Safe Haven

 I find as the time passes that it is more important each year to celebrate my Dad's birthday. I don't want to commemorate the day he died--I certainly remember the day, but not the date--because God is the God of the living, not the dead. There must be some golden mean between ignoring death completely, and giving it too much credit. You know, there is a powerful benefit in losing your Dad when you are small. A boy is not a young man yet, who thinks he knows everything, and that his Dad is a fool. There aren't too many benefits to this whole thing, but I do cherish that one. There are some men of course who grow into adulthood and maturity, and they realize that they in fact were the fool, and they can be adults and friends, as well as fathers and sons. That is beautiful, and I celebrate that when I see it, giving profound thanks to God. We should also celebrate those men who step in to be father figures for other people's sons and daughters, because I am all too aware

 You can't really go a day as an adult in this world without hearing about death. Especially if you happen to be one of those people with a fairly large group of associates. Probably the greatest challenge to any sort of faith is death. The secular types like to say that religion copes with death, but honestly, if that's what we've been trying to do all this time, we're not doing very well. If we were making this all up, why couldn't we just get rid of the death part? I absolutely won't give up my hope in eternal life, but eternal life doesn't eliminate death, as much as overcome it. There is a film I like called, "The Last Samurai," where the protagonist essentially ends the film in the presence of the Japanese Emperor. The Emperor and this American have a friend in common, a man who was once the Emperor's teacher. This mentor died at the hands of another unscrupulous advisor to the Emperor. "Tell me how he died," said the Emperor. T

 I have often seen this section of John 1 described as the "prologue" of this Gospel. I think it is because the divinity of Jesus, and the Incarnation--Jesus Christ becoming man--is so vital that we need to recognize it as a special thing. I agree with this decision, and I see no reason to go against what all other commentators seem to do. I will, however, extend my marking of the prologue through verse 18. The discussion of John the Baptist begins right after that, and so thematically it is slightly different. Please notice that this Gospel begins with, "In the beginning…" Genesis 1:1 at the very beginning of the Bible, begins with the same phrase. John wants us to know that Jesus was there at the creation of the universe. As we read along further, he also wants us to know that Jesus is going to re-create the world and us, if we will allow Him to do it. This is an interesting word choice, "Word." Suffice it to say that John's Greek speaking audience u

 I have a new respect for chefs, and for those who know what they're doing in the kitchen. I had about a pound of eye of round beefsteak, cut into small fillets. With the lid open, "sauté" is your only option on an Instant Pot. I could be wrong, but I think that setting is much hotter than the 145° recommended for medium-rare steak. My fillets were only about an inch thick, and I would say that I cooked each one for about a minute on each side, and I did this twice. There was no pink anywhere, which in the end is fine, for I am not a chef. Food safety is more critical than food preference, for me right now. How do they do that, where the outside of a steak is charred, but the inside is pink, or even red? Anyway, I'm impressed. It tasted great, which I suppose is the point. I will keep trying to discover things, and to potentially make modifications to my setup, to expand my cooking options.

 I just read the transcript of what I think is a podcast by Al Mohler, the Baptist leader. Part IV was about John le Carre, who died a few days ago. The novelist and former spy wrote many celebrated stories, several of which I have begun reading. The New York Times noted that le Carre used "moral ambiguities" to push the story forward. Mohler became fixated on that, roughly interpreting that as "moral relativism". I know that Mohler is a culture warrior, maybe above all, but I do not find moral relativism in le Carre's protagonist George Smiley. Moral ambiguity does not equal moral relativism. What Smiley finds--and the reader is invited to contemplate--is moral inconsistency. I think it is brilliant of the author to invite us inside a story of good and evil, to consider that good and evil coexist within each of us. A John le Carre novel is about the struggle within, more than the struggle without. That's something in general that a Christian should be able

Somewhere, I was taught to divide the Gospel of John into two parts: the book of signs, and the book of glory. Sometimes with very large books of the Bible, it is prudent to make a brief outline, with memorable headings. You won't capture everything that goes on in the text that way, but you can go back and do a more detailed outline after that. I was debating with myself pretty much for a week, regarding where the "book of glory" should start. I think it should start after verse 15 of John chapter 12. There we have the quotation of Zechariah 9:9, and the rising tension of the growing opposition to Jesus and his ministry. One reason to call the first part of the book "the book of signs" is that Jesus did miracles to announce the kingdom of God. His journey to Jerusalem, which will result in his death by crucifixion, is the beginning of the fulfillment of the kingdom of God. In this way, the signs pointed forward to the cross; afterward, they point backward, to t

