Without Hands

I've been thinking about what it truly means to be creative: I touched upon this in my blog entry on The Lord of the Rings but I didn't have room to go into detail there.



When we think of creativity we usually think of producing something original, whether something to look at, or a performance, or something to read.  And we especially desire to produce something that "no one has ever seen or done before".  Indeed, we consider it plagiarism if we do otherwise.

And there is nothing wrong with simulating reality in our art, such as the visual arts and theatrical performances.  That has been going on for thousands of years, and the Church has commissioned such works.



But the fact is that "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).  As Aristotle would have put it, we might produce original forms--but the raw materials that we put into those forms are exactly the same and are available to anyone.  We aren't capable of creating new materials, as that's something only God can do, God who is Being itself.

That being the case, while there is nothing wrong with works of art that simulate reality, the highest form of artistic creativity is to tap directly into God's own creative power.  This is counter-intuitive to us today, even to many Christians, because it means "stepping out of the way" and not showing off.  It actually involves as little originality as possible.



While many icons in the Church were painted by hand, there are some icons called "acheiropoieta", a Greek word meaning "made without hands".

Among the best known of these are the Veil of Veronica (containing a miraculous image of the Holy Face of Jesus) and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe (which miraculously appeared on the tilma of Saint Juan Diego).



The Veil of Veronica and the miraculous image thereon of the Holy Face of Jesus are not recorded in the Bible, but they make up the Sixth Station of the Cross.  Saint Veronica showed mercy to Our Lord as He carried His Cross through Jerusalem to Calvary, wiping the Blood and sweat off His Face--and then an image of the Holy Face of Jesus miraculously appeared on her veil.  Indeed, the name "Veronica" means "true image".

According to tradition, Saint Veronica took her veil to Rome and healed the Emperor Tiberius with it--and it was used to heal the blind, quench the thirst of the thirsty, and even to raise the dead.

The Veil of Veronica was displayed in Saint Peter's Basilica at least until the Sack of Rome in 1527, but after that it isn't clear.  Some say it was destroyed, but there is no conclusive evidence that it was ever taken out of Saint Peter's Basilica and it may still be there.

The Holy Face of Jesus devotion has continued into modern times.  Sister Marie of St. Peter, O.C.D., received private apparitions in which she learned that what Saint Veronica wiped away from the Holy Face of Jesus is being added to even at present by blasphemies and sacrileges, and so Our Lord desires devotion to His Holy Face in reparation for these.  These blasphemies and sacrileges especially include "those that directly outrage the Majesty of God--that is, Communism, Atheism, cursing, and the desecration of Sundays and the Holy Days."  Such things are terrible responses to the gift of being able to see the Face of God and live!

And of course, whatever we do to the least of His brethren, we do to Him--and so the Holy Face devotion can also help us to see His Face in the faces of the poor, the sick, and the captive, and to do what we can to show them some dignity, even if that's all we can do for them except pray and fast.  To do less is to add insult to their injury.



Our Lady of Guadalupe first appeared to Saint Juan Diego at Tepeyac Hill in Mexico City on December 9, 1531.  Three days later, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared miraculously on his tilma, and so that date (December 12) is the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Near that hill, as Our Lady desired, a shrine was built to her, which is now the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  The tilma is still displayed within, even to this day.  And Our Lady of Guadalupe is Empress of the Americas, and since this year she is also the patroness of Mexico, a country that needs it.  Mexico's economy depends unfortunately on two things to an excessive degree: 1) drug cartels, who also commit murders which cry out to God for justice, and 2) money sent home from the United States by immigrants--all too often those who cross the border into the U.S. illegally.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe recalls the woman in the Book of Revelation Chapter 12, and it depicts Mary as clearly pregnant with Our Lord, which makes sense because she would have been heavily pregnant with Him on December 12, thirteen days before Christmas Day.  Because of this, Our Lady of Guadalupe is also Protectress of the Unborn, also needed in this day and age of a holocaust of aborted babies whose lives are not protected by human laws--again, sins that cry out to God for justice.

According to a book I read, Our Lady of Guadalupe also helped considerably in introducing Christ to the New World by reintroducing the original means of converting souls: peer-to-peer, rather than top-down.  The latter is moot today anyway, when most nations are republics rather than monarchies: you cannot convert a nation by converting her monarch if the nation doesn't even have a monarch!  So peer-to-peer conversion is all the more important now, and Our Lady of Guadalupe reintroduced that in the West by introducing it for the first time in the Americas, specifically in Mexico City.

And in The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, Father Michael E. Gaitley said that North America (the realm of Our Lady of Guadalupe) is the site for the second biggest push for Marian consecration in history, after the Militia Immaculatae founded by Saint Maximilian Kolbe in the first half of the 20th century.  He has contributed to this with his previous book 33 Days to Morning Glory, especially in its Spanish translation which has been used to combat the demonic cult of "Santa Muerte" who demands human sacrifice.  And he believes that Our Lady is preparing us for something significant in history to come in the near future.

********

These icons are made directly by God Himself, rather than being painted by human hands.  But in this day and age it is possible to make images without hands ourselves.  Saint Veronica is the patroness of photographers, who make images that directly capture God's reality rather than simulating them--images that are made with light, not by the work of human hands.  That's something to think about the next time you take a selfie.

But while photographic technology is new in history (less than 200 years old), the raw materials have been with us since the beginning.  Indeed, silver nitrate was discovered by Saint Albert the Great in the 1200's!



And of course, since the late 1800's, there have also been motion pictures.  As recorded by Steven Greydanus on his decentfilms website, Andre Bazin (a Catholic) believed that cinema is the highest form of art because it taps directly into God's creativity, recording rather than merely simulating His creation.

That being the case, the purest form of cinema in this regard would be live action documentaries, without scripts (or screenwriters) and without actors playing roles--recorded with deep focus and in long takes only, and minimal editing.

While there's certainly nothing wrong with other forms of cinema, those overlap with non-cinematic and non-photographic art forms, and so they don't truly represent the essence of cinema.

Bazin also held to the "auteur theory" of cinema, and the above explains why: without a script, the auteur of a movie can hardly be a screenwriter (as the auteur of a play is the playwright).  A documentary is essentially a moving photograph, and a photographer is the auteur of a still photograph.  According to the auteur theory of cinema, the auteur of a movie is the director, the one with the creative vision (even though "director" isn't the best name because it was borrowed from stagecraft, where the auteur is the playwright and not the director).

********

But while photography and cinema are art forms that can record reality, they necessarily require a produced recording--and they are new to history.

When I read Aristotle for Everybody by Mortimer J. Adler, I learned that Aristotle noted three "cooperative arts", arts where nothing is produced, but human efforts facilitate natural processes by making them happen faster and more efficiently.  In Catholic terms, this means that human beings participate in the created order directly, by using our free wills to cooperate with these natural processes.

These three cooperative arts are:

1) farming arts;

2) healing arts;

3) teaching arts.



Whether we help it or not, plants will always grow and reproduce.  Farming arts help this to happen faster and more efficiently, for greater production of plant foods, which can then feed the hungry--a Corporal Work of Mercy.  And Adam, the first man, was a farmer.

Whether we help it or not, the human body has at least some ability to heal itself of maladies.  Healing arts help this to happen faster and more efficiently, so that someone sick or injured can become healthy again faster and more efficiently.  And Christ was in part a Physician, healing maladies that no human doctor could.

Whether we are helped or not, we are always learning something--even when we're not in school, and even long after we've left school behind.  Teaching arts help this to happen not only faster, but also more efficiently in giving us a direction, so that we can put our knowledge to good use.  And Jesus, again, was in part a Teacher or Rabbi, teaching what the Kingdom of Heaven is like, what we must do to enter, why we must enter, and what will happen if we don't listen.

********

Once again, there is nothing immoral about other forms of art.  The Church has commissioned such in the past, and (for example), in the private revelation of the Divine Mercy image, Jesus told Saint Faustina Kowalska to paint the image she saw (she had it painted by a professional painter, but the point is that He didn't give her an icon made without hands).

Indeed, I have been drawing for my entire life, and I especially like to draw things that come into my head, things that I cannot see before me in real life--and if I root this in love of Christ, I can glorify Him with my drawings.



All I'm saying is that these icons made without hands, and these art forms, tap directly into God's own creative power--and therefore they are the best, objectively speaking.

That being the case, I don't intend to ignore them.  I am already consecrated to Jesus through Mary, and Our Lady of Guadalupe is simply one apparition of Mary.  Besides, I am partly a Mexican-American, with some American Indian blood in me (confirmed by an ancestry.com test that my grandfather took), and I have lived in North America my whole life.  Therefore I am subject to Our Lady of Guadalupe as Empress of the Americas.

I am also consecrated to Merciful Love, after the fashion of Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face.  Saint Therese regarded these two devotions, the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, as inextricably linked.  On the one hand, both display how the Son of God became dependent upon, and vulnerable to, His own creatures--us human beings (and the same is true of the Eucharist, the only time we encounter His physical Presence today, in Mass and in Adoration).  This shows how He humbled Himself out of merciful Love, and how we are to show the same merciful love to Him and to the least of His brethren, including the poor and those condemned to death.

On the other hand, both manifest the notion that we can see the Face of God and live.  We are finite, and fallen, and so we cannot expect to see God as He truly is, according to His divinity, and not either die or go mad from the revelation.  God knows this, and He shows us mercy by not revealing Himself in all His glory, which would frighten us anyway given our fallenness.  But aside from the Holy Face being an image of the Face of God that is not made by hands, the Child Jesus recalls the first time that it was possible to see the face of God and live: Christ's birth.  Hence the connection with the devotion to the Christ Child, the most wonderful gift on the first Christmas Day (the second, inextricably linked to the first, being Mary as our Mother).



I have gotten back into the habit of doing First Saturday devotions in reparation for blasphemies against Mary.  I did so this year, and I intend to do so every year from now on.

