The Great Days of Advent / The "O" Antiphons / "O Wisdom"

Divine Wisdom is sometimes represented as the all seeing eye

I'm reposting the reflections I wrote in 2016 on the "O" Antiphons. I hope you enjoy them again, or for the first time.

We now begin the final phase of Advent. These are the Great Days, when our focus moves from contemplating the Lord's future coming in glory to his birth 2,000 years ago. I had planned a second post on John the Baptist, a key figure in middle weeks of Advent, who prepared the way for the Lord's public ministry by preaching repentance, but time slipped away on me. I'll leave the fragments of that post aside for the moment, and go directly to the mystery we are called to contemplate right now. 

For those who pray the Liturgy of the Hours, also known as the Divine Office, these are the days of the “O” Antiphons. At every evening prayer Mary’s song of praise from Luke 1:46-56, known as the Magnificate, is sung or recited. There is a different verse recited before the canticle each night, and there are very special ones, known tha the O Antiphons, that are recited during the novena before Christmas. As Fr. William Saunders of the Catholic Education Recourse Center explains:

The exact origin of the O Antiphons is not known. Boethius (c. 480-524) made a slight reference to them, thereby suggesting their presence at that time...By the eighth century, they are in use in the liturgical celebrations in Rome...One may thereby conclude that in some fashion the O Antiphons have been part of our liturgical tradition since the very early Church.

The importance of O Antiphons is twofold: Each one highlights a title for the Messiah: O Sapientia (O Wisdom), O Adonai (O Lord), O Radix Jesse (O Root of Jesse), O Clavis David (O Key of David), O Oriens (O Rising Sun), O Rex Gentium (O King of the Nations), and O Emmanuel. Also, each one refers to the prophecy of Isaiah of the coming of the Messiah. 

According to Professor Robert Greenberg of the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, the Benedictine monks arranged these antiphons with a definite purpose. If one starts with the last title and takes the first letter of each one - Emmanuel, Rex, Oriens, Clavis, Radix, Adonai, Sapientia - the Latin words ero cras are formed, meaning, Tomorrow, I will come. Therefore, the Lord Jesus, whose coming we have prepared for in Advent and whom we have addressed in these seven Messianic titles, now speaks to us, Tomorrow, I will come. So the O Antiphons not only bring intensity to our Advent preparation, but bring it to a joyful conclusion.  

This evening we begin with: O Wisdom, O holy Word of God, you govern all creation with your strong yet tender care. Come and show your people the way to Salvation. 

The Trinity is a particularly New Testament revelation. The Old Testament writers were concerned, in midst of a polytheistic culture, with driving home the point that God is One. Jesus reveals to us that God is indeed One, but in a community of three divine persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is something not easy to understand, by any measure. But while this is a Christian concept, we can see shadows of trinitarian thought in the Old Testament. In Genesis God states, "Let us make human beings in our own image" (Gen. 1:26) (emphasis added). The use of the plural has been interpreted as both a veiled reference to the Trinity, or else as God addressing his words to the Heavenly court of angels. Later, in Chapter 18, three mysterious figures appear to Abraham. While two are later identified as angels, there is still an ambiguity that makes one pause: is one of them a manifestation of the One True God, or are all three? I think any number of these interpretations can work from a Christian perspective. 

For the first O Antiphon, the Church draws on a more subtle foreshadowing of the Trinity. The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 8 and 9, present us the Lady Wisdom. Yes, wisdom is personified here as a woman. She invites us "mortals" to gain prudence and sense. In Chapter 9 She is described as preparing a table of meat and wine for us to come and enjoy. In the Book of Sirach she says that "From the mouth of the Most High I came forth, and covered the earth like a mist." She was present at the creation, and was commanded, "In Jacob make your dwelling, in Israel your inheritance." 

We look at these passages and see more than just a poetic description of a quality God possesses (though one can do that too).   We see here a foreshadowing of Christ, and by extension the Trinity. 

Jesus in the incarnation of the Eternal Son, who was present with the Father at creation, and is the Word spoken that brought creation into being. He is the tangible manifestation of the Wisdom of God, who came and made His dwelling among us. He taught in our streets, and backed up His preaching with great signs, which we commonly call miracles. He is the giver of the Commandment of Love, which doesn't replace the Old Law, but fulfills it. He shows us the way to follow, which the wise accept. He teaches us still through Scripture and Tradition, and feeds us at the banquet of the Eucharist. 

The Father sent the Son so that we may follow His ways. An abstract doctrine, no matter how true, can be hard to understand and apply. In Jesus we see the doctrine of Love lived out. If we experience despair today, individually, but especially communally, it is probably because we refuse to accept the Wisdom of God lived out through Jesus. Yes, the Christian call is radical, demanding a total commitment. It means a certain short term struggle, even suffering, that can seem endless. It means not choosing the easy answer just because it is easy, but taking the time to discern the truth. 

Wisdom isn't abstract. For the ancient Israelites Wisdom was something practical. To put it in a modern context, the person who knows how an automobile engine works, to pick a random example, can take it apart and put it back together, can identify a problem and fix it possesses wisdom - more wisdom than the scholar who may have all the books of the world memorized but doesn't know when to change the oil in his car, with or without a warning light. Wisdom is being able to judge concrete life situations and act accordingly. It also means knowing when we may not have the answer, and not being too proud to ask for advise from a trusted friend. 

In these days we ask God in a particular way to grant us wisdom. But more than an abstract quality, we ask the He who is Wisdom way come to dwell within us, and among us. On Christmas Day we celebrate His incarnation in time. We await Jesus' coming again in glory, when the Wisdom from on high which orders all things mightily makes Himself manifest to all humanity. We ask that He dwells in our hearts now, guiding us into all truth.  

Hot Stove Ramblings: The New Murderers' Row

The heart of the original Murderer's Row: Lou Gehrig, Bob Muesel, Tony Lazzari and George Herman "Babe" Ruth

From MLB.com:
The Hot Stove. Definition: "The Hot Stove" refers to the Major League Baseball offseason, particularly the time around the Winter Meetings when free-agent signings and trades are most prevalent.

Origin: In the early days of baseball, Hot Stove Season referred to an actual baseball season: Hot Stove Leagues, in which MLB players would stay in shape by playing baseball in their hometowns while staying warm with actual hot stoves.

The term soon expanded to become a kind of predecessor to the water cooler -- on a cold day, fans would gather around the hot stove to discuss their favorite team.