 I won't say that I have been especially pious lately; it's been quite the opposite, frankly. And yet, it seems like God is very near. I don't know any better way to say it. I've been reading through the Gospel of John. [Aren't you always reading through the Gospel of John?--ed.] Point! No matter how sketchy things get, we need to be reminded and to remind ourselves that Jesus has not wavered. What he wills has not changed, and he has willed our salvation. It is a grace to us, simply to recognize this. It has never been a question of God's disposition toward us; the spiritual life is about our disposition toward Him.

 If I reject the premise that I must vote for whomever opposes abortion with the most ferocity--at least rhetorically--to the exclusion of all other issues, it does not entail accepting another premise that abortion is acceptable. If I accept the premise that there are economic components to decision-making regarding abortion, it does not entail my acceptance of a premise that abortion is entirely driven by economics. I am still free to accept the premise that abortion is never acceptable, even if individual situations where it is chosen are less morally culpable than others. I don't want to believe that this is entirely too much nuance in today's environment. I'm hoping for the best; don't let me down.

 There are some people who seem to think that I am now obligated to criticize Democratic political leaders with the same ferocity. Where is that written in my contract? I don't have any idea what someone's personal calculation of "fair" in politics is. All I can promise you is, I'll continue to talk about the things that matter to me, and if I change my mind, I'll try to explain why. It must be a special feature of our polarized times, to pretend that both sides are equally bad. It depends on what we are talking about. And to be seen as good, one need only publicly demonstrate their hostility to the opposing side. It's seemingly irrelevant, whether some articulation of public policy makes sense, or addresses an issue of real concern. It might be profitable to try to find the furtive attempts at real discussions in the various statements of our political leaders, rather than attack or ignore them in bad faith. But this is really hard, especially when partic

 Dr. Cross may want in on this.

 You know, I don't have any time for a Catholic priest that won't tell the truth. If we have a paragraph in our catechism(s) about a serious issue that affects the way people live, and how they think of themselves, and how to use their bodies in this life, we should pay close attention to it. It means that something of grave Christian concern has come up that requires direct pastoral attention. We would always joke when I studied canon law, "It's in here, because it happened." I will never tell someone that any feeling in itself is invalid. Even how we choose to identify ourselves sexually can have roots in something confusing or terrible that has occurred. Sooner or later, however, I must consider my primary identity. If I identify myself with something the Church describes as "intrinsically disordered," it means I have set myself in opposition to what is intrinsically ordered, and in this case, it means that I have chosen to express myself as a sexual

 Definitely worth a read.  [You should read Paradise Lost, too.--ed.] I know, right?

 You hear people say things all the time like, "Death is a part of life." That's true as far as it goes. The crucial truth, however, is that death is not supposed to be part of life. That's why it's always so shocking, so unwelcome. I've never met a boring person in my life. Even the people who had a skill at being boring were hilariously boring. There is a charm in those who draw a contrast in life, by deliberately not attempting to be interesting. Such a person is his own kind of interesting. I suppose what I mean to say is that people are special, and life is meaningful, even if it's hard. And that we should not get used to death, or even accept it. I'm not advocating reality-denial; I more boldly suggest that we live in a truer reality. If people are unique and unrepeatable, how much more unique and unrepeatable is the God who made us? This is the God who came down, and shared our reality with all its sorrow, even knowing that he would raise up his

 This is one of those times where we may not know why He even bothers with us. We are commanded, "do not grieve the Holy Spirit," and we often do. But His love is relentless, because the "desire" of God is relentless. The Holy Spirit is the power for us to keep the law of Love. We have no power on our own. We talk a good game about this, but if we really actually believed it, I think we would understand our sins and the struggle against them much more clearly. You cannot grit your teeth, and please God by your own efforts. You can plead with the Holy Spirit. Quoting the poet, Paul said, "in him we live and move and have our being." Something Bishop Barron said once is floating into my brain. Something about the gentleness of God in Providence, that there is no violence or coercion in God's governance of the world. And yet, being the feeblest of all, we have the most trouble being gentle with ourselves. We are indeed proud sometimes, maybe most of the t

