I agree with that as well, as I have witnessed that sort of behavior in couples even within our own parish community, unfortunately.  Now that those facts have been established, the problem with addressing it is that oftentimes people like my overly-zealous friend tend to go to a certain extreme, and in this case, it is pretty serious.  Let me address that now.

In her own missives on this subject, my friend basically condemns children of unwed parents as being "bastards," and although she doesn't come right out and say it, she has essentially denied the fact that such children are also loved by God and that Christ died for them too.  Let us look at John 3:16 again shall we?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall be saved"

You do not have to be a learned theologian, Biblical scholar, or be versed in Greek or Hebrew to understand what that plainly says - whosoever implies anyone!  Now, this is where my friend missed the boat big-time, and there are two areas she got it wrong on:

1.  Fornication is the sin of the parents, not of the unborn child that may result from such a union.
2.  A child is a person, a human being, and despite how the child was brought into the world, the gift       of Christ of Himself is still as valid for the "bastard" as it is for anyone else.  We claim oftentimes       as Christians to be "pro-life," so let's validate that by not condemning innocent children.

My friend, although coming from a more Wesleyan-Arminian Pentecostal background, is nonetheless acting as a quasi-Calvinist when she is more or less arbitrarily condemning a child to eternal damnation for something that child was not responsible for, and that is where she errs seriously.  If I were my friend, I would be careful of that, as it borders on heresy to spout such things.  If you cannot love the unborn child of even an adulterous union, then the love of Christ is not in you as it should be.  And, that leads to a couple of other observations.

As mentioned, the child is not accountable for the sins of the parents - they need to account for their own sins and do something about them.  If a couple is living in a disordered relationship - in the vernacular, meaning "shacking up" - yet claims to be Christian, they are in need of some serious counseling from their pastor or priest to find a way to remedy that.  Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, and as such it imparts a grace of its own to those who enter into it.  That grace is vital and important, and cannot be underestimated or cheapened by some selfish, lazy requirement that "we are married in the eyes of God and don't need the Church."  People are playing a dangerous game when they do that.  It also bears mentioning that as marriage is a sacrament of the Church, it cannot be ignored, re-defined, or violated in good conscience by those who profess Christ either. Therefore, if a child is produced out of such a union, then the parents need to seek to legitimize that union as husband and wife and not produce any more offspring until they do so.  But, if the sin of fornication does result in the production of a child, the child should nonetheless be seen as a blessing and miracle of life - irregular, but still a miracle.  It is up to the parents to legitimize their relationship, and an innocent child should not bear the sins of their parents for which they had nothing to do with. 

If the hyper-Fundies are going to one extreme, there are some Christians that go to the other, and they are equally wrong.  God's laws don't change, and he established boundaries for our protection, and if we profess to follow him, we are obligated to honor those commands.  Some in the Church though have advocated for laxity in regard to sexual morality, and they often use absurd reasoning to justify it.  One person that comes to mind here is the so-called "Rainbow Jesuit," James Martin.  Although Martin is an ordained Catholic priest, his celebration and legitimization of "same-sex unions" is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church.  So, while we treat those involved in the LGBT lifestyle with the dignity afforded all humanity, we do not embrace their lifestyle choices as "good," and the Church never has despite what some liberal revisionists like Martin said.  Martin and my aforementioned friend are both guilty of the same lack of grace, although they manifest it in different ways.  In the end, neither has the true love of Christ in the way they handle things, nor do they have the necessary balance to uphold the truth with love as they should - one ignores love, the other ignores the truth, and you need both.  That is why both of these extremes need to be avoided by all of us who seek to follow Christ, as neither is truly following Christ if they are allowed to manifest.  Thank you for allowing me to share, and will be back again soon.

"Rad-Trads" and "Mad-Trads" - Are They Really Trads?

The impetus for this discussion has to do with a heated discussion that happened on New Years's Eve a few weeks ago with a self-styled "Traditionalist Catholic."  The young man - who is also African-American (that will play into this shortly) - essentially was promoting "Zionist conspiracies" and other nonsense encouraging the hatred of Jews as an entirety as practically a virtue.  When I called him out on it when he started promoting Holocaust revisionism, he got very upset at me and accused me of "virtue-signaling" mainly because for me it is incomprehensible why an African-American would be engaging in Holocaust denialism.  But, he is but a symptom of a greater problem, which is what I want to address.