When fans discuss the best Major League teams of all time, the conversation usually begins and ends with the 1927 New York Yankees. Someone will bring up the 1961, Mantle-Marris-Ford iteration of the Bronx Bombers, others the 1976 Reds, aka the Big Red Machine of Johnny Bench and Pete Rose. Someone else might mention the '72-'74 A's, featuring Reggie Jackson and Vida Blue. The best team I ever saw with my own two eyes in a ballpark was the 1989 Oakland A's. It was at the very least the most fearsome lineup, one to nine, I'd ever seen. Of course, now we know that PED's were at least partially responsible for their dominance, which takes more than a little of the luster off their accomplishments. Another was the '78 Red Sox, who my Yankees bested in that famous one game playoff. Heart breaking loss or not, they were an incredible outfit featuring Jim Rice, Fred Lynn and Dwight Evens. One could argue that the 1998 Yankees were the most balanced, complete team ever, even if they didn't have the fire power of other great champions, and the 2001 Mariners who, in spite of winning a record 116 regular season games, lost in the ALCS. 

The conversation always comes back to the '27 Yankees, who went 111-44, because they were the team of Babe Ruth (60 HR, 164 RBI, .356 BA) and Lou Gehrig (47 HR, 175 RBI, .373 BA). While Ruth and, to a slightly lesser extent, Gehrig have remained household names, others on the team, including Hall of Famers Herb Pennock and Waite Hoyt (pitchers), second baseman Tony Lazzeri, outfielder Earle Combs and, manager Miller Huggins have pretty much faded from memory. Outfielder Bob Meusel, who didn't make the Hall but had a solid career, contributed 106 RBI that season. The Yankees's lineup so dominated the league in '27 that they became known as Murderers' Row. Legend has it that the Pittsburg Pirates, who New York faced in that year's World Series, showed up to the ball park for game one only to see their opponents putting on a hitting clinic during batting practice. As ball after ball sailed high and far over the fence the Bucks became dejected to the point of giving up mentally before the games were even played. They would get swept four games to none.

Is the story true? To paraphrase the reporter from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, this is Major League Baseball sir (or madam): when the legend becomes fact, you print the legend. And indeed the legend of the '27 Yankees is greater than the facts. Most of the pyrotechnics from that famed line up were produced by the bats of Ruth and Gehrig. Of the rest of the team only Lazzari reached double digits in homers (18) and he was also the only other player besides Ruth, Gehrig and Meusel to top 100 RBI (102) - the next closest had 64. The pitching was very good, featuring a 22 game winner, two pitchers with 19 victories and one with 18. 

All the same, it was a different game in 1927, which makes comparing teams of different eras inherently problematic, if not down right impossible. Though the fabled "live ball" era was in full swing, with the game shifting from being a base hit, base running, pitching, defensive game, to one dominated by homers and RBI, the Majors as a whole still hadn't caught up with the trend. Only two teams, for instance, managed to hit more homers than Ruth's individual record of 60. 

But this isn't about facts, its about legends, and there is no greater legend in the sport than the awesome one-two punch of Ruth and Gehrig in the middle of the Yankee line up. There have been other great pairings over the years: the aforementioned Mantle and Marris, Willie Mays and Willie McCovey, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. But Ruth and Gehrig remain the gold standard.

The present day Yankees have the makings of a modern-day Murderers' Row. They have an impressive core of young players, featuring the power duo of Aaron Judge (rookie record 52 homers) and Gary Sanchez (33 home runs in 122 games). Yankee fans were blown away by them last season, when the team exceeded expectations by making a legit World Series run, falling a game short of the Fall Classic, at least two seasons ahead of schedule. They got there because the organization followed a patient strategy of developing the farm system, making smart trades for top prospects and holding off on big ticket free agents while waiting for some awful contracts to come off the books. In many ways it was the approach that built their late 1990's dynasty. 

The newest member of Murderers' Row 2018: Giancarlo Stanton (second from left) surrounded by Yankees GM Brian Cashman (far left), new field manager Aaron Boone and managing general parter Hal Steinbrenner. 

While he's not a free agent, the Yankees announced today that their trade for Marlin's slugger Giancarlo Stanton is official. Not a free agent, but a player that brings with him the kind of bloated contract New York has been trying to avoid as they've rebuilt over the last couple of seasons. It's the kind of contract that they inherited when they traded for Alex Rodriguez in 2004, and have just gotten out from under a year after A-Rod retired. Stanton has 10 years and $295,000,000 left on his deal, of which the Yankees are on the hook for $265,000,000. 

What's wrong with the contract isn't so much the money. MLB is swimming in cash, and the Yankees have multiple revenue streams that gush money. I don't blame a player for getting what he can of that action. It's the years that the Yankees will be shackled with. Players are in better shape, much more attentive to diet and exercises than previous generations, true. As a result turning 30 years old isn't seen as the career death sentence it once was.  But all the cardio and macrobiotics can't hold father time off forever. The stat heads say 32 in when the decline in production starts and my eyes tell me after 35 every player is on borrowed time. Stanton is under contract until he's 37, and he's had injury issues that could limit his playing time. He can opt out after 2020, but I don't see that happening, unless he stays healthy and productive, thinking he can get in on the market increase expected by the impending Bryce Harper-Many Machado free agency after next season. So the Yankees are back to carrying another owner's dumb contract, limiting their payroll flexibility and having to find a way to plug another piece into already over crowded outfield, that is already burdened with a player with an albatross of a contract in the person of Jacoby Ellsbury. 

I know the temptation. To see Stanton, Judge and Sanchez (in whatever order) back to back and belly to belly in the heart of Yankee lineup is too much to resist. Imagine the moonshots those three are potentially going to hit. Add to them Didi Gregorius, Greg Bird, Aaron Hicks; all of whom can hit the long ball themselves, and you do have a modern day Murderers' Row. Who do you pitch around? One of the buzz phrases the new analytics people like to throw out there is "stress pitches." The idea is that pitch count is one thing, but not all 100 pitch games are equal. Some situations put more stress on a pitcher's arm than others. Constantly pitching with men on base, or having to deal to the heart of the lineup, or having to pitch to the heart of the lineup with men on base in close games or from behind, forces the pitcher to dig deeper than facing the 7-8-9 batters when you're up by 5 runs. You need that ninth slotted pitcher or light hitting second baseman to offer some relief. If all goes well there will be little if no relief, and a boat load of stress, facing AL pitchers facing the Bronx Bombers this 2018 season. And Yankee fans are dreaming of it as the snow falls already. 

I wish Giancarlo Stanton all the blessings and good things, especially good health. As a Yankee fan I'm going to love to see Murderer's Row 2018 do it's thing. But if down the line at some point GM Brian Cashman can't make a trade for a pitcher the team needs, or can't sign the third baseman they need because of all the money tied up in the outfield, or we have to let one of our home grown Bombers go because we're tied into this contract and can't afford him, the instant gratification of having Stanton now won't be worth it. Especially if, God forbid, Stanton gets old before his time because of injury. Then we'll be looking back, as we did in the last years of A-Rod's contract, waiting for it to mercifully expire. 