 I am caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, independent political voices tend to be crackpots. We have a system which produces two mainstream political parties intentionally. May the Lord save me from his crackpot followers, muttering about "the duopoly". On the other hand, we are at least vaguely aware of the various ways in which political participation is marred by grave errors in moral judgment. It is hard to imagine that we cannot do better than what we have done. We need better leaders, because if we have bad leaders, the people obviously will follow them, and that is now beyond question. People love to believe that they are self-possessed and independent thinkers, but they are not. To be specific, I do not understand why it is difficult to affirm the dignity of all human life, from conception until natural death, and consequently, to defend the idea of a robust social democracy. I do not understand why we cannot maintain basic norms of civility and d

 I had gone on a trip with Confirmation Sponsor Guy, and a few others, including Fred Noltie, whom I had met on that trip. I was spouting my usual right-wing economic talking points, and Fred was having none of it. Dr. Cross was having none of it, either, but in his usual diplomatic way, he said something like, "If you had no idea what you're talking about, how would you know?" I had used the phrase "human capital," and that had triggered something. I got out of that conversation by saying, "I'll think about it more, and get back to you." I know I didn't mean to offend my friends. I also know that I had learned that the purpose of economics was to manage scarcity. The critique of the capitalist system in basic form is this: the system creates artificial scarcities, and claims to be value-neutral when it is not. It always drives me crazy, when I see that so-and-so "needs to read an economics textbook." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for exa

 I hadn't seen a championship boxing match in some time. That is, a live fight. The first warm-up fight was between two small guys at 114 pounds. It ended with controversy, as cuts forced a no-decision after four rounds. The next fight with between a current and former champion, both at 147 pounds. This is the division dominated by Oscar De La Hoya for so long. Terence Crawford is regarded as the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world, and the champion in this division, by the World Boxing Organization (WBO). His record coming in was 36-0, with 27 knockouts. His title was on the line against Kell Brook of Sheffield, England, who came in with a record of 39-2, with 27 knockouts. It looked like Crawford was a little confused to start the fight. He came out in a right-handed stance, and Brook hit him with several jabs. Evidently, Crawford saw a slow jab from Brook in the fourth round, because he timed a straight right over the top of it, and that was the beginning of the end. Three

 Confirmation Sponsor Guy has an essay in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, entitled, "Thomistic Conception of Impairment and Disability". That'll be a fun one to read, when the time comes. When I commented on this exciting news, I separated out my thoughts from my feelings. I remember Professor Cross saying something in class, about the young people today. When they want to say "I think," they usually actually say, "I feel…" Actual thinking, however, is not done with the heart primarily, but the mind. A certain thing could be true, independent of what we feel about it. And if we are to avoid deconstructing everything according to an uncharitable assumption about the motivations of others, we should be bold to say, "I think…" The truth is that the nobility of saying "I think…" is the freedom to potentially later say, "I thought wrongly about that." There is a scene in a TV show that I have enjoyed, where a schoolt

 My childhood was pretty rough and dramatic. I can just leave it there. If there was one person who is the opposite of rough and dramatic, it's Mister Rogers. You can find any clip that you want from the show; he consistently affirms and validates the feelings of the small children in his audience. Even when I was much older, I would check in sometimes, because I knew that I would feel valued. He didn't even know me, but honestly, he did. It's more than nostalgia, for so many of us. It is the memory of being loved, even from a distance. He was a mainline Protestant, back when that still meant something. And I didn't know as a kid that in fact he was a minister, but I should have guessed. There is something about godly people that you can't fake or fabricate. There are church people, and there are godly people. Church people are a roll of the dice; godly people live by a power that is not their own. When they leave, their lives of genuine kindness and empathy leave m