First, I want to just state my own position.  I am of course a convert to the Catholic Church from Protestantism (specifically, from the Pentecostal tradition) and as such I have a rather unique perspective on things.  I would myself identify as a traditionalist as far as my own Catholic faith is concerned - I am favorable toward the Traditional Latin Mass, and am not overly enthused with some "innovations" I observe in Catholic parishes that result from the faulty application of things from Vatican II.  But, as a traditionalist, I am not your run-of-the-mill advocate of the SSPX and such either, but rather take a more balanced approach to issues.  For one thing, I don't reject Vatican II - I have read the documents, and there are many valuable insights to be found in them.  And, that leads to two other observations on Vatican II.  First, it must be understood that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, and not a doctrinal one - no doctrine was changed, and the majority of the documents of the Council do affirm the historic doctrinal positions of the Church.  Second, the problem with Vatican II I would have is not so much Vatican II itself, but rather a faulty implementation of what it proposed - let's face it; there are some crazy things going on in some Catholic parishes!  When it comes to things such as the acceptance of theistic evolution, the position Catholics should have in regards to other religions, and the modernization of some things in the Mass, more clarification is needed for the faithful to understand better, as it has led to a lot of funny ideas being espoused by individual lay Catholics in the pews.  Taking the Mass first, the Ordinary Form that most Roman-Rite Catholic parishes use (also called by the Latin term Novus Ordo) is not evil or bad in itself - it has reintroduced many good things that the Church needs, and I don't necessarily unilaterally condemn everything about it.  That being said, however, there are abuses, and the Ordinary Form could use some tweaking and refining of its practice for sure.  But, it is a valid Mass, and there is no need to unilaterally condemn it as "modernist."  Then, regarding the acceptance of "theistic evolution."  Many Catholics are under the false assumption that this is the Church's official position on origins, but it is not - in fact, the CCC says that God is simply the Creator of all things, and that man is the pinnacle of His creation (CCC 337-344), and theistic evolution is not even addressed there.  It is only alluded to in other Church documents, but when it is, essentially it is addressed as a theory by which Catholics should be knowledgable, but there is no binding decree for Catholics to accept theistic evolution as a dogmatic truth at all (and honestly, there is little evidence).  Most of the Catholic espousal of such things in orders such as the Jesuits is due to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin and others, which at best are suspect as they are Novelle Teologie and not Magisterial.  That as why as an orthodox Catholic, I accept the Biblical view of Creation as valid, and would scientifically subscribe to an Intelligent Design view personally.  Regarding other religions, this has led to a lot of confusion largely based on misreadings of both Gaudium et Spes and Nostra Aetate.   Both of these documents lay out the fact that there are indeed truths within other religions, but the problem with that is when the average Catholic reads it, they don't understand that it actually means this - while there are truths in other religions, those truths bear witness to a greater Truth that many of those same religions reject, and looking at it historically the little truth other religions have is actually corrupted truth, and thus is deficient.  The same Council also affirmed two other truths of the Catholic Church - first, that salvation is only possible in the person of Jesus Christ, and secondly, that the fullness of that salvation is found only in the Church herself.  Catholics need to keep this in mind when they read this stuff, and they need to read them in context with the whole Deposit of Faith and not on the stand-alone merit of the document itself.   So, no - in reading the Vatican II documents myself over the course of my graduate work at Franciscan University of Steubenville, there is nothing significantly out of order with the majority of their content, and where there are variances, they can be rejected in good conscience because these are pastoral documents and not doctrinal ones, although doctrine forms the underlying basis for the pastoral positions.  That should put many thinking Traditionalists at ease who may, by necessity, have to attend an Ordinary Form Mass due to lack of accessibility to a Traditional Latin Mass. 