The Marian Connection Part 3: Our Lady of Guadalupe, Prophetess

For Part One  For Part Two

Out side of Jesus, the two figures that stand out the most during Advent are John the Baptist and the Virgin Mary. If we're paying attention to the readings at Mass then we might notice the Old Testament prophet Isaiah as well. What all three have in common is that they are all prophets. Isaiah and John in explicit ways, with Mary serving as a more subtle example. 

According to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, a prophet:

...was the interpreter and supernaturally enlightened herald sent by Y-h to communicate His will and designs to Israel. His mission consisted in preaching as well as in foretelling. He had to maintain and develop the knowledge of the Old Law among the Chosen People, lead them back when they strayed, and gradually prepare the way for the new kingdom of God, which the messias was to establish on earth. Prophecy, in general, signifies the supernatural message of the Prophet, and more especially, from custom, the predictive element of the prophetic message. 

In other words, the prophet received God's message and delivered it to Israel. Any prediction of the future was meant to prove the veracity of the prophet's message. If the event he predicted came to pass, he was really sent by God. If it didn't, he was a false prophet and was supposed to be put to death. His main function was to tell the people when they were straying from the Law. He also was preparing the way for the messiah, who was to establish the Kingdom of God. Sometimes his message was one of consolation, like we hear in the first reading for the Second Sunday of Advent. Often times the message was stern, with the prophet pointing out Israel's sins, both corporate and individual, warning them that some chastisement will befall them if they didn't repent and follow the Law a new. 

John dominates the readings for Advent's Second and Third Sundays. He appears in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). While denying he is a prophet, he still identifies himself with the one foretold by Isaiah who would prepare the way for the Messiah (John 1:23, Isaiah 40:3). On this point Jesus would have the final word, declaring that John was indeed the foretold prophet in the image of Elijah (Matthew 11:14). He offers very direct, withering rebukes to the people of his time, warning them of the wrath that is to come if they don't repent (Matthew 3:7-12). 

Mary too is a prophet. When she visits Elizabeth, the Blessed Mother breaks forth into a canticle of joy, proclaiming the good things that God has done in the history of Israel (Luke 1:46-56). He has lifted up the lowly and thrown down the proud. In singing God's praises she, in a way, is warning us to remain faithful lest we stumble and fall.

Mary's role as prophet becomes clearer to us through her apparitions. Public revelation ends with the final book of the New Testament, but Salvation History goes on. Just as Moses and Elijah appeared on the mountain on either side of Jesus in the Transfiguration, Mary has appeared to people after her earthly life was over to communicate a heavenly message. She doesn't come to tell us anything new, but to remind us of the need to turn back from our sins and follow the Lord. At Fatima, especially, her message was difficult, warning of wars and dissensions if people don't return to the Lord with their whole hearts.

At Guadalupe Mary came with a consoling message. The indigenous people of Mexico had been through many trials over the preceding dozen years. The Spanish conquest brought uncertainty, and a new God who had usurped the old. Mary came, dressed as one of their own, in cloths that spoke a message they could understand. It was a message calling for trust and confidence. She spoke the words of a tender mother assuring her children that she loved them. Before Mary appeared the missionaries had a difficult time evangelizing the native peoples. Afterward the faith spread like wildfire.

So, Mary is Queen, Mother and Prophetess. She loves us, and brings us close to her Son. As we continue our Advent journey may we grow in our devotion to her, and heed her call for both repentance and trust in her Divine Son

St. Juan Diego HD from Catholic.Org

Today, December 9, is the feast of St. Juan Diego, who received the apparition of the Blessed Mother in Mexico City in 1531.

Advent Continues: The Mary Connection, Part 2

St. Therese wrote that Mary is Queen of Heaven, but that she is more Mother than Queen. True. But I don't want to pass over her queenship so quickly. As I mentioned last time, I'm frequently asked why we need Mary, a question often accompanied by bewilderment over the idea that the Blessed Mother is a queen. We are use to queens who either reign in their own right, like Elizabeth II, who are married to men who accept a lesser title, or else she is the wife of the king. In ancient Israel, especially at the time of David and Solomon, the king often had multiple wives and concubines. To choose a queen from among them might cause jealousy and dissension within the household. To avoid this, the queen was mother of the king. This was no ceremonial position. The queen was a key advisor to her son, often exercising great influence over policy.  

Jesus is King of the universe. Unlike the monarchs of today, he is no figurehead. He came to proclaim the presence of the Kingdom of God, over which he was given sovereignty by the Father. The Kingdom and his Kingship, as spiritual realities, are not of this world but it doesn't mean that they are metaphorical, either. Jesus is an absolute monarch who nonetheless invites rather than orders. He respects the freedom of his subjects, even to the point of risking eternal rejection. He has His plan, and it will be fulfilled. Yet how that plan gets accomplished is, to a certain extent, fluid. Since He wants us to cooperate with Him, Jesus takes into account out sinful nature. He lets us stumble and fall, patiently prodding us to get back up to do His will. He will even speed things up when we are quick to cooperate, and even plead with Him. This was the case with Mary, when our Savior took the council of our Queen at the wedding feast at Cana.

Mary, with few words, pointed out the predicament of the embarrassed couple who ran out of wine. Even when Jesus protested that this wasn't the moment for some grand display of power, she instructed the waiters to follow Jesus’ orders. It wasn't His time, the plan called for a different strategy, but Jesus changed His plans. The King was persuaded by the Queen to move ahead of schedule and revealed in this simple, charitable act, that a new covenant was being initiated. The Old, which was a sign of Heavenly grace, was being supplanted by its fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ.

So, Mary is Queen of heaven and earth. She isn't proud. She doesn't try to push in and overshadow her Son. She points the way. She nudges and suggests. She is the humble handmaid who has been raised up on high.

Today we celebrate the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. This means that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin as a way of preparing her to be mother of Jesus. This liberty from original sin wasn't just a physical preparation, but also helped form her will and intellect. She was free to see the good, and respond positively to God's will. She wasn't forced or coerced. She was free to say yes. That "yes" wasn't just a one time consent. She continues to hear the word of God and follows it. She continues as Queen of heaven calling us to follow Christ the King. Tuesday we will celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I'll have more to write about that soon. For now, it's enough say that in Guadalupe, and all her apparitions, we see that Mary continues to be our Queen, heralding the presence of the Kingdom. But she is also our Mother, who tenderly gathers us together, prompting us on, bringing us to her Son. 

Whether we speak of Mary as Mother or Queen, she is above all a gift from God. Is she, or any of the saints necessary for our salvation? I'm not sure it's a question of necessity. As I've said before, God could have secured our salvation in any number of ways. Just as it is argued that the Immaculate Conception, for instance, wasn't necessary but fitting, I would say the Mary as our Queen and Mother may not be necessary, but it is fitting and gracious.   

