At Padre's
Politics • Spirituality/Belief • Culture
On the Eve of battle - Rod Dreher
From Rod's substack - worth the subscription
November 04, 2024
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2Fw_1100%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F4e41ba02-3526-4a61-9f28-e5a1b5243898_1860x380.png&t=1730721785&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c79-27012e01c700&sig=PbktQl80SVbfee5xi8L23Q--~D

On The Eve Of Battle

Americans Are Choosing Not Between Two Candidates, But Two Postliberal Regimes

Nov 4
 
 
Paid
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2Ff_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F762a4764-c24d-4d8a-87f0-ff761d14f527_1802x2355.jpeg&t=1730721785&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c79-27012e01c700&sig=migH8RFAf2vZqJlW5MdokA--~D
 
 
 
 
 
READ IN APP
 
  

Well, here we are on Election Eve. I guess everybody has his or her mind made up by now, and all that’s left to us is to vote, then wait and see. I wish I were back home for this. Not sure why. I might try to find an election-watching party over here, but the results are going to be very late in coming in, on Budapest time, so I might just stay home. If Trump wins, I want to be with other people, celebrating. If he loses, it’ll be best to stay home. I do think he’s going to win, though.

For me, this is not a vote between two (highly flawed) candidates, but between two ways of governing. I have an essay coming out in The European Conservative later today about this, so I don’t want to give too much away here. The core of my argument, though, can be found in this must-read essay by Nathan Pinkoski, in First Things.

In it, Pinkoski argues that classical liberalism in America is a thing of the past, and we are actually living between versions of postliberalism. What does he mean by that? Excerpt:

Twentieth-century civilization has collapsed. It rested on an essential tenet of liberalism: the state-society, public-private distinction. The state-society distinction reached its apogee in the mid-twentieth century, when the triumph and challenges of the postwar moment clarified the importance of defending social freedom from state power, while ensuring that the public realm was not taken over by private interests. Over the last few decades, this distinction has been eroded and finally abandoned altogether. Like it or not, the West is now postliberal.

This is not the same “postliberalism” that we are accustomed to hearing about. Postliberal thinkers from Patrick Deneen to Adrian Pabst have exposed the conceptual problems inherent in liberal theory. Liberals justify the separation of the public realm from the private sphere by appealing to value neutrality. This notion of separation involves a certain moral and metaphysical thinness. The commitment to neutrality is thought to prevent states’ coercing belief through law and force. It protects the private sphere, so that individuals and associations can live out their creeds. Yet by promoting civic neutrality, liberalism socializes us to moderate our ambitions for public life. Against this view, postliberal thinkers argue that the liberal state’s rejection of a substantive vision of the good hollows out politics and civil society. Liberalism produces a state bent on driving tradition and religion out of public life, an atomistic society in which money is the only universally acknowledged good. Postliberal intellectuals contend that if our ruling classes relinquished their liberal commitment to neutral institutions in favor of a substantive vision of the good, we could renew our civilization.

The Brexit referendum and Trump’s election in 2016 revealed the extent of the West’s malaise. Eight years ago, the postliberal critique seemed exciting and relevant, even as liberal intellectuals mounted impressive counterattacks. But these disputations have little to do with how we are actually governed. Governments long ago breached the barrier separating the public and private realms. Nor is the state the only danger, for the supposedly liberal institutions of civil society have given up on neutrality. Cancel culture is ­corporate and academic culture. The financial and tech giants pry into the private lives of ­citizens and punish them for their words and deeds. For quite some time, a substantive vision of the good has already been ruling over both state and society.

He goes on to argue that after 1989, in the West, the state expanded its power through ideological capture of the ruling class, which acts more or less in unison, within private institutions to achieve its goals. This is not only something that came about through Democratic administrations. The George W. Bush administration expanded the reach of the state after 9/11. The United States, under successive governments, has weaponized liberal institutions of international governance to make them serve American goals. Covid exacerbated and clarified this, as did the George Floyd aftermath, as has the transgender issue, with the state and its ideological allies in business and private institutions using civil rights laws and concepts to force illiberal concepts of race and sex on unwilling populations, who were not given a say in the matter.

The British commentator Ed West expands on this in his latest Substack essay. (I’m not sure if this is paywalled or not, but oh boy, you should subscribe to Ed’s consistently excellent Substack, which focuses mostly on history and the way it impacts us today). Excerpt:

The number one reason that people give for voting Kamala Harris is ‘the future of democracy’. Yet Republicans have reason to fear the other side, too, that progressive rule will further embed a system where decisions are taken away from elected politicians and steered by a network of NGOs, activist judges and bureaucrats schooled in monocultural left-leaning institutions, where freedom of speech is crushed and a demoralised, impoverished population is led by a ruling class who despises them and their history. A bit like Britain, in other words.

There is also the issue of immigration, which on a large scale makes democracy more fragile. The experience of the United States is different to Europe, since the former has indeed always been a ‘nation of immigrants’. Yet until 1965, the US was in essence still a European country with a small, partially disenfranchised African-descended minority in its poorer, less populous south. Even Americans of southern and eastern European descent were under immense social pressure to conform to an Anglo norm.