I am now becoming interested in the Holy Face devotion, and in making Acts of Reparation to the Holy Face of Jesus.  In particular, Jesus revealed to Sister Marie of St. Peter the Golden Arrow prayer, which makes Reparation for blasphemies against the Most Holy Name of Jesus.  And my birthday is the Feast Day of the Most Holy Name of Jesus.  And according to the official website for this devotion, Pope Leo XIII established the Holy Face devotion for the entire world, although it was neglected after World War I, some 30 years later.



I will close this blog entry with the Golden Arrow Prayer:



May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most incomprehensible and ineffable Name of God be forever praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth, by all the creatures of God, and by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.  Amen.

********

Thank you for being with me.  God bless you.

The Lord of the Rings

Now that Christopher Tolkien has published his final Middle-earth book, The Fall of Gondolin, I've been thinking once more about The Lord of the Rings and its point, especially regarding the Catholic faith of J. R. R. Tolkien.  I now think I have a bit of an understanding of what the elder Tolkien intended.



First of all, J. R. R. Tolkien was "sub-creating" (his term) a mythological world, presumably set in pre-Christian times and among Gentiles.  In other words, a world that (like the real world in pre-Christian times) is innately good, but fallen, and that lacks the grace of Jesus Christ's Sacrifice or even the revelations received by the pre-Christian Israelites.  That is, they only have the natural world, creation, to go by in terms of knowing the true God, its Creator--and that is faulty because it's been corrupted (in this mythology by Morgoth).

But more to the point, given the setting, fallen man (or other races) cannot hope to exert their wills against evil and win.  At most they might endure while trying to resist evil (like someone being tortured for information and desperately trying to keep quiet in the face of such torture), but in the end they will succumb to evil--whether that means being destroyed, killed, or whether that means turning to evil themselves.

Nevertheless, even in such an apparently nightmarish world, there is hope: evil cannot exist in a vacuum, but only as the corruption of good.  Good remains, because God the Creator is all-good, and so all creation is innately good, if corrupted.  Therefore, those resisting evil need not be alone--though given the setting, they need not to know exactly that they aren't alone, or who is with them.  All they need to do is will to merciful love, which is God's will, whether they know it or not.  God planted the capacity and the desire for merciful love in us--both to receive it and to give it--and even pre-Christian pagans have this.

Therefore, the point is that if one persists in willing merciful love, for oneself and for others (especially those who need it the most and to whom one would least want it given), and does this to the last ounce of one's strength even in the face of great evil, even (and especially) when it looks to the world like madness, like suicide--God will show merciful love to that person.



But why?  Why set it there?  I think the reason J. R. R. Tolkien set the story outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition of divine revelation was twofold: 1) lest he take the Lord's Name in vain by writing fiction about a people to whom God had revealed Himself; 2) to show the universality of God, and that His existence and action are independent of our knowledge of or belief in Him (as it must be if He is the all-powerful Creator), by having the setting be one that lacks knowledge of or belief in the Holy Trinity.

But that still doesn't explain why it's a mythological rather than a historical setting, nor why it's an invented mythological setting rather than an established mythological setting.  This answer is beyond the scope of this blog entry, and it may be as simple as J. R. R. Tolkien desiring to emulate God's creativity as best he could, as well as restoring (to some degree, after some fashion) to his country of England something of her culture that was lost with the Norman Conquest (and might have been further lost with World War I): a placeholding mythology that points to God not just in the actual world but in man's desire to know the truth and to use his imagination to fill in the blanks.

I say this is beyond the scope of this blog entry because I hold with Andre Bazin that the most creative act is to tap directly into God's creative power with cinema, specifically documentary--or, probably even more, with what Aristotle called the three "cooperative" arts of farming, healing, and teaching--and if so, J. R R. Tolkien was going in the opposite direction from this.  That's not necessarily to say that Tolkien was wrong (he did try to root his mythology in what he knew of language), and we do have imaginations for a reason, but by its very nature "sub-creation" is going in the opposite direction from tapping directly into God's creative power, even if it is rooted enough in reality that it can still be a tribute to the Lord.



At any rate, here, then, is the reason for the main story thread in The Lord of the Rings: Frodo Baggins's quest was never actually to destroy the One Ring, because he had not the ability to stand up against its great evil, but only to get the Ring close enough to Mount Doom for it to be destroyed--and from thence to exercise hope, which is a theological virtue, that the quest would not be in vain.  It is not entirely his fault that he succumbed to the Ring in the end, claiming it for his own and refusing to destroy it--its influence upon him was too powerful.

But had it not been for Gollum's intervention, the best that could have been hoped for is that Frodo would have suffered Gollum's actual fate--and at worst, the Nazgul would have killed Frodo, taken the One Ring, and returned it to Sauron, who would have conquered Middle-earth with it a second time.  Because of Gollum's intervention, however, Frodo was himself shown mercy from above, being spared the natural and just consequences of his act of claiming the Ring by receiving the mercy that Gollum had rejected, so that Gollum replaced Frodo in suffering the ultimate ill fate.

And yet, Gollum acted entirely out of selfish, wicked motives.  He did not heroically intervene to save Frodo from himself, and then sacrifice his own life to save Middle-earth from Sauron or anyone similarly powerful who coveted the Ring.  On the contrary, Gollum had so succumbed to his desire for the One Ring above all else that he simply saw Frodo as a rival, and determined to get it back no matter what.  Gollum didn't even kill Frodo to get the Ring, nor did he kill Frodo after getting it back.  Gollum simply leapt for joy at having his "precious" back after all these decades, heedless of where he was, and slipped and fell into Mount Doom.  So Gollum is not the hero of the story either.

So why was Gollum there?  He was there because Frodo and Sam didn't kill him when they had the chance.  Because of pity and mercy.  It began with Bilbo, who first stole the Ring from Gollum and neglected to exploit the invisibility the Ring gave him and kill Gollum to get out of his lair (in The Hobbit); then Frodo, who pitied Gollum when he first saw him, and who noted that they needed a guide into Mordor if their plan was to succeed (and Gollum had been in Mordor before, having been captured and tortured there), and who hoped against hope that Gollum might repent and be saved.  In the end, at Mount Doom, even Sam showed Gollum mercy (and Sam had refused to trust Gollum at all before then).

But how was it that Bilbo, Frodo, and even Sam were able to show mercy to such a wretched creature as Gollum?  Here's where it really gets counter-intuitive when you look at it from a temporal perspective: it was because they had themselves become Ring-bearers by then, and so to some degree (however slight) they were experiencing firsthand what Gollum had experienced for centuries, and so they understood.  In a Christian understanding, they (to a degree) effectively "became sin" but without giving themselves over to evil, even when all signs seemed to point to killing Gollum (he meant to betray and kill them in the end, if need be, in order to get the Ring back).

This seems to me to explain why the opening chapter shows Frodo inheriting the One Ring from Bilbo (though it takes a great effort on Bilbo's part, and even then requires some help from Gandalf, just to part with the Ring), and the next chapter has Gandalf mention that it was pity and mercy that prevented Bilbo from killing Gollum when he had the chance.

In other words, the point of Frodo's quest was as follows: 1) receive the One Ring without stealing it or killing its previous bearer Bilbo--without any evil act on Frodo's part (Bilbo had had it for too long to be a suitable hero for this quest); 2) get the One Ring as close to Mount Doom as possible, meanwhile avoiding the Nazgul as well as anyone else coveting the Ring (or their spies), and resisting putting it on and succumbing to its evil power to the last ounce of his strength; 3) encounter Gollum and show him mercy, borne partly out of his gentle nature and partly out of his own experience with the Ring--as well as prudence in needing a guide to get into Mordor without being caught--even to the point of hoping Gollum might be redeemed, and even when Gollum betrays him unto apparent death.  Beyond that it was out of Frodo's hands.



But in the end, it was Sam who showed the final mercy to Gollum, when Frodo's last words to Gollum had been "Begone, and trouble me no more!  If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom"--and after which Frodo succumbed to the One Ring and so was no longer able to show pity and mercy to Gollum, but only to see him as a rival.  And I think this, even more than simply the fact that Sam carried Frodo along the last leg of the journey when Frodo's burden became too heavy for him to move, is why J. R. R. Tolkien regarded Samwise Gamgee as the true "hero" of The Lord of the Rings.

Therefore, there was a point to Sam being on the quest as well, and that was as follows: 1) while meaning no harm, overhearing Gandalf's and Frodo's conversation about the One Ring, and getting caught by Gandalf, so that he went on the quest with Frodo; 2) continuing to follow Frodo even when Frodo ditched all his other companions after the Breaking of the Fellowship; 3) deferring to Frodo's pity and mercy to Gollum even when he strongly disagreed with it, even if it was only deference to Frodo's status as Ring-bearer or Frodo's superior social status (Sam was Frodo's gardener, his servant); 4) fighting back against Shelob when she poisoned Frodo, so that she would not devour him now that Frodo was helpless to fight back himself; 5) take the One Ring himself with no other intent but to complete the mission that Frodo had started and seemingly could no longer finish; 6) without being caught, discover that Frodo was alive after all; 7) resist the temptation to keep and use the One Ring, instead rescuing Frodo (thereby demonstrating his own merciful love even without thought of the cost to himself, rather than abandoning the still-living Frodo even for the sake of the quest) and returning the Ring to the one who had first offered to take the Ring to Mordor; 8) carrying Frodo to Mount Doom when Frodo's burden became too heavy for Frodo to make it any further on his own; 9) finally, showing Gollum mercy himself when they were at Mount Doom, even when Gollum had already shown himself to be treacherous and murderous and desiring only to have the One Ring back.

This also explains why it was Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in particular who made most of the journey to Mount Doom, though it doesn't explain the other parts.

********

If you've been following my blog entries for this year, you might suspect that my use of the term "merciful love" came from Father Michael E. Gaitley's books.  And it is from another of his books, The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, that I was inspired to another conclusion about The Lord of the Rings.

In The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, Father Michael E. Gaitley argues that Pope Saint John Paul II was a martyr for the faith--more specifically, that the pope was martyred on May 13, 1981, the day he was shot and almost killed.  Indeed, the Holy Father's death was reported prematurely, and doctors could not explain how he survived.  What's more, Father Michael E. Gaitley said that, in anticipation of Pope John Paul II's death, his blood was collected as relics.