Bishop Barron on Black Elk and the Need for Catechists

1st Week of Advent Continues: The Mary Connection, Part 1

We are in both the first week of Advent and in the midst of two major Marian novenas. Friday we celebrate the Immaculate Conception, and Tuesday is Our Lady of Guadalupe. Up until about twenty years ago Guadalupe was an optional memorial in the United States, but was made obligatory by St. John Paul II in 1988 (moving St. Jane Frances de Chantal's observance to August). The same pope later declared it a Feast for the entire Western Hemisphere. In Mexico Our Lady of Guadalupe has long been observed as a Solemnity and a holy day of obligation, since Mary is Mexico's patroness under that title.  

I often hear the question, mostly from friends who aren't Catholic, but even from Catholics too, why do we need Mary? Why do we need any of the saints? Can't we just go to Jesus? Why is she, or any saint, necessary? I don't think it's a question of necessity. It's a question of God’s generosity and of His understanding of human nature. 

In chapter 11 of the Letter to the Hebrews the unknown author goes through a litany of Old Testament patriarchs, highlighting their trials and triumphs, beginning chapter 12 by assuring us that this “"cloud of witnesses” surrounds us, spurring us on by their encouragement. We are never alone because those who have gone before us in the faith walk side by side with us. We often think of Heaven as a geographical or even galactic reality. In truth it is more of a dimension, and we are separated from it by a deceptively thin veil. When a miracle happens, or an apparition takes place, it is the veil being pulled back for us to see. There are those with charismatic gifts through which God allows them special access to what is lies beyond what our natural senses can perceive. The saints and angels are a major part of this reality.

When we pray to the saints we aren't conjuring them up because they are in a sense already here: not omnipresent like God, but easily accessible, for lack of a better term. They are counted among the living (Luke 20:38), among the most living creatures there are. There is no great chasm separating them from us, as is the case with those poor lost souls (Luke 16:26), so we can speak to them, asking them for their prayers. Their lives also give us examples as to how we should live the Gospel. In the occult the object is to control spiritual forces to get what we want. This is foolish, as well as dangerous. Devotion to the saints is meant to help us be more faithful to God, learn His will, gaining insights as to how to do it from the experts. And we also have elders in the Faith who can pray for us and offer protection.

The greatest of these heavenly patrons is Mary. Who is closer to Jesus than the woman who carried Him in her womb for nine months and nursed Him? Their closeness is greater than simply a physical relationship, because she did hear the word of God and obeyed it (Luke 1:38, 11:28). She, along with Joseph, fulfilled the responsibilities of parenthood, bringing Jesus up in the Jewish religion (Luke 2:22-52). She prompted Jesus to reveal Himself before "His time" (John 2:1-12). She was given to the Christian community, in the person of the Beloved Disciple, to be our mother (John 19:25-27). Because it was necessary? No, because it was generous.

It's a small point maybe, but I think God knew that in revealing Himself as Father, and the Second Person of the Trinity incarnating as a man, there would be the need for an unmistakably feminine component in His unfolding plan. Mary isn't divine, but she serves as the motherly presence we need, at the very least, on a psychological level. As Jesus' only human parent, she is our direct connection with the Savior. There is nothing the Blessed Mother wants more than to share this intimate bond that she enjoys with her Son, leading us into union with Him. 

Could God have done things a different way? Sure, he could have. He could have decided to just show up, fully formed, like some Greek god. He could have created His human body out of thin air, but He didn't. He chose to enter into our history, He chose to grow up in a family, He chose to share our life. He is God with us, the infinite who limited Himself for a time, and Mary is the bridge that connects us.

Though Jerusalem (Isaiah 66:11-13), and the Church (Revelation 12) are images of a mother, God knows we need something more than a metaphor or archetype to sustain us. We need a real mother, and He gave us one in Mary. She loves us as sons and daughters. She wants us to love her Son above all. She gives us the example on how to be obedient to God. She gives us protection from evil. She is the Queen of Heaven. She is our loving Mother.

More on Mary our Mother and Avent soon.

Monday, 1st Week of Advent

I'll be offering periodic, short Advent reflections this year. Here's the first one. 

It's curious that the Church begins the daily Advent readings with an eye towards God’s universal plan. In the first reading Isaiah tells us that Jerusalem will be the holy city for all nations seeking God. In the Gospel reading from Matthew we hear of the Roman centurion who seeks out Jesus to cure his servant. One anticipates the conversion of the nation's, the other demonstrates the hunger all people have for the Truth.

I find it curious because the overall theme of the first weeks of Advent is that of waiting joyfully for the return of the Lord in glory. By nature this is an introspective act. It implies interior preparation; doubling down on prayer, for instance, and making a good confession before Christmas. There is also a tradition of penance; I know some Franciscans who observe the Black Fast during these days. We are preparing for the Second Coming, but also to receive Jesus anew in our hearts on Christmas. The Gospel reading for yesterday’s Mass called us to be alert and ready, for we know not the day or the hour. We are not to wait passively, but to continue to live the Good News in a spirit of joy. This means being awake, alert, sober and busy with the works of the Kingdom.

In the midst of this self preparation, the Church is reminding us that Jesus came into the world with a clear purpose: to proclaim the arrival of the Kingdom of God in his person. We prepare for the arrival of the Kingdom by repentance and acceptance of the Gospel. Repentance involves acknowledging our own sinfulness, examining our consciences and handing those sins over to the Lord. Then we become free to follow the Gospel message of love and mercy. While the first part of this equation is an act of introspection, the second calls us out of ourselves. We shouldn't get skip step one, but we shouldn't linger in it either. We are called to go out and share the saving message. We aren't called to be members of an exclusive club. We are called to live holy lives, so that others may see our good works and give glory to God. In preaching the Gospel in word and deed we are signs that the Church is the new Jerusalem that all nations are called to enter, sharing in God's merciful salvation. 

Advent from Catholic Online

Here is an historical overview of Advent from Catholic Online. 

Bishop Barron on The Spirituality of Advent

An oldie but a goodie from Bishop Barron on the Spirituality of Advent. Enjoy!

St. Andrew the Apostle from CCTNtv

Eli Manning and Why I Care Less and Less about Pro Sports

Professional sports is a business, first and foremost. It's difficult for hard core fans to remember sometimes, but it's the truth. It's hard for fans to accept because we believe in the nobility of fair play and teamwork. We see honest, hard fought competition as character building, as well as being a sign of intestinal fortitude. We watch because we are awed by seeing the best athletes in the world perform at the highest level. Shrines are built for the athletes of various sports who have stood out above the rest. The records compiled by hall of fame players are the impeachable witnesses that vouch for their secular canonization. Extreme fans will pour over players’ statistics like an economist analyzing financial trends. They will argue over who the best quarterback or pitcher in the league is as if world peace depended on the answer. All this belies the fact that pro sports is a business. Even the players themselves aren't immune from this peculiar naïveté. In 1965 Joe Namath was scandalized when Leah Ray Werblin, wife of then Jets owner Sonny, who had been a professional singer, welcomed the rookie sensation to "show business.” He still held to the ideal that this was about athletic excellence, but in a few short years Broadway Joe came to realize that she was right. 