Another thing that bothers me about the "MadTrads" is their rejection of any other Christians who are not exactly like them.  Coming from the place of a convert to the Catholic faith, I find that mentality disturbing in that it nullifies what I know to be true, that being that one can believe in Jesus Christ and also be Christian without being formally part of the Catholic Church.  There are two reasons I hold this view.  First, before I became Catholic, I did know I was Christian, and although I also was aware something was missing in my Christianity, I was nonetheless still Christian.  One of the positives of Vatican II that I do actually think is good is the fact that other Christians (mainly Protestants) are considered "separated brethren," and to a limited degree, they do participate in the life and legacy of the Church, although they don't possess all the grace of the Church.  That essentially means that a Protestant can be saved, but that the fullness of that salvation is only recognized through the Church - Lumen Gentium addresses this to a degree too.  Protestants and Catholics are not separate religions in other words, as each is unmistakably Christian (as are the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and others).  But, the revelation of truth the Protestant receives at their initial conversion should help them grow toward the Church, and thus to the fullness of their Christian faith.  This is why the Church allows the reading of certain Protestant writers who are not in conflict with the Catholic Church, and also why it is perfectly fine to read even blatantly anti-Catholic fundamentalist literature like Chick comics because it also helps the Catholic to be more informed when engaging in dialogue with their Protestant brethren.  It is advisable, however, for Catholics to be prayed up properly and receive the proper education and spiritual counsel before attempting to venture into that territory, as a level of protection is needed. 

Those spell out some of my specific positions on things in contrast to others who identify as Catholic Traditionalists, and it does at times bring me into debate with them on these issues, as they often have some issues of their own.  In an excellent article available at tumblarhouse.com, Fr. Chad Ripperger notes that the problems some "Trads" have can be identified and addressed, and he does so in an article entitled "10 Problems in the Traditionalist Movement."  Fr. Ripperger is himself identified as a Traditionalist as well, but he is also insightful and well-grounded, and thus for many years I have used his material as a trusted resource for my own research.  Fr. Ripperger identifies ten major problems he observes among "Trads," and briefly, these are what they are:

1. Becoming Gnostic and elitist - they think only they are privy to some "secret revelation" no one else has.

2. Impurity - the sin of pride, essentially, leads to other sins among self-professed Trads.

3. Generational Spirits - What Fr. Ripperger means by this is simple:  although Trads profess to be faithful, they use their Trad label to sometimes ignore serious issues in their own families, and thus their children get involved in things they shouldn't.   I see this as well among the more old-time Holiness/Pentecostals I was part of when I was growing up, and even recently a young man I know from among them made an abrupt move into a homosexual relationship that is still shocking.  It is also about sometimes setting the bar so high that no one can get over it, and thus it leads to concupiscent behavior - Trads are not exclusive to this, as Protestant Fundamentalists of various traditions also have a similar problem.

4. Isolationist Attitude - This is a problem many Trads share with other Christian traditions, in particular, fundamentalist Independent Baptists.  It relates to the inherent Gnostic tendency noted above in that the natural world is rejected in lieu of a self-created religious utopia.  That has failed among Fundamentalists, and will likewise among Trads who embrace it too.

5. Depression and Despair - Fr. Ripperger notes this as a problem because Trads (and also Protestant Fundamentalists I would add) sit and mull over the negatives so much that it ultimately adversely affects their spiritual well-being.  I will put it this way - they cannot fully participate in the Christian life because they deprive themselves of the joy of Christ and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and thus they also hinder the work of supernatural grace. 

6.  Anger - related to depression, anger can be detrimental to spiritual growth too, and many Trads are falling into that.  Fr. Ripperger notes that this anger also leads to a diminishing of the virtue of charity, just like depression leads to a diminishing of goodness and Gnostic flirtations lead to a diminishing of beauty. 

7.  Disrespect of Authority - This is one where some empathy can be shared with Trads, as at times honestly some of our clergies (and not a few laypeople) in our parishes can be real jackasses.  Also, I share many concerns about the current Pope - he has done some things, honestly, that warrant concern, but at the same time he is still the validly-chosen Pontiff and Bishop of Rome, and a certain amount of respect and decorum is due him.  As Fr. Ripperger would agree, the real course of action in something like this is to pray for Francis, as God does love him and Jesus died for him too just like He did for us.  Where he is wrong, it is OK to disagree, but do so respectfully.

8.  Loose, Reckless Argumentation - This is a serious one for Trads, as many of them run their mouths quite loosely about things before thinking about what they say.  This will tie in as well to a later issue I am going to be addressing, as do several of these, and that is the rampant anti-Semitism among some Trads. 