But Pope John Paul II survived, not dying until April 2, 2005, almost 24 years later--so how does he still count as a martyr?  Father Michael E. Gaitley notes that the doctors couldn't explain how he survived, and that Pope John Paul II believed he had been spared miraculously, for a divine purpose.  Also he took note of the date, May 13, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, who had prophesied that "the Holy Father will have much to suffer" without a consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.  And indeed, on March 25, 1984, Pope John Paul II (with all the bishops of the world) finally satisfied heaven in consecrating Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, confirmed by Sister Lucia Santos (the one surviving child seer at Fatima) and by the end of the Cold War exactly 7 years and 9 months later, on December 25, 1991.  Also, April 2, 2005, the day that Pope John Paul II actually died, was the First Saturday of the month, and First Saturdays are devoted to Mary.

In short, Father Michael E. Gaitley suggests that God intervened, through Mary (as Our Lady of Fatima), to save Pope John Paul II's life--that, without this miraculous intervention, Pope John Paul II would undoubtedly have died from the attempt on his life (and presumably have gone to heaven).  In other words, the Holy Father gave his life as a martyr for the faith, but God decided it wasn't time for him to die yet, because He wanted him to do this great deed (and not only this, since Pope John Paul II lived over 21 years after the consecration, and over 13 years after the Cold War ended).  It was only by April 2, 2005, that Pope John Paul II had done what God wanted him to do, and therefore it was only then that the Holy Father died and went to heaven.



What does this have to do with The Lord of the Rings?  I would argue that J. R. R. Tolkien's intent, whether he would have described it this way or not, is that Frodo Baggins was effectively a martyr as well.  In the 11th chapter, Frodo is stabbed by the Morgul blade of the Witch-king of Angmar, the leader of the Nazgul--and while he is healed by Elves in Rivendell, he is not healed completely.  His injury flares up every year on the anniversary of the day he was stabbed.  Moreover, the same thing happened on the anniversary of the day he was stung by Shelob and paralyzed.  Because of this, Frodo was unable to find rest in Middle-earth once his quest was completed, and only found peace by leaving Middle-earth for Aman in the last chapter (hence probably why it was the last chapter).

In other words, I suspect that J. R. R. Tolkien intended for Frodo Baggins to have suffered martyrdom, but to have been miraculously spared because his purpose was not yet accomplished.  Once it was, however (once the One Ring was destroyed), Frodo remained a martyr, if a living one, and so could not find peace afterward.  Aside from his injuries flaring up every year on the anniversaries of the days he received them, Frodo returned home to find the Shire taken over by Saruman and ruffians.  Only in the undying lands, the home of the Ainur and the rightful home of the Elves, could Frodo be completely healed of his wounds and find peace at last before he died.

In short, Frodo Baggins was effectively "not meant for" Middle-earth, as he received the One Ring on his 33rd birthday (for a Hobbit, his coming of age), in anticipation of his quest, and he did not die in Middle-earth, nor did Bilbo (and we're told that Sam would not either, though the epic ends before Sam follows them).

And because this is the final fate for Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam, it is not only a final peace for those who had been Ring-bearers but also a reward for their mercy, especially to Gollum.  It didn't save Gollum but it did save themselves.

But it was only Frodo who was martyred.  Bilbo and Sam both gave up the One Ring of their own free will, though it took a lot of effort (and presumably did not happen without help, though Sam wouldn't have been aware of his help).  Hence, perhaps, why J. R. R. Tolkien also called Sam the true heir to Bilbo as the latter is in The Hobbit.  Even in The Hobbit, Bilbo never suffers anything like Frodo's two wounds, but returns to the Shire in the end, presumably to live comfortably (because there is no indication as yet of The Lord of the Rings).  Therefore, unlike Frodo, Bilbo and Sam return from their respective adventures to live long and comfortable lives in the Shire, but in the end to go to Aman to be completely healed of the effects of the One Ring on them, before they die.



And in the end, perhaps this is why The Lord of the Rings begins and ends where it does.  At least, this is one reason, and the most obvious.  But there are hints to another reason.

In the third chapter, when Frodo, Sam, and Pippin encounter Gildor and the Elves leaving Middle-earth for Aman (foreshadowing the last of the Elves doing the same in the last chapter!), Gildor names Frodo "Elf-friend", which is a blessing.  Bilbo had already been so named by Thranduil, the Elvenking of Mirkwood (and Legolas's father), when he gave the Arkenstone to Bard and Thranduil in hopes of averting a war between Dwarves on the one hand, and Men and Elves on the other.

Also, Arwen asks that the grace given to her pass to Frodo--so that, in effect, with Arwen's decision to live a mortal life as Aragorn's queen, what might have been her place on the last boat to Aman was instead given to Frodo.  This even further indicates that Frodo is an Elf-friend, almost an adopted son to Elrond Half-Elven, Arwen's father, who bore one of the Three Rings and who (having chosen the immortal life of an Elf) did leave Middle-earth forever, just as Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam did.

And this points to the long-term reason for The Lord of the Rings to end where it does, which I'll get into next.

********

J. R. R. Tolkien started The Lord of the Rings as a sequel to his children's book The Hobbit, but in the end it became a conclusion to his Middle-earth legendarium which he began during World War I.  He originally desired co-publication as "one long saga of the Jewels and the Rings", the "Jewels" being the Silmarils that give The Silmarillion its title.

If the Silmarils are thought of as having a similar role to the Rings of Power, then Earendil must be the equivalent of Frodo: Earendil inherits a Silmaril from his wife Elwing, the granddaughter of Beren who cut it from Morgoth's crown, and it is Earendil's efforts that (however indirectly) lead to the defeat of Morgoth and the end of the First Age--and he is rewarded with becoming the morning star (from which light is contained in the phial of Galadriel, used by Sam against Shelob).

But J. R. R. Tolkien never wrote the story of Earendil in as much depth.  Rather, similarly to how The Lord of the Rings is both a sequel to The Hobbit and to the never-published story of the Fall of Numenor, Earendil's tale is a sequel to The Fall of Gondolin and to Beren and Luthien.  (He never finished either, and they were only published this year and last year, but he wrote more to each of these than to the story of Earendil himself.)  Of those, it is Beren and Luthien specifically that deals with the Silmaril, as well as the uniting of the races of Elves and Men (they were the ancestors of Aragorn and Arwen, as their granddaughter Elwing was the mother, and Earendil was the father, of Elrond and his brother Elros, the latter of whom was ancestor to Aragorn).



But why did J. R. R. Tolkien consider the two to be inseparable?  This gets into the other reason why The Lord of the Rings ends where it does.  Specifically, why were the Rings of Power forged at all?  And why were there more than just the One Ring?  Obviously Sauron desired the Rings of Power so that he could dominate their bearers with his One Ring, but he only forged the One Ring on his own: the rest were forged either in part or in their entirety by the Elf Celebrimbor.  But why?  Ah, therein lies the tie to the Silmarils.

When Melkor stole the Silmarils, explaining why he had them in his crown (and why he was renamed Morgoth) and took them from Aman to Middle-earth, Feanor (who forged the Silmarils) and his sons swore an oath that they would recover the Silmarils at all costs, and kill anyone who hindered them (against the will of the Valar).  This led them and the Noldor Elves to commit the First Kinslaying of the Teleri Elves, which brought upon them the Doom of Mandos.  And this doom was that they had earned the enmity of the Valar, shut out from their old home of Aman, and that they would not succeed in their quest.  In short, the Noldor Elves would fail, their efforts turning to ill, and they would not be able to return home.

But at the end of the First Age, Earendil, whose mother was a Noldor Elf, took one of the Silmarils back toward Aman and begged for mercy of the Valar at a time when Morgoth was taking over the entirety of Middle-earth.  And the Valar showed mercy and fought back, defeating Morgoth and sending him to the Void, and rewarding Earendil and his descendants.  They also offered forgiveness and pardon to the Noldor Elves, allowing them to be freed of the Doom of Mandos and to come home to Aman again--if they would repent.



But not all did.  Some Noldor Elves stubbornly refused to return (notably Celebrimbor, grandson of Feanor), and so they allowed themselves to remain under the influence of Morgoth's corruption of Middle-earth.  Even though Morgoth was in the Void and so was no longer able to exert active and deliberate influence, the effects of his corruption of Middle-earth remained.  Therefore, the stubbornness of the Noldor Elves who remained in Middle-earth doomed them to suffer the same fate as the land itself: diminishing, corrupting, fading away, before the world might be renewed in the future.

Rather than accept the choice of either this terrible fate or humbling themselves as the price to be freed from it and return home, Celebrimbor fell victim to the temptation of Sauron in the Second Age.  While Sauron had his own evil intent, Celebrimbor's intent with forging what would become the Seven Rings and the Nine Rings (with Sauron's help), and the Three Rings (without it), was to provide a third option, a way out of this choice that he and the other Noldor Elves remaining in Middle-earth considered unacceptable.  That is, the intent was to forge Rings of Power that would preserve the realms of Middle-earth ruled by their bearers, in an (ultimately vain) attempt to make Middle-earth enough like Aman to where they felt they could continue to live there comfortably instead of returning to Aman in humility, or suffering in Middle-earth.

But Sauron had deceived Celebrimbor: not only did the Ring-making craft he revealed include (without Celebrimbor's knowledge) the ability to be dominated by the One Ring, but it also included the fact that if the One Ring were ever destroyed, so would the power of all the others--in hopes that, therefore, there would be no incentive to even think of destroying the One Ring.

Therefore, once the One Ring was destroyed, the power of even the Three Rings, untouched by Sauron's evil, faded away, and the corruption due to Morgoth's actions of the First Age set in once again.  And this forced the remaining Noldor Elves to face the music: either they could humble themselves and return home to Aman, or they could stay in Middle-earth and suffer diminishment as Middle-earth became more and more corrupted over time.  (This does not apply to half-Elves who chose mortal lives, like Arwen.)  Once they have made this choice, the Fourth Age and the reign of Men can begin.