 It's often said that if you invoke the Nazis, you lose any online argument. On the other hand, how close to a dangerous authoritarianism do you have to get, before those who are sanguine about it turn out to be the foolish ones? On the one hand, a close examination of the physical ballots involved in the election will eventually be necessary. I have no objections in theory to any group exhausting all legal challenges and remedies. On the other hand, the president is not a person who can be trusted. If he could find his own version of the Reichstag fire, he would do it in a second. That's why I don't buy the stuff from right-wing media, to the effect of, "just asking questions". You have tens of millions of people living in an alternate reality anyway, and a good number of them will not renounce violence, or in any manner accept the results. We ought to keep our processes and timelines firm. Challenge whatever you like, but it's all over by December 14. And if

 As a general rule, I hate "pox on both your houses" takes on politics. Most of the time, I'm inclined to think that a particular person chooses this take because someone else has made them uncomfortable with a certain aspect of their own philosophy. If they adopt a posture of cynicism, maybe they can escape the moral force of that criticism. That could be bulverism in any one case, but I have seen it before, and I can't paint a picture without generalizing. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk about that. I came here to say that both major parties in the United States--and the people themselves--have embraced the absolute individualism at the heart of classical liberalism. Rightists want freedom from constraint in economics, environment, religious liberty, and a few other things. Leftists don't believe in this absolute individualism with respect to economics or the environment (not to mention religious liberty), but they do embrace it with respect to human sexu

 We might even say we're mere hours away from beginning to know who will assume the office of president on January 20 of next year. I'll cut right to the chase: I think this is going to be a really big win for Joe Biden. Real Clear Politics has shown a very heavy right bias, in the including of sketchy online polls, and in delaying the release of live voter polls more favorable to Joe Biden. Even so, their national polling average shows the lead for Biden at 7.8%. Keep in mind that if that were to hold, it would be a bigger percentage margin than Barack Obama achieved in 2008. The state polls are tight nearly everywhere, but they show clear leads for Joe Biden. The upper Midwest probably will not make any presidential calls on the night of the election, but Biden's lead in states that Trump should absolutely easily hold in a reelection campaign indicates to me that the president is in real trouble. He achieved a popular vote percentage in 2016 of 46%. He's going to be n

 You know, I've gotten a fair number of messages privately recently, and over recent months, to the effect that I have really stirred people up. Sometimes, I can tell people are angry, even if they don't say it. On the one hand, I've never been afraid to make people angry, even sometimes for not the best reasons. In our younger days, I'm sure we can all tell stories of spoiling for a fight, and not backing down, even if you should. This is still me. I am the mass of contradictions who does this all the time, and yet has a powerful need to be liked and even loved. At my best, I am the guy who speaks the truth that everyone else can see, but is afraid to say. At worst, I'm something else. Fill in the blank yourself; I have spent too much time on self-hatred in general. Let's talk about what this is really about: the election. I should have known back in 2013 or 2014 that my own comfort level with being a Republican was becoming unacceptably tenuous. I was still gr

 I was wrong about Amy Coney Barrett; she is sitting on the Court, and the Republicans did go through with it. I think it was a terrible idea, for the sake of social peace, and cooperation between our elected representatives. Yet that judgment is probably weighted by the fact that I don't put much stock in the effort to put anti-Roe justices on the Supreme Court. I did not vote with the purpose to do that, so I must not have much faith in its success. Even if I thought it would be successful, I may not have supported the president, anyway. It is silly that the Democrats want to ask people about their faith, and act incredulous, when they find someone who actually believes what their church teaches, especially in regard to sex. As we all know, Pleasure is the one and only sacrament in the Church of Self, and it has more members right now than anything else does. The Democrats don't even bother trying to hide it: they love religious belief, as long as it serves them, and doesn

 There comes a point in every Christian's life--and it circles around sometimes--when s/he becomes revolting to himself. This of course presents an opportunity, because we might not understand the depths of God's love for us in the moments of our failure, but we have a chance to recollect, and begin again. Unfortunately, there is also an opportunity for someone to say, "Look at this, and look at me! I might never have believed in the first place!" This is of course foolish, but we do it all the time. Many of the people who go on and on about how horrible they are are actually proud of themselves; that is to say, too proud to turn around. But grace is grace. We didn't earn it on the first day, and we can't earn it today, and we won't earn it on our last day. We never have actually deserved anything of ourselves. As a professional screw-up, I can offer first-hand testimony about this. I guess I'm going to have to keep saying it, first of all to myself. T