9.  Bullying - like the argumentative spirit Fr. Ripperger notes above, bullying is a problem in some groups of Trads.  As Fr. Ripperger affirms here, it is one thing to identify a problem and address it civilly, but quite another to be abusive to others over it. 

10. Driving Others Away - This sort of ties the others together, as disrespect, combative discourse, and bullying tends to do that.  Trads need to remember that they are being watched by a searching world looking for answers, and we have an evangelistic mandate to reach out to them in love.  When we go beating them over the head and try to impose things on them that they are not bound to, it tends to drive people off.  This is especially true with the recent controversy over transgenders - those who struggle with this may encounter Trads or other Christians to seek answers, and when we get nasty with them, it has the effect of not only driving them away, but it also will make them more militant and it will hurt the witness of Christ that they could have had. 

Those are the ten problems Fr. Ripperger notes, and although he did get the component symptoms to another I am about to address, he didn't address it directly, so I will do so here.  I don't understand why, but a certain segment of Trads have gotten themselves infected with anti-Semitism, and it's ugly.  I have heard shocking things from self-identified Trads about Jewish people - for instance, citing the Apostle Paul out of context to justify hatred of Jews, embracing "Zionist" conspiracy theories, and sadly, even Holocaust denialism.  I want to make one thing very clear here and now - Never in the history of the Church has any Pope, bishop, Church Father, saint, or theologian ever encouraged the hatred of Jews.  At times, they have rebuked certain Jewish communities harshly over their rejection of Christ as their Messiah, and have even responded in kind to occasional Jewish opposition to certain things, but although harsh, their response has never encouraged a rejection or hatred of the Jewish people as a whole.  And, it is definitely not a virtue of being a Traditionalist Catholic either, as even the SSPX has a strong statement condemning anti-Semitism among its members.  The official statement of the SSPX, titled "Anti-Semitism is Not Catholic," states very clearly that the SSPX "completely rejects the false claim that it teaches or practices anti-Semitism, which is a racial hatred of the Jewish people because of their ethnicity, culture, or religious beliefs."  Further, the same statement affirms historic Catholic teaching by stating further that "The Catholic Church teaches its members to pray that the Jewish people will recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah and convert to the Catholic faith for their salvation...the Catholic Church desires the happiness of ALL people in this life and the next."   That is actually a good statement on the part of the SSPX, and I commend it.  As for the Holocaust denial among some Trads, that is more disturbing - as Fr. Ripperger notes above, many Trads hate Jews so much that they get reckless in the crap they spew out of their mouths, even trying to distort actual history.  The news flash for them is this - the Holocaust was a major tragedy, it happened, and millions of innocent people (Jews and others) died in those camps, including a significant number of Catholic saints and other Christian martyrs (St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Bl. Emilian Kovch, as well as Protestants such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Orthodox saints such as Fr. Grigol Peradze).   That being said, it is insulting that Trads are denying the Holocaust, and they should be ashamed of that - may St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Edith Stein intercede for their souls honestly.  The eyewitness testimony and countless survivors even alive today from those vile camps are enough evidence to debunk any stupid allegation of "hoaxes," and if that still doesn't convince people, then maybe some therapy in a padded room with a designer sleeveless jacket will because only an insane person would deny a major atrocity like the Holocaust happened.  I still maintain that many Trads who are engaging in this anti-Semitic BS need to make a trip to their local confessional, as they need a lot of help.

Just because I was hard on the Trads here doesn't mean I am excusing the "Modernists" either - people like James Martin, the so-called "Rainbow Jesuit," should be defrocked and removed from public ministry in the Church, as they are heretical, plain and simple.  If the Trads were deplorable for embracing anti-Semitism, there are some Modernists likewise culpable for going to the other extreme. Both of these extremes - the modern-day equivalent of Pharisees and Sadducees - are equally damaging to the witness of the Church, and therefore they must be rejected by faithful Catholics.  There is a better way than going to these extremes, and that rests in knowing one's faith, and also asking oneself the question as to why I am Catholic.  How that question is answered will be a huge determining factor in where one stands on these issues, and it is something perhaps we should all think about as we approach the Lenten season in a few weeks.   Thank you for allowing me to share, and God bless.