Because pro sports is both business and entertainment, we shouldn't be surprised when teams make decisions for financial or marketing reasons. The desire to put a competitive team on the field certainly underlies the vast majority of the decisions made, but there are quite often other considerations at work as well. In 1994 Phil Simms was coming off a bounce back season with the Giants, having made the Pro Bowl after a couple of inconsistent years, when he was unceremoniously cut by the team to make salary cap room. Wellington Mara, the team's legendary owner and father figure wept, but let it happen nonetheless. It's wasn't personal, as Michael Corleone might have said, it was strictly business. Simms retired rather than try to start over with another team. It would be a decade before the Giants developed another franchise QB, and his name was Eli Manning.

Twenty-three years later the New York Football Giants once again face a crossroads involving a long time starting quarterback. Eli Manning is 36 years old and on the back end of his career. The troubles of this dismal Giants 2017 season don't fall primarily on Manning's shoulders, not by a long shot, but most agree that he's not the player he once was. The press was already formulating potential Manning exit strategies the organization might take, since a high draft choice, with the promise of a blue chip QB, is in the offing. Of all the possibilities, benching Eli, after 210 consecutive starts (2nd all time) with five games left in a lost season, and no heir apparent on the roster, wasn't one of them. This makes no sense from a sports, business or entertainment stand point. 

Eli Manning won two Super Bowl titles, and was named the game's MVP both times. In both cases he beat the best organization with the best quarterback of this or possibly any era, The Bill Belichick-Tom Brady New England Patriots, while demonstrating in both games why he was one of the best two minute drill QBs around. Eli was never the best quarterback in the league. He always lived in the shadow of the likes of Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers and his own brother Payton. What made Eli special was that he thrived under pressure on the biggest stages, and rarely disappointed. In those championship runs he led the team to road victories in frozen Green Bay (twice), Dallas, and San Francisco, before earning the right to face the Patriots - not a task for the faint of heart. But this is strictly business; it's all about what have you done for me lately. Those accomplishments don't matter when evaluating the state of the team now and into the future. I actually agree with this. But the past should dictate how the transfer of power behind center happens for the man who led those teams. This was the wrong way to say goodbye.

It makes no sense from a sports standpoint because the Giants have no heir waiting in the wings to take over. Neither Geno Smith nor Davis Webb are the QBs of the future. Smith, a five year vet, is a known quantity. Webb, a rookie, could come in and surprise people, but a few garbage time snaps would have been sufficient to get a head start on training camp. Even if you thought either one was a possible long term replacement for Manning, do you really want them to try to prove themselves behind this questionable offensive line, throwing to this injury depleted receiver corps? If you really thought one of these guys was the answer to what's ailing the Giants you might have tried the switch when the team was still 0-3 or 0-4, with a chance to salvage the season. I'm not sure that would have been the right move, but at least it would have made some sense. This is just baffling.

It makes no sense from a marketing or entertainment standpoint. Eli is still popular with fans, who do remember his accomplishments. New York fans are also smart fans. They know the deficiencies of this team and that, while Manning isn't the player he once was, he isn't the main reason the team is 2-9. I know people who already gave up on the Giants or the NFL in general because of this dismal season and the other controversies that the league has suffered lately. This move is only alienating fans even further. It will be very interesting to see how ratings in the New York market will be this weekend. 

It doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint. If they wanted to save money they could have traded Manning, making a deal with another team on how much salary they would have to eat. As it is they still still have to pay Eli for holding a clipboard. Short of trading him now, it would have made more sense to wait and see what the draft produces, then either cut or trade him in '18. You might have him stick around next year to break in the newbie, letting him go after that. It all could have been done in a far more dignified way that would have also made business sense.

In the end this move is simply perplexing. If anything, it looks like a beleaguered coach and front office trying to deflect blame for a cluster bomb of a season. I made the joke to a friend that the coach is coming off like a disgruntled employee who knows his days at the company are numbered, so he's breaking the furniture and stealing the staplers on the way out the door. 

Over the last few years I'll been less and less interested in pro sports. I still keep one eye on the standings, but in general I'm caring less and less. It's just not a diversion anymore when all the talk is about PEDs, collective bargaining agreements and domestic violence reports. I believe in the First Amendment, and players are citizens too, but I pay plenty of attention to politics. I don't watch sports to keep up on whats happening in the world. Little escapes are healthy, and sports is one that's little by little being taken way from us. 

I like the live experience of going to the stadium, but the cost is incredible. An NFL game has for a long time been out of reach for the working person (at least in big markets like New York or Washington), but all the major sports feature overpriced tickets and jacked up concessions. So I stay home, except for the periodic freebee that lands in my lap via a generous benefactor.

Then there is the constant marketing. When I watch on TV they're constantly trying to sell me jackets and hats I don't need. There was a commercial that ran incessantly during the baseball playoffs of tweens talking about what great fans they are. They then looked in the camera, striking an intimidating pose, challenging the viewer to prove their fan cred by buying a T-shirt. There was a time when a fan proved himself by knowing his team's lineup, and who the backup shortstop that just got called up from Pawtucket was. And what his AAA batting average was. The kids who wore shirts were posers if they didn't know the stats. The fancier the jersey, the phonier the pose. 

I could go on, but I'll only sound more like an old man. I'll finish up with saying that pro sports has always been about business and entertainment. Eli Manning isn't the first superstar to be rudely treated when his usefulness to the organization was over. Babe Ruth finished up with the Boston Braves. Joe Montana went out with the Chiefs. Both of them were worn-out legends riding into the sunset. Tom Sever, known to Met fans simply as The Franchise, was traded to the Reds when he still had good seasons and a no hitter left in his arm, over a salary dispute (the hurt was felt so deep in New York that even Yankee fans were appalled). 

So if these hall of famers could be pushed aside, anything is possible. But there is a way to do these things, which usually involves giving the player a chance to bow out gracefully, or the opportunity to play out the string in another town. The thanks Eli is getting is the chance to stand on the sidelines with a headset and clipboard waiting for the hatchet to fall once the season is over: a shabby way to go out. I've already thought that pro-sports had become overly commercialized and greedy. Now the masters of the athletic universe are proving themselves clueless on top of it all. 

No, this isn't the reason I'm slowly walking away from pro sports, but its one more straw applied to the camel's already straining back. 