 Right now, the Republican Party can only win an election when it actively prevents large numbers of eligible people from casting their votes in a free and fair election. They have arrived at a point where they must actively make it more difficult for most citizens to vote easily and quickly. If any election has high turnout, they lose. If any election has high numbers of racial minorities, they lose. If the Democrats are competitive with white men, the GOP loses. Why would I support anything or anyone whose path to power is non-democracy? It becomes irrelevant, all my vociferous and numerous disagreements with the Democratic Party, because at least they are committed to the basic outline of representative government. That's why I have not hesitated to use the word "fascist" in reference to the Republican Party under Donald Trump: they are no longer engaged in the task of persuading anything close to a majority of the rightness of their policies. It may well be that after

 I wanted to say, "We've got everything from snake handlers, to people denying the Trinity, and everybody says, "the Bible clearly teaches". So you'll have to forgive me, if I'm not impressed with your naïve biblicism, brother." It might have been better if I said that. On the other hand still, upon reflection, I'm probably as much the reason why some people aren't where Jesus truly wants them to be. It's probably still worth asking yourself, "How do I know what I think I know? Do I have the courage to examine the basis for those beliefs?" Most especially those to do with Jesus. He is still asking, "Who do you say that I am?" And getting that answer right is a beginning--a great beginning--but only a beginning.

 The Dodgers made the World Series last night. My father loved the Dodgers. The last time they won the whole thing in 1988, my father was still here. The Dodgers are not my favorite team, but nevertheless, I am unable to be objective in any sense about the Dodgers. I have a recording of Vin Scully leading others in "the prayers" (let the reader understand) and I thought it would be nice to say them myself along with him, and whomever was in that group. As it went along, I had greater and greater difficulty controlling my emotions. The heart of the Christian story is resurrection, and our hope of resurrection with Christ in glory. In my mind, I actually had a brief conversation with Tommy Lasorda. I heard him only half jokingly say once that God was a Dodgers fan, and it's pretty difficult to get into heaven if you're not. And I heard myself say, "Well, they're not my favorite, but they are special to me. And Dad was still here when you won it the last time.&q

 I was hanging out in John 2 the other day. This title is what Mary said to Jesus, when she discovered they were out of wine. Jesus's response is kind of cryptic, but we can say humorously that no self-respecting son can say no to his mother, at least within the bounds of propriety. It's worth saying that Jesus was thinking of His mission as a whole, and how miracles would fit or not fit within it. Perhaps he even knew that doing this miracle would start the clock in a sense, for his opposition, which will lead to his death. As I meditated upon all this, it came to me in this way: "they have no joy". I could see in my mind many people I know who were on the ragged edge of life, especially in these days. Wine is a symbol of abundance and joy in the Scriptures. I needed therefore to ask for the joy of the Holy Spirit, and to ask God to make me a conduit for the joy of the Holy Spirit to others. It is even more important to say that the joy of the Holy Spirit has nothing

I guess I'll tell you my gripes with Crisis magazine: the whole thing sounds like a Rod Dreher fever dream. You would think that armies of drag queens were kidnapping children to take them to the infamous Story Hour, in some kind of right-wing dystopian novel that is the reverse of The Handmaid's Tale. Come on, man. In other news, I would like to congratulate the Democrats, on seemingly finding some semblance of an economic message. You know, I'm old enough to remember when they actually were the party of the working class; it seemed like there for a while, they were the party of debt-ridden upper-class English majors, complaining because their slice of the pie lacks cherry sauce. [Wait, aren't they still those people?--ed.] Too soon. Anyway, I am what they used to call a "social conservative". And to be clear, I am not a social conservative for the sake of winning an election; I really believe and try to do the things that I say in this regard. Someone, howev

 I was praying with the Scriptures yesterday, and I'm going to tell you something that hasn't even made it in my prayer journal yet. But I was hanging out with John, in the first chapter of his Gospel. I started from the top, figuring that God and I would talk about something majestic in the prologue. There's a lot in there; it stands to reason that you could spend some time meditating on anything in there. But no, the Holy Spirit didn't want to talk about the prologue. I kept reading, and then I came to this: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John the Baptist sees Jesus here, and points Him out to his own disciples. It's often right to understand that "behold" in the Scriptures as something like we would say, "Look!" This stopped me in my tracks this time, because Jesus was saying, "Don't you understand? I am still for you." Christ walking around, Christ healing people, Christ teaching his dis