Hence the other reason The Lord of the Rings ends where it does, with the last of the Elf-boats leaving Middle-earth never to return, now that the Rings of Power are no more.  And hence why there are other elements of The Lord of the Rings besides the main storyline of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum and the quest to take the One Ring to Mordor and Mount Doom, determined that the Ring must be destroyed to save Middle-earth from Sauron's domination or that of another of similar power coveting the Ring (like Saruman).  Besides the aforementioned seeing of Gildor and his Elves leaving Middle-earth, these include seeing Rivendell and Lothlorien, both of which are as they are because of two of the Three Rings, on the way towards Mordor.  These also include the absence of Elves' direct collective participation in the War of the Ring (notwithstanding Legolas), and the fact that the only true "third way" is for half-Elves who choose the mortal life of Men (such as Arwen), and for Men distantly descended from Elves (such as Aragorn, and the Men of Gondor).  Middle-earth is for Men, not for Elves, just as Aman is for Elves, not for Men.

********

And what does this tale of the Jewels have to do with what I just said about interpreting The Lord of the Rings from a Catholic perspective?

First, the whole reason that Morgoth was able to steal the Silmarils in the first place is because Feanor, the Noldo Elf who forged them, refused to give them to the Vala Yavanna, so that she could restore the Two Trees that once gave light to Valinor (the originals having been destroyed by the giant Spider Ungoliant).  Once Morgoth had them, Feanor and the Noldor Elves did not have the ability to resist Morgoth's evil on their own, and so their quest to get the Silmarils back was doomed from the beginning--they were doomed either to be destroyed by Morgoth or to turn evil themselves, especially since they swore their oath and brought upon themselves the Doom of Mandos.  Only by repenting could they be redeemed of this and return home to Aman--but at first some stubbornly refused, making themselves vulnerable to the temptations of Sauron--and the effects of this were only undone with the destruction of the One Ring.

But there's another thread, that of the Half-Elves.  Where the Noldor Elves failed, Beren alone succeeded in taking one of the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown and not suffering the burning of his hands in the process.  Beren succeeded out of love for Luthien, the daughter of Thingol of Doriath.  As a result of his self-sacrificial love, Beren was allowed to marry Luthien, the first time a Man married an Elf maid, and their line continued to inherit the Silmaril until their granddaughter Elwing married Earendil (himself a Half-Elf)--though they also inherited the enmity of Feanor's sons as they determined to get the Silmaril back and to kill whoever had it (to say nothing of Morgoth!).

In the end, there were two lines of half-Elves: the descendants of Beren and Luthien, and the descendants of Tuor and Idril, and they united when the former couple's granddaughter Elwing married the latter couple's son Earendil and they had two sons named Elrond and Elros.  Thus the two lines became one.  In addition, thanks to the efforts of Earendil, his sons were rewarded with the choice of which fate to have: the immortal life of an Elf or the mortal life of a Man.  In the end, it was Elros alone who chose the mortal life of a Man, and was given the island of Numenor as his kingdom.  (And Aragorn and the Men of Gondor are descended from the Numenoreans.)



But Earendil, Elwing, and Elrond all chose the immortal lives of Elves, which meant that Middle-earth was not for them.  Indeed, Earendil would have chosen the mortal life of a Man (and so presumably would have stayed in Middle-earth or possibly Numenor, where his son Elros was the first king), but for the fact that his wife Elwing chose the immortal life of an Elf, and he didn't want to be parted from her.  So, again out of love, he instead chose the immortal life of an Elf, and therefore chose to renounce Middle-earth and Numenor as possible homes for himself despite probably desiring them.  Indeed, before thus choosing, Earendil was the first mortal to set foot in Valinor, no small thing!  Therefore it was a sign of his humility and desire for mercy that prompted the Valar to allow him there at all, never mind acting on his request and defeating Morgoth, as well as offering mercy to the Noldor Elves who would repent.

Only Elrond, of those who had chosen the immortal life of an Elf, stayed in Middle-earth, where he would eventually become a bearer of one of the Three Rings, until he left for Aman at the end of The Lord of the Rings.  But the same choice of fate was granted to his children, and his daughter Arwen, out of love for the mortal Man Aragorn, chose a mortal life, becoming his queen--and so the grace given to her as a child of the Elves was passed on to Frodo, who accompanied Elrond in leaving Middle-earth for good.

Even before the end, it was Elrond who declared that the One Ring must be destroyed (refusing to touch it himself), knowing full well that this would mean the power of his own Ring would die, and that (having already chosen the immortal life of an Elf) he would have to make his choice--and he made the right choice, repenting and leaving for Aman, even though that also meant being parted from his children who stayed behind.  So Elrond made a heavy sacrifice in the end and was rewarded for it.

Indeed, The Fellowship of the Ring has all three bearers of the Three Rings (Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel) come into close proximity with the One Ring, and so being tempted to take it--and they all refuse, as is right.  Aside from the fact that the One Ring is evil and needs to be destroyed, all three of them have too much power, and could easily become as terrible as Sauron if they claimed the One Ring for their own.

Indeed, Saruman presents a contrast with Gandalf in this regard.  But, perhaps tellingly, there is no comparable wicked Elf who covets the One Ring as Saruman does, even though Elrond and Galadriel both have the most reason to do so (and Galadriel comes closest), and Legolas is the Elf who is in the closest proximity to the One Ring for the longest time, as part of the Fellowship of the Ring.  Perhaps this fact, then, shows the redemption of the Elves collectively, and therefore The Lord of the Rings ends with them going to their reward.  And perhaps, then, one reason for the existence of Saruman as a secondary villain to Sauron is to demonstrate the absence of a comparable character who is an Elf (someone comparable to Feanor and his sons with the Silmarils--I suppose the most likely would have been a hypothetical descendant of Celebrimbor who forged the Rings of Power other than the One Ring).

Granted, someone in the 1950's who wasn't familiar with Middle-earth wouldn't have reason to regard this as an omission, but aside from showing Elrond and Galadriel in Book II, this might have been part of the reason the Ring-rhyme begins "Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky...."



In short, the mercy rejected by Feanor and his sons is granted to the Half-Elves and their ancestors Beren, Luthien, Tuor, and Idril.  In particular, Idril is a Noldo Elf, like Feanor and his sons.

This isn't an exact analogue to the mercy rejected by Gollum being granted to the Hobbits Bilbo, Samwise, and especially Frodo.  Most obviously, the tale of the Silmarils doesn't end with the First Age.  The point, ultimately, is for the Silmarils to be returned to Yavanna so she can use their light to restore the Two Trees of Aman--but that is in the future from the perspective of the characters in The Lord of the Rings.  At the end of the First Age, the three Silmarils are in three of the elements: one in the fiery pit, one in the sea, and one in the sky as the Evening Star (the Star of Earendil).

Nevertheless, since the Noldor Elves brought the Doom of Mandos upon them by the Kinslaying (and Smeagol killed Deagol to possess the One Ring, Smeagol who would become Gollum as a result), my guess is that the Half-Elves and their Elvish ancestors Luthien and Idril did not participate in any kinslaying.  And Feanor and his sons would count, especially in Idril's case, so that refusing to kill them would mean constantly being targeted by them, just as with Morgoth whom they could not possibly kill anyway even though he doesn't deserve mercy at all.

And indeed, the fate of one of Feanor's sons, Maedhros, seems to foreshadow that of Gollum: because of his unworthiness, the Silmaril burned his hand and he cast it and himself into a fiery chasm.

********

One more thing:

Before Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the last Harry Potter book by J. K. Rowling, was published in 2007, Orson Scott Card wrote an essay called "Who is Snape?"  He wrote this by way of attempting to solve the mystery of what side Severus Snape was on and what he thought he was doing when he killed Albus Dumbledore--by analyzing what he knew of Snape from the first six books and what he would have done as a writer himself given that.

But for the purposes of this blog entry, in his essay Card said that Severus Snape is as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings: "the center of moral ambiguity, the character who, seeming evil, might also serve the good."  In other words, he is "not the character we are rooting for, but he may be the character whose moral struggle means the most to us in the end."



If Gollum is such a character, as certainly he seems to be--a "wild card" in a world of good and evil--then it seems that Feanor and his sons were similar characters in The Silmarillion, given their obvious parallel.  They do not want either the Valar or Morgoth or anyone else but themselves to have the Silmarils.  They are not evil in the sense of supporting Morgoth (quite the opposite!), but they are evil in the sense of opposing the Valar--just as Gollum is not evil inasmuch as he doesn't want Sauron to have the One Ring back, but he is evil in the sense of having allowed himself to desire the One Ring for himself so passionately.

This might explain why J. R. R. Tolkien had it be Feanor who made the Silmarils in the first place.  Although he made them and he is not the irredeemably evil Dark Lord, they were made with light from the Two Trees, and it is there that the light rightly belongs.  Therefore the right thing to do, once the Two Trees were destroyed, was to give the Silmarils to Yavanna so that she could use their light to restore the Two Trees.  Feanor didn't do this, and that allowed Melkor (whom Feanor renamed "Morgoth" as a result) to steal them.  Hence probably why this story is called The Silmarillion.

That being the case, then, if it wasn't Gollum (if The Lord of the Rings hadn't started as a sequel to The Hobbit, for which J. R. R. Tolkien invented the character of Gollum in the first place), perhaps a comparable character would have been an Elf, possibly a son of Celebrimbor who forged the Rings of Power other than the One Ring (and therefore a great-grandson of Feanor).  That, too, would have provided a contrast with Saruman, who (though shown mercy multiple times) never showed any sign of possible redemption, where Gollum at least came close.

Then again, an Elf would have been more powerful than Gollum, and probably better able to dominate Frodo and Sam, so perhaps that wouldn't have worked as well anyway.  Indeed, it wasn't until The Lord of the Rings that J. R. R. Tolkien even decided what Gollum originally was: a Hobbit.

********

Finally, I'm partly saying this to indicate what J. R. R. Tolkien meant for his readers to take from his story, and partly to get it into words so that I can take inspiration for my own story.  Please pray for me in that regard.



Thank you for being with me.  God bless you.

Woe to you, hypocrites!

More and more, with what's going on both in the human element of the Church and in the United States government, I'm feeling that we're reaching a turning point in history--past the point of no return--and we're all going to be called to participate.