My Arm Shall Judge the Nations: a Reflection on Christ the King

What struck me about the passage we hear from Matthew 25:31-46 at Mass today is that when the Son of Man returns in his glory "all the nations will be assembles before him" for judgment (v. 32). We often think of the God's judgment, if we think of it at all, as an individual thing, which isn't wrong. Last week we heard the parable of the talents, in which Jesus tells us that we will be questioned about how we used, or failed to use, the natural abilities and graces we were given in life in service of the Lord (vs. 14-30). But there is this other dimension, the communitarian, which is also involved. We are members of families, civic and parish communities and well as citizens of nations. There is an individual call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked, but also a public responsibility to seek the common good, and we can't hide behind our relative lack of power if the government isn't fulfilling its responsibilities, especially we who live in representative democracies.

All earthly power has its origins in God. In a way the old Divine Right of Kings wasn't as crazy as we may think. Today we look at the abuses of such a claim. We might point to instances of a tyrant justifying injustices by claiming it was God's will. Since he or she was God's "chosen" ruler all their decrees needed to be followed, no questions asked. But it's better to think of it as a responsibility that a king or queen had as opposed to a privilege. A given king may or may not have been "God's candidate,", but as soon as they took the royal oath they were charged with governing conscious of their responsibility before God: their very souls were at stake. Built into this system was the idea that God was the ruler and the king or queen wasn't God, but a placeholder exercising vicarial power.

This Solemnity of Christ the King was instituted in the 20th century, at a time after many royal houses had been deposed, and whatever kings and queens remaining were reduced to figureheads. The levers of government were in the hands of secular functionaries. In the extreme there were dictators who were claiming all power and authority independent of God. In fascist nations God was an afterthought and in communist states God was proclaimed a superstitious fantasy. All power was held by the leader, and any pretense of divine sanction or responsibility were done away with. The body count that such "unaccountable" governments piled up is in the hundreds of millions. How much the citizens of the individual nations will be held accountable for their governments' actions will vary, I would suppose, on a number of factors. How much control did they have over these governments assuming power? Did they know what was going on and cooperated, and was the cooperation coerced or willing? Just as circumstances can mitigate individual guilt, the same applies to nations.

But what of those of us who live in liberal democracies? The United States Constitution says that ours is a government of, by and, for the people. The leaders we elect are proxies for the will of the governed. We can argue that senators and congressmen have the right, even the responsibility, to vote their conscience when they believe that their constituency is wrong. Ours is a republic, after all and not a direct democracy. In the end the ballot box will win the day, and the continued bucking the popular will eventually lead to unfavorable consequences for the office holder. The main point is that We the People claim sovereignty over the government. Do we understand that we then assume the judgment of God when we elect immoral and corrupt leaders? We can no longer hide behind the king or the dictator, claiming cohesion or impotence, allowing him to take the blame. 

We long ago declared that character doesn't matter when evaluating candidates for public office. It's all about the economy or else national security. What we want is competence, and if the president is a moral disaster we compartmentalize it. It's his private life, we say, and it has nothing to do with keeping the economy booming and the nation safe. Things have gotten so bad that we aren't simply judging between who is decent and who is corrupt. We're left now playing the lesser of two evils game, and we lose every time. We are not electing saints or pastors, this is true. No one is perfect, without sin. And we need competent people running the government. But if we entrust our government to low character individuals we shouldn't be surprised if we have a corrupt system. If an office holder doesn't respect the laws of God, what are the chances that he will respect the laws of men?

In all this we are complicit. We can't hide behind claims that we were following orders or helpless serfs under the tsar's thumb. We have grasped at the royal prerogative, assuming the responsibility for a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Our presidents aren't the first born of a previous sovereign, the congress isn't made up of princes and princesses who gained their title by the accident of birth. We gave them the authority to rule. If the poor go hungry, if the prisoner is abused, if he unborn are treated like medical waste, if the migrant is harassed it falls on us. We need to ask ourselves, when the Son of Man comes in his glory where will we be, both individually, but also as a nation: on His left or on his right? Are we a nation of sheep or goats?

Charles Manson (1934-2017)

Those who have been reading this blog for a while know that I have a strong interest in 1960's pop culture, especially in regards to that era's popular music. It should come as no surprise then that I can't help but comment on the passing of Charles Manson, one of the most notorious criminals of the last century, who became a symbol for the dark side of the 1960's Dionysian dream. It isn't clear if he ever killed anyone with his own hands, but upon his orders at least nine people were murdered by members of his "family." The most infamous of these killings happened over two nights in August 1969. The most famous victim was actress Sharon Tate, wife of film director Roman Polanski, who was eight months pregnant at the time. Beyond the killings themselves, the most shocking part of the story is that this malevolent figure indeed became associated with '60's pop culture, along side lava lamps and the Beatles. The fact that Manson claimed to be inspired by songs from the White Album didn't help the association. Elements of the underground press at the time championed him as an avatar of the antiestablishment counter culture. It seems funny now that the radical left that once embraced him is now trying to distance itself from his legacy, as we shall see. 

After he and his followers were convicted and sent to prison for good a morbid fascination with Manson persisted over the decades that followed. It seemed like every few years some TV news show would feature a ratings grab interview of Manson, as if he had anything to really say. Along with a life of crime, he had been an aspiring singer-songwriter, who associated with Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys. He even got some studio time to cut a couple of demos. Some of these recordings have circulated as bootlegs, and Guns N' Roses and (not coincidentally) Marilyn Manson have recorded his songs. His image has appeared on T-shirts, and he's been the inspiration for fictional, as well non-fictional TV shows, movies and books.

But there is nothing inspirational about Charles Manson's story; nothing romantic or profound. Born in Cincinnati, growing up for a time in nearby Norwood, his birth certificate read "no name Maddox." Eventually his 16 year old mother Kathleen replaced the "no name" with Charles Milles, then later married the man who would adopt the child, giving him the moniker he would be known by the rest of his life. Following her lead (Kathleen may or may not have been a prostitute, but did get in some scrapes for stealing) he picked up cash here and there by robbing stores and stealing cars. When not in reform schools or juvenile halls he bounced between relatives in various states because of his mother's similar stints behind bars. He spent most of his adolescence and young adulthood in and out of prison. Once, when he was 32, he begged not to released, since incarceration was the only stability he'd known in his life up to then. By 1967 Manson found himself in San Francisco taking advantage of the free love and readily available drugs. By 1968 he was in the L.A. area, bouncing between remote locations, forming a commune of sorts that he called the Family, by attracting runaway girls and drifters. 