Reflections on Frank Peretti

Christian novelist Frank Peretti

The year was 1986 - I was still in middle school, and had not yet become a Christian myself, but a momentous event happened.  That year, an Assemblies of God minister and author by the name of Frank Peretti authored a book and published it called This Present Darkness.  A couple of years later, in 1989, he published its sequel, Piercing the Darkness, which was in some ways better, some worse, but definitely a distinct story.  Although published while I was still in high school, it wasn't until my sophomore year of college that I first came across these books.  However, they have become classics of Christian fiction, in the vein of Tolkien, and they managed to stay in that position until the late 1990's when Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' series Left Behind succeeded the throne of classic Evangelical Christian fiction.  I have been considering doing some sort of article about these books for some time now, being that I make it a point to re-read both of them every few years or so and I know the stories of both like the back of my hand now.   So, today, we will do that as the first theological/philosophical/spiritual study of the new year.

Frank Peretti (born 1951) was born in Canada, but was raised in Seattle for most of his early life.   His dad was an Assemblies of God preacher there, and after a stint with a bluegrass band playing banjo, he studied at UCLA and then served as an assistant minister to his father at a small church.  However, pastoring doesn't pay the bills, and understandably the young man went into construction to make the necessary income to do that.  I can identify with that to a degree too, as for years I have had to work in the corporate world although I have no real passion doing so, but the bills and those to whom those bills are owed could care less about your passion, as they just want money.  It was in the mid-1980's that young Frank began to publish his own works, starting with a children's book in 1985 and then he published the landmark Christian fiction novel This Present Darkness the following year, which would be a life-changer for the young budding author.  That set him on a course in which a series of novels followed for several years, and it established Peretti's place as an author.  Just his story alone is inspiring, as it is not easy to pursue a passion such as writing, and he had to put a lot of hard work while just waiting for that open door to happen - we have all been there.  But, his hard work paid off, and This Present Darkness ended up eventually being a best-seller, as did its sequel.  So, what is the appeal of these books?  I want to analyze that now.

Both This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness are riveting, well-written stories, and Peretti has a gift of grabbing the imagination with them for sure.  I always enjoy reading them again every few years, and I practically know their stories by heart.  There have been people that have taken a lot of exception with these books, and some critics have even accused Peretti of being an animist or a pantheist, but he is neither - for the most part, although his books are fiction any Christian doctrine they may manifest is fairly orthodox and consistent with Peretti's Assemblies of God faith tradition.  And, as I am sure Peretti would readily affirm, his books are not meant to be theological tomes - they are Christian fiction, and therefore they are not to be held to the same accountability as a theological textbook, something many gung-ho Evangelicals often miss.  And, honestly, they are just good stories - I love them!  I want to now just give a summary plot of both books, and then we'll go from there.