The people whom Jesus most rebuked in the Gospels were the scribes and Pharisees--not because they were scribes and Pharisees, as if it were bad to be so, but because they were hypocrites.  Hypocrisy is always one of the worst evils, but it's all the worse when it comes from someone who ought to be held to a higher standard, someone who knows the moral Law and is charged with teaching it to others and helping them to follow it--like the scribes and Pharisees.

The clergy of the Catholic Church are the people whom God holds to the highest standard of all: the men called to shepherd us, His sheep.  If they are untrustworthy, how will the laity be able to trust God, who is trust itself?  If they do not repent of this and act on that repentance, how can God do otherwise than to act directly to stop them?



And sexual abuse is a sin that cries out to God for justice, meaning that if man doesn't let God act through him (if man doesn't enact God's justice for the victims), God will do it Himself, and He will not spare those who ought to have let Him work through them.

Just today I read something shocking--to me, because (thank God) I have never been sodomized, neither by my will nor against my will.  I read that sodomy (anal sex) is not only painful, but that it causes bleeding, and involuntary bowel movements requiring adult diapers.  I call that sex abuse, equally so whether the victim wanted it or not, whether the victim is a man or a woman, and irrespective of the victim's age.

The only reason we still (rightly) get morally outraged at pedophilia (so that it takes no courage at all to speak in outrage against it) is because Jesus Christ and His Church taught that it was evil.  It was practiced by pagan Gentiles who thought nothing of it.

And it's precisely because we look to whether the victim "wanted it", rather than to whether God wanted it, that abusers try to deny being abusers at all (both to the world and to themselves) by trying to convince themselves that the victim did want it, and that "therefore" it wasn't abuse at all.  This is a lie: a willing victim is still a victim.

But for clergy, especially high-ranking clergy like former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, to be guilty of such is multiply heinous.



Worse still is when those in the know, especially high-ranking clergy who are themselves innocent of such abuse, cover it up by their actions or even by their inactions.  This is cooperation with evil: even if the individual is a completely celibate virgin, he is as guilty of the abuse as if he had committed it himself.

And I would argue that it's even worse to participate in the coverup by attacking the victims, as by accusing them of "calumny".  To be sure, it is a serious charge to accuse someone of such a heinous crime, or a coverup of such--and to be sure, the Devil hates the Church and probably inspires many people to do just that, especially against the most visible and highest-ranking members of the clergy.  Nevertheless, if there is any legitimate possibility (as by two or more people making the same serious charge specifically against the same person), at minimum an investigation is warranted.  And we need to be charitable to everyone involved: both the victims and the clergy.  The desire should be to learn the truth, for God is Truth, and to enact justice for all in merciful love, for God is Love and is always just.

And if the accusation is against high-ranking clergy, such as the Pope or the College of Cardinals, then an investigation is all the more warranted if there is any significant chance of its being true, however slight that chance may be.  If they are innocent, they should welcome an investigation because it will only prove them innocent.



Granted, we must be as charitable as we can be, consistent with the facts as we know them--and matters affecting the whole Church are facts we need to know, and we cannot willfully turn a blind eye to them.  And we don't know what's in a person's heart at all, and all that can be judged is what the person thought, said, and did based on the evidence, and whether these are good or evil.  One need not be knowingly and deliberately malicious to be an unwitting pawn of the Devil.  And even in the case of those poor souls who have knowingly and deliberately given themselves over to the darkness while posing as shepherds of Light, we must love them enough to care what happens to their immortal souls.  A godly rebuke is done out of love, as Our Lord did when He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees.

But for those who genuinely are wolves in shepherd's clothing, Our Lord said it would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with millstones tied around their necks than for them to do what they are doing.  If children or childlike adults cannot trust even the highest-ranking members of the Catholic Church, how can they find it easy to trust God Himself, especially since we are all conceived in original sin and so we all fear and distrust God to some degree anyway?  And this is why God will intervene if this goes on long enough without anything being done about it--make no mistake.



And to divert attention away from this to "climate change" fearmongering is distrusting God's promise to Noah (and so by extension distrusting the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ, which fulfills all previous covenants), acting out of step with the Third Commandment to keep the Sabbath (a grave sin), and deflecting attention from a matter that falls under the clergy's jurisdiction to a matter that does not.



I didn't mean to write so much myself, so I'll leave the last word for Our Lord:



"'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.'"  (Matthew 23:13-15)

"'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.  You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!'"  (Matthew 23:23-24)

Saint Elizabeth's Blessing

"'And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.'"  (Luke 1:45)



When I was going through my private retreat in preparation for my consecration to Merciful Love, this was one passage that I tried to keep in my heart.  It is Saint Elizabeth's blessing, at the Visitation, to Mary.  Mary believed that what Saint Gabriel the Archangel said to her, from the Lord, would be fulfilled--even as impossible as it sounded (a virgin giving birth?).  And that is why she is blessed.

One of the first lessons I learned through reading Father Michael E. Gaitley's books is that all sin is derived ultimately from fear and distrust of God--even though God is the source of trust itself and isn't capable of being untrustworthy or of wanting to be.



In thinking about this, I have now begun to think about the various promises that God has made to man throughout history--in particular, His covenantal promises, and more specifically those that are unconditional.

The first recorded covenant in the Bible is that made with Noah and his family after the Flood.  "'I establish My covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.'"  (Genesis 9:11)  Blessed are we who believe that the world will not flood and destroy all life on earth again.

Next is the covenant made with Abram (later to be renamed Abraham): "And He brought him outside and said, 'Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.'  Then He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.'"  (Genesis 15:5)  Blessed are we who believe that the descendants of Abraham (both by blood and especially by faith) will not be snuffed out.

Next is the covenant made through Moses, the permanent part of which is the Ten Commandments.  Blessed are we who believe that God will not abandon us, will not cease to be our God.  Blessed are we who believe that God shows "'...mercy to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments.'"  (Exodus 20:6)

Then is the covenant made with King David of Israel.  "'"And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before Me; your throne shall be established for ever."'" (2 Samuel 7:16)  Blessed are we who believe that the House of David reigns over Israel forever, and will never lose authority nor be snuffed out.



Finally there is the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ.  "'...for this is My Blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"  (Matthew 26:28)  Blessed are we who believe that Christ's Blood, shed on the Cross and drunk in Holy Communion at Mass, forgives the sins of many.



Blessed are we who believe especially when it seems least possible.



In this day and age there is "climate change" fearmongering, which sows seeds of doubt in our minds as to God's promise never to flood the world and destroy all life on earth again.  It sows seeds of fear that our efforts might raise the global temperature, melt the polar ice caps, raise the ocean levels, and flood the land--and it sows the desire not only to prevent this at all costs, as though it were a possibility, but to have a "contingency plan" in case it does happen (like colonizing outer space).    And the sign of this covenant, the rainbow, has become co-opted by the LGBTQ+ movement, a movement promoting dangers to our immortal souls.

Blessed are we who do not fear this but trust God's promise.  We must respect the Lord's creation because He created it and we did not, but He created it for us, and it is not within our power to bring about a flood He promised would never happen again.



In this day and age there is fearmongering of the potential for human extinction, which especially got underway with the arrival of the atomic age after World War II.  Even before that, there was what's called the Holocaust, which has unjustly been raised to the level of a religious dogma since the Allied victory in World War II--rooted in attempted genocide.

Blessed are we who do not fear this but trust God's promise.  We must respect all children of Abraham, by blood and by faith, and even to take a single human life (even a non-child of Abraham) is a sin that cries out to God for justice--but it is not within our power to extinguish all children of Abraham, either Jews or Christians, and we need not fear such a thing being possible.



In this day and age the West is no longer rooted in God's Covenant, so that the Ten Commandments are removed from public places.  Again, fear and distrust of God leads to doubt being sowed that God shows mercy to those who love Him and keep His Commandments.  Instead, we get a distorted view of an "Old Testament God" (as if it were God and not our relationship to Him that had changed) who calls down fire and brimstone at the slightest provocation--a God who, if He existed, would make life a constant nightmare, thereby creating the temptation to believe that God doesn't exist at all (or at least doesn't care about us--and maybe doesn't even know about us).

Blessed are we who do not fear this but trust God's promise.  We do not have license to do whatever we want, but God gives us His Commandments for our sake--even less than we do, God doesn't want us to suffer punishment for our sins.



In this day and age we are taught to give unequivocal support of the State of Israel, a republic that recognizes no king, certainly not Jesus Christ the Son of David.  We are even taught that to do less is to be "anti-Semitic".

Blessed are we who do not fear this but trust God's promise.  Israel is the first chosen nation of God, and God will never abandon her--and we must bless and not curse God's chosen people--but for her own sake Israel must accept her true King and God, and to support Israeli rejection of Him is as anti-Semitic as it gets, and worse than anti-Semitic.



In this day and age we are taught that there are sins too great to be forgiven (and that these are few), and that other sins aren't sins at all but are merely called so by phobic people (and these are many).  We are taught that the bread and wine at Mass do not become the Body and Blood of Christ but only that Catholics believe this.  We are taught to question whether God exists, or even whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical Person, irrespective of whether He is the Son of God or not.  We are taught that it is within our own power to prevent and undo sin, and therefore that if we fail, we are entirely to blame--or else the sin isn't sin at all.  We are also taught that it is within our own power to achieve immortality--and therefore to escape the wages of sin that is death.

Blessed are we who do not fear this but trust God's promise.  There are sins deserving of the worst possible punishment, and even the least of sins keeps us out of God's loving embrace--but He mercifully keeps us alive that we might repent and return to Him before it's too late.



Blessed are we who believe that there will be a fulfillment of what is spoken to us from the Lord.



Thank you for being with me.  God bless you.

Trilemma

I intend to make this a short blog entry: brief and to the point.



When I was in my spiritual journey en route back to the Catholic Church, I happened upon what is called C. S. Lewis's "trilemma" (he didn't invent it but it's become associated with him).  The intent was to point out that Jesus specifically rejected the possibility that, as so many think, He was a good but merely human teacher.  Someone who claims to be God, either directly or indirectly (as by not denying it and rebuking the one who said He was), either is God (and is therefore NOT a merely human teacher!) or else is not God (and is therefore NOT a good teacher!).