Some are now arguing that Manson wasn't a product of the 1960's counterculture, but was a backlash to it, and that he had more in common with today's alt-right than with the hippies of yesteryear. The first part of this thesis is plausible, the second two parts are a product of liberal wishful thinking. He may not have been a hippie, but he and his Family were certainly the products of a time and a place. In Slouching Toward Bethlehem, Joan Didion offers an image of the Haight in 1967 that is far from idealistic. We see kids, some as young as 15, run away from home, from parents who are just as happy that they were gone, experienced beyond their years but with none of the wisdom of age. It was from among these lost boys and, especially, girls that Manson drew his followers. He was a racist, yes. But his motivation for killing had as much to do with revenge for the record deal that never materialized as it did with wanting to start some kind of apocalyptic race war. He was a psychologically broken man who never knew a real home life, and was now forming one from the remnants of people more shattered than himself. He may not have been a hippie, but he sure was taking advantage of a world falling apart, and it's arguable that he could have only gathered his Family and mesmerized them in that particular time and place. 

That said, I would agree that he wasn't the product of the Counterculture, but he was the product of a counterculture. He was the product of neglect and dislocation. He was the product of what happens when the family structure breaks down and the state tries to fill the gap. He was the product of a criminal justice system that takes troubled kids and makes them monsters. He was already in his thirties when he hit Haight - Ashbury and the Summer of Love, so no, the 1960's Counterculture didn't produce him per se, but it was made for him. Take a relatively young man who had experienced too much too soon, and as a result had also acquired a peculiar, twisted wisdom, and release him into a pool of other, weaker, lost souls he could manipulate to his ends. Then throw in the drugs, and the sex and the crazy, half literate philosophy of the hippies, and you get Charles Manson.

No, there is nothing romantic about him. Nothing profound. He was neither a counterculture messiah nor a crypto Nazi. He was a twisted soul who had it just together enough to manipulate other twisted souls. He isn't a cultural icon, but a prophetic warning of what can happen when the traditional social guardrails, particularly the familial ones, fail. Don't misunderstand me. He was responsible for his actions: many go through the things he did in his life and don't end up murderers. But few end up stable productive citizens either.  

This is the part of the obit where I ask you to pray for the deceased. I wasn't sure how I was going to handle it. While I understand the sentiment, I don't like headlines or articles that proclaim that Charles Manson is in hell. That's God's prerogative, and we should never try to grasp at it, even in what may seem like open and shut cases, even if we're being rhetorical. But after reading the news getting myself to pray for him was impossible. All I could think of was Sharon Tate begging for the life of her unborn child, and my blood went hot with rage. Then I saw something about Tates sister, Debra, who "said a prayer, shed a tear, stuck a flower under my cross" when she heard the news. Make no mistake, she has practically made it her life's mission to keep  Manson and the other Family members responsible for the murders incarcerated when they come up for parol. But she also knows that hate is useless, and forgiveness the only path to true freedom. I thought, "if she could pray for him, I can too." And I went ahead and prayed three Hail Mary's for the repose of his soul. 

I ask you to do the same, and to also pray for his victims.

Abigail Folger
Voytek Frykowski
Gary Hinman
Leno LaBianca
Rosemary LaBianca
Stephen Parent
Jay Sebring
Donald Shea
Sharon Tate

Eternal rest grant unto them o Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May their souls, and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. AMEN

Do Catholics Worship Saints? from Ascension Presents

Father Mike Schmitz is a fast taking, charismatic preacher, with a lot of down to earth insights into the Faith. He's one of his video's on why we venerate the saints.

Staying Irrelevant: More on Harvey, Wicca a Go-Go and Postmodernist Blues

I've definitely found keeping The AX relevant in the Age of Trump harder than normal. It's always been a challenge for me to stay on top the news, and write on events in real time, which is part of what a blog is all about. If journalism is literature in a hurry, than blogs are journalism on methedrine. At their best they walk in the footsteps of gonzos like Hunter Thompson, or better "New Journalist" like Tom Wolfe, who put themselves in the middle of the story. Thompson was more imaginative, blurring the line between fact and fiction, while Wolfe stuck to what he saw, but with a decidedly subjective glance. Things are moving so fast right now that it's hard to process events quickly, then write about them before they disappear from our collective consciousness. 

I could site my work load, but then I see Msgr. Charles Pope, a pastor of a busy parish in D.C., with all sorts of other important positions inside his archdiocese and his prolific output. Don Bosco used to stay up nights writing drafts of the Salesian Constitutions, text books of all sorts and articles for the Salesian Bulletin. Then he would still go all day running the Oratory. I may have a loaded plate similar to Msgr. Pope's, but I am not nearly a occupied as Don Bosco, so find a way I must.

I can hope for increased output, but relevancy will never be my thing. It just takes me too long to think things through, and I lack the gift of brevity. But I'm introducing a new feature called "Staying Irrelevant." About once or twice a month I'll write on several current topics briefly, whether they happen to be in the latest news cycle or not, as well as set up longer posts that are in process.  

One Last Thing About Harvey Weinstein and the Latest Hollywood Sex Scandals  

David Cole over at Taki's Mag wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago basically saying that there are too many self proclaimed experts who've never stepped foot in a movie studio who are talking all sorts of trash about the Weinstein scandal and the proverbial casting couch who have no idea what they're talking about. He doesn't deny Weinstein's actions, but contends that he represents the crudest of Hollywood's crude fringe. Most actors get their roles through a professional process involving casting directors and assistant directors, with not sexual quid pro quo's involved. When it's employed, the real casting couch, Cole continues, is a much more subtle affair allowing for both informed consent and plausible deniability on behalf of the respective parties. The Weinstein's of the industry are a sad, repulsive aberration from the norm.

The post made me stop short, because I qualify as one of those would be movie industry experts Cole calls out. True, the closest I've ever come to a Hollywood sound stage is when I was a member of the studio audience for a taping of Jeopardy twenty-five years ago. But I've been haunting movie theaters and multiplexes since 1974, and have observed a lot just by watching, as Yogi would have said. And what I've noticed is that filmmakers like to preach, quite a lot. And as a priest, I know when I'm being preached to. They also take a great deal of pride in it. You could make a killing betting on the Oscar winners each year based on the social causes the nominated films are championing or marginalized minorities the actors are playing. You don't even have to see the movies in question, reading a synopsis will do. I'm not saying the winners are unworthy (I subscribe to the Katherine Hepburn principle that all Oscar winners are deserving, just not necessarily for the part or movie they won for), but I have the creeping feeling that political correctness trumps art, or even commerce, in the minds of the Academy voters.

What the Weinstein, and now Kevin Spacey scandals have exposed is that show business is exactly that, a business run by human beings who can get just as drunk on power and greed as are members of any other large corporation. There are sincere filmmakers who want to use art to make a difference, but mostly its about profits and image, with a smattering moral posing thrown in to fain social credibility. 