 John le Carre is becoming one of my favorite authors. His character George Smiley--memorably portrayed by Sir Alec Guinness in two celebrated miniseries for the BBC--is supposed to be a more realistic version of a British spy, in contrast to Ian Fleming's James Bond. Sir Oliver Lacon is an assistant to the Cabinet minister in charge of national intelligence. Lacon is the bureaucrat no one in the intelligence service likes, because his job is to keep an eye on especially domestic political implications of intelligence. He usually limits what the pros want to do, for some political consideration. He's amiable, but unprincipled, and ambitious. I think what le Carre loves to do is have his protagonists wrestle between their idealism, their patriotism, and pragmatism. Tonight, I fell asleep in Lacon's living room, so to speak. When I woke up, everyone was still in Sir Oliver's living room! I love these Cold War stories. My sympathy for the West is undimmed, despite my ambiv

 The papal encyclical, "Fratelli tutti", or, "On the Fraternity and Social Friendship," was promulgated today, and may be accessed here . I'll read it completely, before offering any comments.

 It just came into my mind: "I hate adulterers." And then I caught myself, because I know that I don't actually hate adulterers; I hate adultery. I have a visceral reaction, partly because I recognize the little adulteries I have committed in my own heart. They won't make the national news, more than likely. If I'm exceedingly fortunate, no one will ever know the details of any of it, except for some clergy, sworn to secrecy until they are dead. I also recognize that I'm passionate about this, because adultery is one of the things which causes divorce. I am a childhood victim of divorce, and so I generally hate everything that causes people to divorce. If "childhood victim" sounds like too strong a word, I might dare suggest that you have not considered the gravity of divorce, and the chaos it causes. I could grant for the sake of argument that it might be sometimes necessary, but my version of "necessary" and the version of "necessary

 I'll cut right to the chase: Joe Biden is going to win this thing pretty easily. It could be what they call in layman's terms a landslide. None of the political press is going to tell you that the president of the United States is going to get crushed in an election. That doesn't make headlines, except maybe after the fact. I said on Twitter in March, "It's not whether Biden is going to win, but by how much." Here's what I see: there are swing states everywhere, which would be fine, but for the fact that they're in the wrong places. That is, the president should not be fighting for so-called "red states". North Carolina is always decently close, but a Republican in decent position for re-election shouldn't have to worry about it. Texas is one of the most Republican states in the country. It's the "new" home base of the Republican political dynasty, the Bush family. No Republican president should have to fight for Texas. Geo

 Here's what I believe about judicial appointments: I believe that the President of the United States has the authority and the duty to nominate whomever he or she chooses for these offices. (This goes for Cabinet appointments, and other offices, as well.) I do not understand "advise and consent" to mean that a sitting US Senator cannot oppose a presidential nomination to some office, but I personally believe that ignoring a nomination for long periods, that is, to refuse to bring a nomination to the floor for a vote, is a failure of constitutional duty. If I believe that a particular nominee is unsuitable in either temperament, policy preferences, or lacking a basic sense of justice, I should have the courage to vote "no". I think a reasonable time for debate between the Senators about political or policy matters that may be germane is appropriate, but not necessarily while the nominee is giving testimony. The one thing the American people do not need or want i

 That being said, it's foolish to pursue a confirmation right now. Progressives are usually always alarmed by Republican judicial nominations. If these lame ducks and losers force her through at the behest of a president regarded justly as lawless and authoritarian in the span of 45 days, the country may not survive. I can understand the desire to try. Trump is overwhelmingly likely to lose. They know it. If you can get a Justice you like on the Supreme Court before the clock strikes midnight, as it were, it makes sense. Romney, Collins, and Murkowski signalling an unwillingness to go along with it confirms this. If Trump were powerful, they wouldn't. None of these three will pay a penalty for opposing Trump, though Collins will lose because she voted to confirm Kavanaugh.  It's the perfect nightmare for a Republican Senator: All the chaos of a Trumpian circus, added to a nomination fight, with no discernible electoral benefit. I hate it when that happens. Barrett in the ab