More specifically, if a man claims falsely to be God, either he knows he isn't God (and so is lying and invoking God's Name in the lie), or else he doesn't know it but imagines falsely that he is God (and so is insane).

Therefore the trilemma is this: given that Jesus claimed to be God (or at least refused to deny it or rebuke those who said He was), there are only three possibilities as to His identity.  Those three possibilities are as follows:



Lunatic (if He is not God but falsely imagines that He is)

Liar (if He is not God and knows it but claims to be so anyway)

Lord (if He is God)



The Catholic Church teaches that she, the Church, is the Mystical Body of Christ.  That being the case, therefore, if we are truly Christian, true followers of Jesus Christ, then we too will specifically reject any other possibility, not only for Our Lord but for ourselves.  Just as there is no possibility that Jesus was a "good but merely human teacher", there is no possibility that the Catholic Church is a "good but human-founded and human-run organization"--as in, one among many, more or less equally valid.

If we are true followers of Jesus Christ, then the world will only be capable of seeing us in one of the following ways:



Lunatics (not being in full communion with the Creator but falsely imagining that we are)

Liars (knowing full well that we are not in communion with the Creator but claiming we are anyway)

Servants of the Lord (actually being in full communion with the Creator)



And it isn't necessarily easy, either.  We might fool ourselves into thinking that we believe what the Catholic Church teaches and practice it to the best of our ability, but what if we are put to the test?  What if someone who rejects the idea that we are the Mystical Body of Christ were to say something like "Come on, you don't really believe that, do you?"  (This very non-argument has been used by real people.)

It's a non-argument because it doesn't even address the teaching of the faith.  Rather, it presumes before the fact (the definition of "prejudice") that the teaching is so absurd that a sane person would never "really" believe it.  Consequently it is accusing the Christian of merely pretending to believe it, akin to those who pretended they could see the Emperor's New Clothes.

By definition this is a weak approach.  It's a weak approach, but it's used anyway because it can easily ensnare those with weak faith.  It's good for us to know what the Church does and does not teach, and to a degree even to know why, so that we can be confident in our faith and be good apologists.  But at some point, knowledge must give way to faith.  At some point we must be willing to say "I don't know why the Church teaches this, but I believe it's true and I mean to act on that belief."  If we aren't, we succumb to peer pressure, and that means that our faith is weak.

But the point is this: this weak approach calls out those who are in fact lying to themselves, who in fact "don't really believe that" at all, but are pretending to for some purpose of their own.  It may not be an intentionally malicious purpose, but it is still lying to the self and others--and God Himself.  Therefore I suspect that, while these people don't intend such a thing, God is using them to weed out those with weak faith.



How many people would become believers if I said, "Come on, you don't really believe that the universe came into existence without the action and conscious will of a Creator, do you?"  Probably not many--and I would question the strength of the faith of those who seemed to be convinced of God's existence by my saying that.  Our Lord Himself didn't preach that way.

We are called to LOVE: there is no true faith, no true belief, without love.  What love is there in saying "Come on, you don't really believe that, do you?"  Even if you're right, saying that is presuming not only that your belief is true, but that it is obviously true--that only the insane could believe otherwise.

What does this really mean?  First, it denies revelation having a part in one's beliefs: if something is obviously true, so that only a lunatic could believe otherwise, then by definition we don't need to have it revealed to us--and the Church teaches not only that God has revealed things to us but that they were things we could NOT have come to on our own.

Second, it is arrogant, refusing to consider the possibility that there could be anything wrong with one's own beliefs, and that someone who disagrees might have a point and might be worth listening to.  It presumes that one knows all that one needs to know, which goes against what the Church teaches.

Third, it is making a serious judgment call against the other person, basically accusing that person of lying--and worse, lying about God.  Not only might this not be the case, but even if it is, how can we see clearly to remove the speck from the other's eye if we have a log in our own eye?

Fourth, substitute something else and see if there is anything Christlike about that rhetorical question: "Come on, you don't really think anyone will believe you were sexually molested by a priest, do you?"  The question "Who's going to believe you?" comes from the Devil, and we faithful in the Church must never let ourselves be deceived either into doubting that we will be believed (and so doubting the point of speaking up), nor into using this against other people.



Ultimately, though, my point is this: if we are true believers, then those who refuse to accept that the Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, will find themselves in a dilemma about how to interpret our sayings and our behavior.  They will be inclined to believe one of the following things about us:

1) We are liars, but unbelievably good liars, so that we don't give any sign whatsoever of our lie;

or

2) We are insane, honestly believing things that aren't capable of being true and that "anyone" ought to know aren't capable of being true--and yet showing no other signs of mental illness.



It should go without saying that we must not actually be either of these things, not if we are true believers of Jesus Christ.  God is Truth itself, and so we do not follow Him if we lie (the Devil is the Father of Lies).  And God's ways are not our ways: we are finite, and we are fallen, and so to follow Him might seem like madness (how can salvation come from being nailed to a Cross?), but that's because of our perspective, not because it objectively is madness.  God knows what we do not, and He wills only good, unlike us.

How can sugar, which tastes so good, be bad for us and cause a disease like diabetes?  And if it can, how do we KNOW if we don't try it out for ourselves?

We cannot get by without trust, without faith--and there is no true faith without love.



I say this so that we can examine ourselves and see which category we fall into, so that we can do something about it if we are not being faithful--and also so that we can know others by their fruits, and recognize false Christians and expose and avoid them.

And again, being faithful doesn't mean we will never sin--only by God's grace can we avoid sinning--but that we genuinely sorrow for our sins and want to be liberated from sin, not only or even primarily for our sake (though certainly for that reason!), but simply because it breaks Our Lord's Heart to see us want to hurt ourselves, and we love Him too much to do that to Him.



Thank you for being with me.  God bless you all.

Mercury

I've mentioned Catholic astrology on this blog before.  I don't want to talk too much about a subject that I know so little about, as I don't know of anyone personally whom I can trust to be devout Catholics and root any kind of astrology in God and the Catholic doctrine, rather than inverting this and trying to predict the future in violation of the First Commandment while still claiming to be Catholic or otherwise Christian (I still recoil when I look into most things labeled as "astrological", and I don't get on astrology websites at all, for example).  And I certainly don't want to lead anyone astray.

In particular, I don't know if it is appropriate to venerate the planets as we would angels or saints.  I don't mean the celestial bodies--that would NOT be appropriate--but traditionally, saints such as Thomas Aquinas have believed that their movement is due to heavenly spirits (the same species as angels, although the word "angel" technically only applies to the lowest ranks who communicate with us), spirits associated with the bodies of the planets, but not as inextricably as our souls are with our own bodies.  And if this were true, I would think it would be appropriate to venerate these Intelligences.  (The word "venerate" relates to the word "Venus".)  But without clear word either way from the Church, I'm not comfortable specifically venerating them, as in asking them to pray for me or intercede on my behalf (or others), or in telling other people to do so.  Still, I'm so uncertain that, at least for now, I prefer to take a similar position to that of private revelations: we aren't required to believe in them or act on them, but if the Church has approved them, we must not contemn those who do even if we choose not to ourselves.  (Then again, I don't know of people who would believe in this or act on it who are NOT breaking the First Commandment.)

Nevertheless, I'm coming to notice a recurring theme throughout my life, that (if the pattern I seem to detect is indeed legit) both suggests some truth to the influence of the planets, and also puts the lie to astrology being so certain that people might try to predict the future based on horoscopes and such.  Therefore, I think it might be a good idea for me to mention it here, at least to throw it out there.



I'm a Capricorn, and so my ruling planet is Saturn--and I have definitely noticed some degree of saturnine elements in my life: I recall reading some stories I'd written in 2005, as a young man, and realizing that I must have suffered from depression at that time; also, when I was trying to predict the future myself from 2012-2016, I kept looking at my neighborhood and world as if I were Sarah Connor from Terminator 2: Judgment Day, as if it were all gone already.

But if I'm being honest with myself, I think I'm noticing more of a mercurial influence in my life (hence the title of this blog entry).  I didn't recognize it as specifically "mercurial" before I came back to the Church, or even at all before this year (and maybe that's a good thing), but I now feel that I can put a label on it.



Before I go any further, I want to get a few things clear:

1) Even if there is anything to planetary influence on our lives, there need not be hard and fast boundaries, and that's doubly so where Mercury is concerned (Mercury is mutable and therefore has fuzzy boundaries)--so just because you see something in your life associated with one planet doesn't preclude the same for others, nor does it mean that's the dominant influence in your life.

2) Nevertheless, Mercury is so far removed from Saturn, and I feel so strongly a mercurial influence in my life, that I think it puts the lie to the idea of astrology being 100% reliable.  I wasn't born with any astrological sign ruled by Mercury (such as Gemini), so my birthday cannot explain this apparent mercurial influence in my life.  And so if I'm correct in mercurial influence dominating my life, that alone should suggest that astrology is NOT so reliable as to have it be practical to try to know the future thereby (which is a grave sin against the First Commandment).

3) While I have Asperger's Syndrome, and this makes it easier for me to miss the forest for the trees compared to ordinary people, I don't think that alone accounts for what I call a mercurial influence.  I can only speak for myself, not for everyone with Asperger's Syndrome, but I don't think this condition alone is mercurial.  (In fact, while I won't get into it in this blog entry, if anything I wondered if it was due more to influence from Luna, the moon.)



Ever since I read the book Peter Pan for the first time in 2003 (after seeing the P. J. Hogan film), I've considered it to be my favorite story ever, the one with which I could most identify and the one I most loved, reading it over and over until I practically had it memorized (not something I usually do with novels, let me tell you).  I identified specifically with Peter Pan, especially when he was looking through the window at the one joy from which he must be forever barred (seeing the happy reunited Darling family, now including the adopted Lost Boys), and when he discovered that Wendy had grown up without him, leaving him behind in childhood, and he cried.