The setting for This Present Darkness is in the fictional Midwestern US college town of Ashton, and
it is a composite setting for what typically such a town would probably look like.  The main protagonists of the town are a career-hardened newspaper editor, Marshall Hogan, and a young but fervent pastor of a small (seeming Pentecostal of some sort, based on Peretti's own background) struggling church who both find themselves at the center of an attempted takeover of the town by a nasty cadre of New Age corporatists who are intent on implementing a "new world order" of sorts on the unsuspecting community.  One of the antagonists, a stuck-up, aloof, and somewhat wacky college professor named Julene Langstrat, is attempting to do this by indoctrinating kids into some sort of New Age group that sounds eerily similar to the Theosophical movement of Helena Blavatsky.  She has the rather rodentian town police chief, Alf Brummel, as well as the liberal pastor of the town's largest church - called Ashton United Christian, which probably mirrors the real-life United Church of Christ denomination, a theologically liberal Reformed denomination that could have been Peretti's inspiration for this - by the name of Rev. Oliver Young.  Although these people appear to be the players on the proverbial chessboard, it turns out that under the surface is a more intense spiritual struggle for control of the town being played out by regiments of demons and angels.   It is the angel/demon battle portrayed in the books that has drawn blowback from Peretti's critics, as it seems as if every demon is in control of specific negative emotions, while his angels have diverse racial qualities reflexive of their human charges.  Of course, there is the whole demonic principality thing as well, which Peretti takes from Ephesians 6, and at the head of this demonic conspiracy is a global overlord called the Strongman (taken from Mark 3:22) who like a puppet master controls a corporate George Soros-like mogul called Alexander Kaseph.  In their battle plans, the angels and demons use human charges to carry out their plans, and the "trump card" that the new demonic prince Rafar has is the manipulation of Hogan's daughter Sandy, who already has a rocky relationship with her dad, and this is used to its full advantage to bring down Hogan, who is proving to be resistant to the control of Langstrat and her demonic overlords.  Let's talk about this Rafar guy for a moment.  Peretti's story uses the old Semitic word "Ba'al" as the way subservient demons address their leaders, and Rafar is claimed to be the ancient "Prince of Babylon," which is referencing Revelation 13, as well as the historic fall of Belshazzar's empire to the Persians as recorded in the book of Daniel.  Rafar was defeated by a long-time "Captain of the Host" named Tal, and they are the ones who prove to be the real opponents in the story.  The story also indicates a link between New Age mysticism and outright occultism, and even shows that when desperate times demand, the followers of this New Age religion will resort to more sinister rituals and measures - often criminal, in reference to the emphasis many Evangelicals at the time these books were first published placed upon the reality of SRA (Satanic ritual abuse).  We see this played out in the final chapters in the book, where a mysterious informant who apparently was led to Christ, Susan Jacobsen, is almost ritually sacrificed by Kaseph utilizing the services of a rogue Hindu priest, who by description could have been either a follower of the bloodthirsty Hindu goddess Kali, or possibly part of the aghori sadhu sect, which engages in some bizarre practices.  The story in the sequel follows a similar plot, except that the community is smaller, and the protagonists are a Black Christian cop named Ben Cole and a local headmaster of a Christian school named Tom Harris, while the "wild card" character in that story is a hippie burnout who is trying to escape her past, but needs to confront it, but a demon-possessed little girl named Amber who manifests as a horse named Amethyst sort of "rats" her out.  The New Age plot in Piercing the Darkness has a couple of distinct things from the first book, however - in it, the antagonists are part of a quasi-Masonic (which I note Peretti probably makes references to Rosicrucianism) group of powerful elites called the Sacred and Royal Order of the Nation, and they feel as if the Christian school as well as the burnout lady - Sally Roe - are a serious threat.  Many of the members of the quasi-Masonic occult brotherhood are also big in so-called civil liberties activist groups, in particular, one Peretti patterns in his book after the ACLU, which seek to restrict Christian influence.  However, when legal means don't work, they have no problem resorting to outright Satanist allies to carry out their dirty work, and what sparks the whole thing off is when one of that group attacks and tries to kill Sally at her home, but an angel intervenes and kills the female Satanist instead.  The Satanist group, called Broken Birch in the group, is the real face of the conspiracy, as they have the same ultimate objectives as the more elitist occult brotherhood that hired them.  Some of the same figures that were in the first book - most of the angel characters, as well as the elusive Strongman - reappear in the second book, as do Busche and Hogan, who are now beyond damage due to their victories in Ashton earlier.  It is also a good chronicle of a journey of self-closure and redemption on the part of Sally Roe, who goes from burned-out hippie New Ager to born-again Christian, and that is seen as the key to prevailing over the forces of darkness.  Sally Roe has a similar role to Susan Jacobsen in the first book, but Sally's character has more depth and intensity, as the real struggle is masterfully documented by Peretti.  In short, the story will keep you on the edge of your seat.

When I read these books over again every so often, I think of how they would look as a motion picture, as they both would be darned good motion pictures.  However recently when Peretti was approached about that possibility, he emphatically said that it was negligible that this would happen.  While that is disappointing, I respect his conclusion, and he has his reasons.  Often, when reading certain stories like this, you envision certain actors and actresses who would be perfect for the parts.  For instance, I would see Marshall Hogan's role being perfectly filled by veteran actor (and fellow West Virginian) Paul Dooley.  Susan Sarandon or Sigourney Weaver would make a good Sally Roe, and the guy who would make a great Alf Brummel is an actor I have seen in a number of roles over the years, but for the life of me his name escapes me - every time I read This Present Darkness though, I see that guy in the role (Note - since writing this, I found out the actor I was looking for is Sam Anderson - a perfect Alf Brummel!).  Alexander Kaseph would be best played by an actor similar to either Glen Shaddix or Dom DeLuise, and the guy that comes to mind is Ricky Jay.  Santinelli, from Piercing the Darkness, could be played masterfully by Frank Langella, and his cohort Steele would be best played by a Hollywood "bad guy" like Michael Ironside.  Unfortunately, many of those actors are either dead or too old now for the roles, but these are just my ideas.  Of course, Peretti may have other plans in mind if he were to change his mind and approve a movie based on these books, and his imagination is what created the characters, so he would know better who could play what.  These are just my imagination playing around with the characters though.