Rumors, long circulating just under the radar, of the abuse of minors are also surfacing. There was a story last week about a possible bombshell exploding over at Nickelodeon, which has yet to ignite. Jim McDermott over at America Magazine offers some sensible advise to the folks in Tinsel Town based on the Church's experiences with the child sex abuse scandal. I'm not sure they're going to take it, though. The Church has a built in moral center that she can recalibrate to when her institutional members go off the right path. What is the film industry's moral true north, especially when so many of its products promote the idea of moral relativism? Also, there was a free and independent press to follow the story up. There are now 6 major conglomerates that control 90% of media outlets in the country. The same corporations that make the movies also run several major newspapers and control network news departments. You might believe that his may not be such a big deal when the target of an investigation is an oil company, the government or the Church. But when it comes to the mass media policing it's own, how does that work? Personally, I'm surprised this much has gotten out at all (I have my own, inexpert opinions on this, that I'll keep to myself). How deep will the reporting be allowed to go if things prove to be really ugly, and big profits are at risk? And did I mention there are journalists getting caught up in the scandals too?

No, I'm not an expert. But I have two eyeballs, two ears and a brain, and I know when I'm being preached to by a flagrant hypocrite, and I hope the film industry is humble enough now to stop.

Wicca a Go-Go

I've stockpiled some articles on the latest trend among millennials: the abandonment of traditional religion in favor paganism and the occult. I'm still sifting through them, and plan a longer post, but just a few thoughts for now. 

With the rise of the New Atheists after 9/11 the thinking was that young people in the West were abandoning Christianity because they could see now that religion breeds fanaticism and violence. Along with the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists, we had the priest child sex abuse scandals that erupted at the beginning of 2002, further eroding confidence in traditional religious institutions, the Catholic Church in particular. The alternative to religion being offered was atheism rooted in scientific rationalism. Once and for all the medieval superstitions of the past were going to be put to rest since the "God delusion" had been exposed by savage Muslim terrorists and lecherous priests.

While these evangelists of nihilism use philosophical and scientific arguments, in reality they rely on the sins of religious people to make their case. As horrible as a religious person using their faith to justify mass murder or a clergyman abusing children are, they do not prove one way or the other the existence of God. It's just simply a non sequitur. It can be emotionally stirring, and people do lose their faith as a result of scandals, but the connection is logically vacant.

What might seem logical is the assertion that a rejection of God equals a rejection the spiritual. The New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins aren't proposing a "spiritual but not religious" option, though Harris believes in using meditative techniques, which makes some of his fellow travelers uneasy. They don't believe in a spiritual realm at all. Reality is simply what can be observed and measured. But this won't do for many people, because even though they may not trust religious institutions, there is something innate in all of us that seeks the transcendent, and this is where the new fascination with the occult comes in.

Occult practices are perfect for today, because they combine two innate desires that we all have - one is our desire for the transcendent, the other is our desire to control. Belief in Jesus means surrender, and in the relinquishing of our will we become truly free and united with God. But this goes against our desire to control outcomes. This is where the occult comes in. The witch or the shaman is trying to manipulate spiritual forces to achieve a desired end. God asks us to be patient and possibly endure trials on the road to salvation. We are probably not going to get what we want when we pray, but are asked to trust that God knows better than we do about what we really need. The occult offers us spells, potions and incantations that will get us what we want when we want it. In the occult we can get everything we want - to touch the transcendent and satisfy our will, and don't have to worship God. I am now my own god who controls the very spiritual realms. Of course, this is a dead end. Those who try to manipulate "spirits" find our that they are the ones who wind up manipulated, but more on that later. 

This move to the occult is perfect for today because it fits our post modern sensibilities, which far from embracing science and reason, is a trip down the rabbit hole of self centered subjectivity and the will to power.

Postmodernist Blues

I have a big blind spot in my philosophical education. Dr. George Pepper, one of my philosophy professors at Iona College, may he rest in peace, had a penchant for switching course topics on a whim. For instance, once I'd signed up for medical ethics - a requirement, and when I showed up he decided that he didn't want to teach that. So we spent the next 15 weeks on political philosophy instead. This was ok as far as I was concerned, I shared Dr. Pepper's interest in the topic. The only problem is that my transcript reflects the course I never took, which caused some confusion when I was trying to get into Seton Hall. I don't remember the particulars, but I had to convince some registrar that I couldn't go on to a second level medical ethics class since I never took the first one. The other quick switch was when we got to contemporary philosophy. This time he didn't want to be bored teaching a survey course, so we did a semester of Hegel. "Hegel is all you really need," he told us, "Everybody since, from Marx to Nietzsche, are simply answering him." As true as this may be, I still feel like there is a big drop off in my comfort level when dealing with latter day thinkers like Nietzsche, or the French existentialist of the 20th century, let alone the fathers of postmodernism like Michel Foucault or Jacques Derrida. 

To fill this gap I'm reading Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition) by Stephen R.C. Hicks. I'm early on, but Hicks sets things up in a rather concise way. He reviews Medieval and Enlightenment philosophies, presenting them as a progression from a faith, mysticism based philosophy to the supremacy of reason that led the way for the scientific revolution and modern conceptions of political and economic liberty. 

Postmodernism discards both, but most troubling for Hicks is the rejection of the Enlightenment. Rather than pure reason being the guiding principle, postmodernists take the old Marxist analysis, but in place class conflict, people are divided by race, gender and sexual orientation into oppressed and oppressors: dominant groups against the subjugated. Rather than people possessing individual rights, they have rights insofar as they are a member of an oppressed or marginalized group. Logic and reason are rejected as tools used by the oppressors to keep the oppressed in their place. Contradictory opinions can be kept with no problem, even if they are contradicted by the physical reality, because what matters is the protection of oppressed groups and, ironically, the radical right of the individual to define "reality" as they see fit without reference to any exterior, empirical supporting evidence. 

My only critique of Hicks is that he clearly doesn't understand Medieval thought. He makes the classic mistake of missing the Medieval synthesis of faith and reason. He blames Immanuel Kant for separating faith and reason so that he could preserve both, but most especially his faith. This rending actually happened back during the Reformation, when Luther rejected philosophical thought as having any place in religious discussions. Kant, over two hundred years later, was trying to show that you could have both, but just in separate compartments. The Catholic world view is that there is no conflict between faith and reason. If revelation and science seem to contradict, then we have either done the science wrong, or else we've interpreted revelation the wrong way.  

Otherwise, the book has been pretty eye opening so far, and I'm looking forward to finishing it. The only way to understand political correctness and what is controversially called Cultural Marxism is to understand postmodernism.

I owe many debts of gratitude to Dr. Pepper. He was patient with a block head like me during an independent study on Thomas Aquinas that he didn't have to do. I also really don't mind the switcheroo on the medical ethics class (I dig politics much more). But I do wish he had stuck with he contemporary philosophy survey. It might have saved me from having to read this book now.