Nevertheless, I wondered (and was unnerved) by the fact of people associating "Peter Pan" (not the character as such, but adults identifying with him) with pedophilia, or even with sex of any kind.  Peter Pan is sexless: he doesn't even know of (or want) any male-female relationship other than mother and son, and he is himself prepubescent and so his body is not sexualized.  Still, it was such a recurring theme that I wondered why it existed, and I didn't want it to exist.



Now I think that what it was is mercurial influence.  Mythologically, Mercury is the winged messenger, associated both with speed and with communication--and the latter means not only language but also being an intermediary between two people (one to give the message to the messenger, and one to receive it from the messenger), hence Mercury ruling the constellation of Gemini, the Twins.  He is also, uniquely among the gods, depicted as beardless, suggesting youth (like Peter Pan).  In addition, Hermes (the Greek equivalent of Mercury) is the father of Pan, the nature deity who is half-man and half-goat, and for whom Peter Pan was named.

What got me to thinking specifically about Mercury was reading The Narnia Code by Michael Ward, specifically the chapter about the Narnia book called The Horse and His Boy.  In particular, what caught my attention was the fact that, when the boy Shasta asks the Voice (later revealed to be Aslan) "Who are you?", he answers "Myself" three times, but each time his voice sounds different, revealing a different property of himself.  Michael Ward says that this is the most Trinitarian part of the entire Narniad, and he's right--and it's in the mercurial Narnia book.  He explains the relationship with Mercury with regard to "Hermes Trismegistus", the founder of hermeticism--which brings me to another caveat.



In the Middle Ages, the Church held that anything above the orbit of the moon was perfect, unsullied by Adam's original sin, and so reflecting God without corruption, the only imperfection being by virtue of the planets being created, and therefore finite (each having a different realm of influence).  By that reckoning, in and of itself, the influence of Mercury or any other planet (possibly excepting the moon) could only be good--but because of our fallen nature, we are vulnerable to putting such influence to evil purposes.  (This is especially so for Mars, and even more so for Saturn.)  Therefore, there are mercurial matters that are good, and those that are evil (but the evil comes from us, not from Mercury himself).



On the good side, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Word.  We only speak truly when we root ourselves in Him, otherwise our talking might as well be the braying of donkeys.  God is Truth itself.  Therefore there is holy silence (hence vows of silence), and there are short prayers, brief and to the point, contrasted with lengthy pagan prayers that rely on human efforts to get on the good side of the gods.  And when messages are important, speed is a good thing (the Internet itself is a speedy way to broadcast information to a large audience).  In addition, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and so I see Mercury reflecting Him as well, going between the two and uniting them--and the Holy Spirit is the Love of God, the Gift.

And of course, Saint Gabriel the Archangel (the patron of my church parish, and therefore one of my patrons) is the patron of messengers.  Not only does the word "angel" mean "messenger", but Gabriel is the one who made the Annunciation to Mary that she would bear the Christ Child.

Mercurial people include teachers, logicians, clerks, interpreters, translators, ambassadors, representatives, lawyers, judges, actors and other performing entertainers.  Mercury is also associated with money and business: such words as "merchandise", "commerce", etc. are etymologically related to "Mercury".



But we fallen human beings can corrupt Mercury's influence too.  Corruptions of mercurial influence include trickery, lying, cheating, stealing, ambition, envy, sorcery, alchemy, esotericism, sexual deviance, treachery, immaturity, necromancy, blackmail, gossip, slander, cowardice, kidnapping, etc.  Hence we see things like this in the pagan myths about Mercury or Hermes.  And this is also where "hermeticism" comes in.

If you were to boil down the word "mercurial" to one word, I would probably suggest "between".  On the one hand, that is the only way there can be trust and love, and therefore society on earth and salvation when this life is over.  But on the other hand, if we don't root ourselves in God, we corrupt such influence by attempting to find nonexistent categories "between" the ones established by God.  Hence, for example, sorcery and alchemy (the attempt to change one thing into another), and sexual deviance (belief that the male and female sexes aren't mutually exclusive but opposite ends of a spectrum, and that people aren't fixed to one place on that spectrum--which also divorces our sexual appetites from conceiving children) as well as denial of growth and age.

It also leads to using speed and language for evil purposes: evil purposes of speed include running away in cowardice and abandoning others to their fate; running away with something one has stolen, to avoid getting caught; being impatient and refusing to wait for things we need to; never taking the time to slow down and be quiet, and listen to God and talk to Him in prayer.  And evil purposes of language include lying and manipulating people into doing what we want; harming others' reputations; and especially lying under oath and so betraying trust--and even simply talking and talking and saying nothing.

And one of the worst corruptions of mercurial influence is just plain being untrustworthy, both in word and in action--being unreliable and an unpredictable liar, and being treacherous, a betrayer.  Trickster figures in stories are mercurial.  (I need not mention that Pan, half-goat and half-man, also closely resembles much traditional Christian imagery of the Devil.)

And this accounts for the sexual component associated with "Peter Pan" in our culture.  Our animal appetites (such as our sexual appetites) will not be denied even if we try to manufacture a false world to live in, to replace the real world--and if we don't root ourselves in Christ and so be chaste about our sexuality, look what happens.



Given this, not only must I root myself in the Lord in order to put any mercurial influence upon me to good use instead of evil use, but this suggests that the right occupation for me might be mercurial as well.

I've been initiated into the Secular Franciscan Order, and it seems to me that the Franciscan charism is mercurial as well: Saint Francis of Assisi said only to use words to preach the Gospel when necessary, but mostly to preach the Gospel by our actions.  And he focused on creation in its entirety, hence his association with animals and nature.

In addition, I have taken a LONG time in trying to figure out the right job for me with regard to steady work and income.  Even when I thought I'd found it, I would tire of "it" after awhile and move on to something else.  The only things that have stayed with me are mercurial: communication, logic, story and art, performance, change, etc.  A big part of the reason I am still not working full time is because I sought to find a "day job" because I recognized the impracticality of living off the salary of artistic and creative endeavors, and because I recognized that I was uncomfortable being in a leadership position (someone mercurial would want someone above and below him, not just one or the other).

But aside from some of the jobs that I mentioned above being mercurial, perhaps the most mercurial thing I can do is to work freelance, not tying myself down to one boss or company alone, but hiring out my services to whoever needs them and wants to hire me.  It might even be a good idea for me to have a job that requires me to travel.



That doesn't mean that I now have a plan, though.  Not only do I need to root myself in praying to Christ, but I need to be open to anything He sends my way, whether I want it or not, whether I even expect it or not.  And so I can't have any one rigid plan anyway: any plan I make would have to be flexible.

But at least I think I've zeroed in on what makes me tick, and so I have something to focus on in that regard.  Again, ultimately, being mercurial is being "between", which suggests travel, communication, and commerce.  Plus, if I were to make a living with art and creativity, I would have to sell what I produced (unless it was a performance--but even then I could record my performances and sell the recordings), and that means I would have to be some kind of salesman--there's commerce.  And performing is mercurial as well: being "between" means being able to play different roles, like an actor or a mime; plus there are stage magicians and ventriloquists; also, I think that "fools" (clowns, jesters) can be thought of as perpetual "children" in a similar way to kings and queens being fathers and mothers.

And again, hiring myself out freelance is the most mercurial work of all.



Pray for me, though, because I still need to reconcile this in my heart.

Thank you for being with me.  God bless you.

The Church Militant

It's been a few months since I've written a blog entry here, but it was always my intent to continue with my blog, which I dedicate to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Merciful Love of God.



Right now we are going through a greater time in history than I have ever known in my life.  It doesn't appear that way, not even to me, but would the disciples of Christ have seen it as "Good Friday" while it was happening--while their Master was arrested, tried, convicted, tortured, sentenced, crucified, and buried?



It doesn't appear to be a good time--it appears just the opposite, in fact--because we are discovering, little by little, solid proof that even at the highest levels those in temporal power cannot be trusted to be acting according to God's will, or in our best interests.

This is true, for example, of the United States of America, with the #MeToo movement demonstrating the true magnitude of the level of sexual abuse that has been going on for decades and still goes on today.  It is true of both major political parties and members of both, including President Donald Trump.  I've been following a blog called "Five Pilgrims" which, while not Catholic, does take Christ's Gospel very seriously, and in 2016 a blog entry said that if it were true that then-candidate Donald Trump had truly repented, the best thing for his immortal soul would have been for him to withdraw from the election--even going so far as to say that to vote for him was the equivalent of throwing a baby to the wolves to save your own hide.  And it's clear that he hasn't, given that he has said he didn't think he had done anything (or not much) that needed forgiving.  A man who says this is not a man of God.  This makes me all the more glad that I didn't vote for him, though I could never in good conscience have voted for Hillary Clinton either.  And given this, I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea for President Trump to resign.  While I refuse to give up hope that he might truly repent, given this magnitude a true repentance might require resignation.  (It doesn't help that may Evangelicals, who rightly condemned similar evils by Bill Clinton in the 1990's, are being hypocritical in refusing to do the same for President Donald Trump now.)

This is also true, and worse, of the human element of the Church, with the #CatholicMeToo movement demonstrating the true magnitude of sexual abuse that I never fully appreciated until now. And Pope Francis's recent silence on the accusations that he was aware of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's sins and did nothing to expose them or punish the man, especially given his papacy before now, does not bode well for him.  Jesus said "Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no; anything more is from the Evil One."  If Pope Francis is innocent, why not simply say so?  Granted, he is right to tell the journalists to do their job (though I wonder how many will), but in practice silence is often seen as consent--and Pope Francis has talked of transparency in his papacy before, so why stop now?  It pains me, but now I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea for Pope Francis to abdicate the papacy, as his predecessor Benedict XVI did--though I would hope that the College of Cardinals would be cleaned up first, lest they elect another pope who will put the world before God.  And in the latter event, an abdication by Pope Francis would only be a regime change.  Again, I cannot make myself the pope's judge, and even if he is guilty I refuse to give up hope that he might truly repent--but again, if he is guilty, then given this magnitude a true repentance might require abdication of the papacy.