In looking at the criticisms of Peretti's books, I want to analyze that a bit now.  The first thing I will note from the Wikipedia article on This Present Darkness is that much of the criticism from Evangelical authorities comes from those who hold to a Calvinist theological position and are somewhat more cessationist when it comes to charismatic phenomena, etc.   Peretti is not part of one of those positions, and much of what he portrays in his books comes from what the prevalent teachings were in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles at the time the books were written, and in that period (late 1980's and early 1990's) there was a significant interest in spiritual warfare and the supernatural, and also the New Age movement was seen as a real threat to Christian belief - Peretti's books were in sync with other popular non-fiction Christian literature at the time such as Johanna Michaelson's Beautiful Side of Evil, Constance Cumbey's Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, as well as a more eccentric take on spiritual warfare at the time in the guise of a book entitled Pigs in the Parlor.   While there are things in all of those books that can be both agreed with and also criticized, the prevailing sentiment among many Evangelicals at the time - in particular Charismatics and Pentecostals - was that a real spiritual struggle was taking place, and education about it was vital.  Some did go to some ridiculous extremes, but looking ahead 30 years after the fact now, a lot of it is also very real as we are seeing it more so today after a period of relative dormancy.  In recent years, we have witnessed a rise in both Satanism - including the erection of Satanic monuments in front of courthouses, etc. -  and in other forms of occultism (such as vampirism) in our society, and there is a rather odd alliance between overt Satanists and the highly visible LGBT community now.  However, the ones sounding off on these dangers are no longer necessarily Evangelicals and Pentecostals but are primarily more traditionally-minded Catholics.  Many of those Evangelicals and Pentecostals who once warned of such things are now either passed away, or they have either toned down their emphasis or disavowed it totally.  The recent "Pachamama" scandal in the Vatican has also served the purpose of galvanizing more orthodox Catholics against outright paganism in the guise of Christianity, and that is a positive.  Often, it is the outright assaults of the enemy which serve as a wake-up call or "red pill" to the dormant faithful, and perhaps that is why God allows it.  I see a similar message in Peretti's stories too.

Another thing one picks up on in Peretti's two particular books here is that this is more than just a mere "religious" issue.  Despite the "guise" of certain "spiritual enlightenment" practices, the powers behind them know the real motivation, and it also manifests itself in some of their higher-level human pawns too.  While the average run-of-the-mill seeker of spiritual enlightenment wants to be "one with the universe" or whatever, the demons promoting the deceptions driving these clueless people are looking for a bounty of souls, and their ultimate fate for their human pawns is eternal damnation and imprisonment.  We see that in the closing chapters of This Present Darkness, where Marshall Hogan's daughter Sandy is told she would be "unlocking her higher consciousness" by being initiated into a "special group," but then right before it's too late, they are leading her to basically kill herself, and she quickly learns that things were not what they seem.  There are overtones of Ecclesiastes here that I believe Peretti is drawing on, in that the vanity of worldly glory and even some self-serving "spiritual enlightenment" more than often leads to doom, because the wrong thing is being sought.  This is where the evangelistic aspect of Peretti's story comes into play too - true happiness is found in the true God, not in running after things which sound good but are ultimately destructive.   In that, I see no dualism or animism in his writing, as ultimately it is God who is glorified and who has the ultimate victory in spiritual battles as long as the people on the right side stay focused and not get distracted by things meant by the enemy to get them out of the way of his agenda.  It's, in reality, a good lesson.

More could be said about these books, but I think I have hit upon the highlights.  If you haven't done so yet and are into captivating Christian fiction, be sure to read these two books - as mentioned, they are hard to put down and will keep you on the edge of your seat, as Peretti is a gifted writer who knows how to create a powerful story.  However, they are not meant to be theological, but can challenge us spiritually - if the reader is not a Christian, it also can serve as an evangelistic tool to reach them as well.  Thank you, and will see you next time.