But this is a good time.  God is shining His light on the evil that has taken over our world, the evil that cannot go back into hiding in the darkness now that we've seen how ugly its face truly is.  God knows all and will reveal all--except, in His mercy, those sins of which we truly repent.  Only evil loves the darkness; true good loves the light.

It may not appear that way, and it might even seem worse in the near future: when evil discovers it has nowhere left to hide, it will fight tooth and claw for its own survival, and those who get in its way WILL be hurt.  But it will not survive: evil never can.  It will die in the end.

God, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is cleansing the world of evil.  The villains in power will be exposed and removed from power, separated, so that the true good Church can shine for all to see.  I have less certainty that the United States of America will survive, at least not in its current form, but God's will be done.

However dark a time the near future appears, this is the equivalent of Good Friday for us.  Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"  The priesthood of old Israel in His time was so corrupt that they put the Son of God on trial and judged Him deserving of death.  Yet Jesus rose from the dead, and the wicked priesthood suffered the destruction of the Second Temple at the hands of the Romans.  If the priesthood of the Church today does not repent, how can they expect any more lenient treatment?  How can they not expect to suffer even more greatly than the likes of Joseph Caiaphas who accused Our Lord of blasphemy?



And if this is our Good Friday, this is when our faith, hope, and love will truly be tested.  Even Christ's hand-chosen Apostles fell away on Good Friday.  Judas the betrayer took his own life; of the rest, only Peter and John continued to follow the Lord in any capacity, and Peter denied Christ three times.  Only John was present at the foot of the Cross.  And yet it wasn't too late for the Apostles (except for Judas): they repented and are now saints in heaven.

Likewise, even the best of us might be tempted to run away, as if the Church (which Christ promised would never be overcome by the gates of hell) were crumbling into ruin at last--even those of us who will not betray Her as Judas did.  And even many of those who try to continue to follow Christ might be so afraid of what will happen to them if this becomes known that, like Peter, they might deny being Christians to save their own hides.  But even then, God is merciful, and if we repent before we die, we can still become saints in heaven even if we commit such a terrible sin.

I don't pretend to know what I will do, as I am a very anxious person and I don't like to disappoint others.  But I hope and pray that I may be willing to suffer any earthly evils before I would jeopardize my immortal soul.  And if I prove less than faithful (and I cannot claim to know for certain that I won't--Saint Peter did), I hope and pray I may be forgiven, as Saint Peter and the other Apostles were.



Whatever happens, the Lord will win in the end.  I believe we're in a martial age of the Church now, soon to be followed by a jovial age: an age of the kings, of righteousness and justice, and of merriment--before the Anti-Christ comes in the Last Days.

********

And now I choose to open up myself.  Thank God, I have never been a victim of sexual abuse at anyone's hands, priests or no--nor has anyone close to me.  However, I don't know whether that might be in part due to the fact that I have been away from the Church for most of my life.  (Apparently a priest of my parish turned out to be an offender and was removed when I was a child--but I never would have known it.)  At least, I've never had to worry about that since I returned to the Church.

Because of this, I don't pretend to know what it's like to suffer from something as evil as sexual abuse.  Nor am I comparing my situation with anyone who has.  My heart goes out to all who have thus suffered, and I welcome comments from anyone who has been thus abused and want to speak up.



Nevertheless, this epidemic has affected me to some degree.  I have Asperger's Syndrome, and while I don't presume to speak for everyone with Asperger's Syndrome or Autism Spectrum Disorder (I can only speak based on my own individual experience), I suspect that my Asperger's Syndrome has something to do with it, at least.

Having Asperger's Syndrome, I am more sensitive to sensory input than ordinary people are.  And that obviously includes sexual input.  Where someone else might derive excitement from a thunderstorm or a loud rock concert, I can only endure such a thing, and not happily or willingly.  (I still cannot fathom how anyone can find a thunderstorm relaxing--exciting maybe, but relaxing?)

And not only is the sexual appetite common to us all, but sexual arousal is overwhelming: it is very easy to lose control in the heat of the moment.  But it's all the more so for me--it is downright terrifying.



Because of this, combined with my fears of what other people will think of me (even before I returned to the Church), I have taken a false, Puritanical, phobic view of sex.  Not only have I never had a sexual relationship with anyone else, but I have avoided even the possibility of such, by turning my head away quickly if I so much as saw an attractive girl, not wanting her to think I found her sexually attractive.  I didn't just fear the possibility that she might think I was a stalker; I feared the possibility that she might be sexually interested in me and want a relationship.  (I still find it difficult to understand how women, in particular, enjoy sex.)



This is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church, and it is NOT healthy.  God gave us all a sexual appetite, and commanded us to "Be fruitful and multiply".  Sexual intercourse is the way in which we conceive babies, participating with God in bringing about new life.  And I now believe that a deliberately phobic attitude towards sex is misanthropic as well as offensive to the Lord.

But because that's the case, a Puritanical, phobic attitude towards sex is not practical.  It will not erase our sexual appetites.  And without recourse to God, we have no power to resist: in the end, we will exhaust ourselves and end up going to the opposite side of the coin, that is, indulging sexually.  (I suspect this accounts for the stereotype of the most verbally sex-phobic of people, who condemn even legitimate sex in other people, secretly indulging in it themselves.)  And if we are phobic of sex, then such indulgence will make us feel dirty and unloved by God--and we will desire all the more that this never be found out.

(Note: I said "without recourse to God."  A celibacy vow, taken by a priest or religious, means that one has recourse to God--only if the individual refuses to come to Him will he or she be helpless to keep that vow.)



Given this, and knowing that the sex abuse scandal (at least in the coverup, and to some degree in the deed itself) goes to the highest levels of the human element of the Church, it is difficult for me to even open up to a priest and ask what I should do--not just what I need NOT to do, but what proactive thing I need to do instead.

It doesn't help that, until 2016, I was exceedingly untrusting of authority figures just in general--too much for a true Christian.

But I need guidance such as only a true Shepherd can give me.  Without that, without recourse to the Lord, we are stuck in a false dichotomy: either indulge sexually (which is mortally sinful), or be phobic about all sex (which is even worse).

********

I am now inspired to make mention of my current formation in the Secular Franciscan Order.  Yesterday I was initiated, and it was such a wonderful blessing!  I didn't feel anxious at all, or like any sign was pointing away from it being right for me.  I felt the love, the laughter, the comfort, of everyone there, and I felt like I was one of them.  Having been thus initiated, I have now received my own copy of the Rule of the Secular Franciscan Order, as well as my own Tau cross to wear.



The reason I bring this up here, rather than in another blog entry as I originally planned to, is this: as part of my formation I have been reading Come and See, a formation book for those in the first two stages of formation into the Secular Franciscan Order.  The chapter that I discussed yesterday specifically referred to the "paschal imagination", a term that stuck with me.

In particular, this chapter distinguished the paschal imagination from the "petrified imagination" (what we might call "conservative") or the "fuzzy uncritical imagination" (what we might call "liberal").  The petrified imagination hardens one's heart against God's active will.  On the other hand, the fuzzy uncritical imagination regards just about any course of action as equally valid, without direction by the Lord.  Only through recourse to God, through Jesus Christ, can we be liberated from this false dichotomy with the paschal imagination: open to change, directed by God.



I was inspired to write this when I wrote what I did above of the false dichotomy regarding sex from a non-Christian perspective.

The "petrified imagination" would regard all sex as evil--only making indulgence for opposite-sex coitus as a "necessary evil" given that it's how we reproduce (but we're not supposed to enjoy the act itself or the feelings we have when we have it).

The "fuzzy uncritical imagination" is what we largely have in our culture today, regarding (almost) all forms of sexuality as equally valid, without allowing God to direct our sexual appetites towards their proper ends.  The only sexual activity that such an imagination does (rightly) condemn are things that human beings themselves find repulsive: rape and pedophilia, for example.

The "paschal imagination", on the other hand, sees life in Christ as Paschal, as Eucharistic, as a sacrifice.  Unless called to take a solemn vow of celibacy (as in the priesthood or religious life), we are called to act on our sexual appetites--and to enjoy the good feeling that it gives us to satisfy it.  But we are called to let God direct it to its proper end, of attempting to conceive children (or at least being open to it) within the context of marriage: a promise between a man and a woman to be exclusively loyal to each other for life.



Again, the trouble is that, with so many clerics, even at such high levels, failing to exercise a paschal imagination, how can we mere sheep hope to have a model to follow, to know how to do this ourselves, and not fall into the trap of either embracing all sex (except rape and pedophilia), or being phobic even about conceptive sex which leads to new life?

And for someone like me, with Asperger's Syndrome, who is overwhelmed by sensory input that wouldn't overwhelm an ordinary person, how can there be hope?  And for someone like me who is so afraid of disappointment that he is afraid to "rock the boat", how can I even hope to be brave enough to ask, especially if I don't get the answer I'm looking for the first time?

********

In Dante's Inferno, the lustful went to the second circle of hell (out of nine total).  Lust is the least of the Seven Deadly Sins.  That's because it is nothing more or less than a perversion of a normal, natural, healthy human appetite.

But for the very same reason, it claims a lot more souls than sins done out of malice, such as violence, fraud, and treachery (the three lowest circles of hell in Inferno).  Our Lady of Fatima, I believe, said that more people go to hell because of lust than because of any other sin.



For this reason we cannot divorce this issue from the scandals going on.  If I allow my sexual appetite to rule over me, I am as much a slave as if someone were to rape me.  Worse, I am a willing slave.



But first and foremost, we need to love God and neighbor, and refuse to identify people (made by God and loved by Him) with their sins--ourselves or others--whether such people choose themselves to identify with their sins or not.  It won't be easy, especially if they do so identify: they will then not see love but "hate".

Again, a petrified imagination sees only sin and condemns the sinner prematurely to hell; a fuzzy uncritical imagination sees loving the sin (and therefore redefining it as "not sin") as a prerequisite to "loving" the sinner.  A paschal imagination loves the sinner first, and hates the sin due entirely to love of the sinner.

********

I don't pretend not to be afraid of what comments might come my way, if any do.  But I welcome them from anyone who wants to speak up.  And any prayers on my behalf are welcome and I will pray for you as well.



Thank you for being with me.  God bless you.