Columbus Day, now a symbolic source of division, was once designed to celebrate, and integrate, Italians in America, the largest groups of Ellis Island immigrants who joined a country that until then had been dominated by north-west European Protestants. That they did successfully integrate was in part due to the fact that large-scale immigration was paused from 1924 to 1965, a political impossibility in today’s America.

America is now something different, what Barack Obama called a country founded on an idea - but might also be described as a ‘progressive caliphate’, a country defined not by ancestry but belief. This is a fine ideal, but it is a novelty for a democracy, and where this kind of society has existed in the past it has always been ruled by autocrats who enforced the state religion with an iron fist.

Democracy and diversity make unusual bedfellows. Across the world, where a previously secure majority group has begun to lose its numerical advantage, it has led to conflict, most notably in Lebanon, Northern Ireland and Fiji. Multi-ethnic democracies are fraught, because elections are a tribal headcount, and made less legitimate when one side appears to be recruiting more of its followers. The issue of Voter ID is related to how conservatives feel that the Left is cheating the system by importing voters, with some justification.

In these quasi-democracies, political representatives use the system to hand out rewards to their side, Kamala Harris’s recent proposal of $20,000 loans for black men being typical of countries where politicians use the levers of power to take from unpopular market-dominant groups. Unlike in the United States of the 1960s, there is no need to frame these arguments through a sense of shared Christian pity - it’s a far older and less revolutionary instinct.

Diversity is only one cause of polarisation, and not a precondition: Poland is one of the most polarised countries in Europe and one of its least diverse, while homogenous South Korea is the most divided of all – by sex, more than anything.

Neither are these uniquely American trends, with many of the same patterns also found in Europe: the ‘great realignment’ is now a British phenomenon, too, and indeed was the core story of Brexit. That referendum saw British politics grow far more polarised, with Leave and Remain identities becoming far stronger than party affiliations. While that issue has subsided, for now, voters have instead become polarised over immigration.

Whether we follow a similar path to the United States will depend on many things, including whether trust in institutions continues to fall and immigration levels remain high. The extent to which any politician can change the nature of voting coalitions is also limited: when a country has a populace so divided over core issues, parties will simply come to represent those interests, although individuals can set the tone.

Pinkoski and West are elaborating on the basic point I made in Live Not By Liesthat we are living in a kind of “soft totalitarianism.” To restate the point: hard totalitarianism is the Soviet model (or the Chinese model), in which all power resides in the state, which enforces its ideology through violence, or the threat of it. Soft totalitarianism, by contrast, is when a single ideology rules a society without significant state coercion, because the class that rules institutions of private life (the professions, the universities, the media, and so forth) presses its ideology onto the body politic. A second quality of soft totalitarianism is that it does so often for “therapeutic” reasons, e.g., to protect those it conceives as victims from the depredations of the deplorable masses, even to the point of shielding the “oppressed” from having their feelings hurt.

When one is not permitted to say that a person who is a biological male is a man, without facing serious penalties — say, the law student who faces expulsion for “aggressive pointing” at a transgender advocate — you can say we live under soft totalitarianism. Or at least, under left-wing illiberalism.

The Left doesn’t see this, of course. They think they are “defending democracy.” Last week, The New York Times, a leading institution of left-wing illiberalism, published an essay by two government professors at Harvard, another such institution, arguing that in the event of a Trump victory at the polls, the ruling class should institute a color revolution to deny Trump the opportunity to govern. Thus, they argue that we must destroy democracy to save it.

Whatever this is, it’s not liberalism. In fact, as a Times subscriber, I’m struck by how propagandistic the newspaper has been in this campaign. If you only got your news and information from the Times, you would have no real idea about the country you live in. The paper has been so hysterically anti-Trump that unless you read Ross Douthat — a conservative who is deeply skeptical of Trump, but who at least makes a serious effort to understand and explain why so many Americans support him (great piece here, ungated) — you would think that half the country was in the grips of authoritarian madness. In the pages of the Times, as in all of the legacy media, there has been virtually no attempt to understand the failures of the Left, and why so many Americans have no trust in them, or more broadly in American institutions.

The fact that the Democrats, having despised Dick Cheney and his warmongering for over two decades, have allied with him and his equally hawkish daughter Liz, tells you everything you need to know about why Pinkoski is right, and we are facing a choice between regimes — and that the line between them does not run strictly between Democrats and Republicans.

As you know, I don’t have much faith that a Trump restoration will turn the tide. But maybe I’m wrong; I was wrong about him in 2016, and he was a better president than I expected. But I wholeheartedly hope he wins this time, as a democratic repudiation of the governing regime. If Trump wins, I do hope and expect that he will be more aggressive this time in pushing back against the Left and its hegemony over the institutions of American life. What I learned from living in Hungary and observing Viktor Orban is that the only effective way to fight back against these illiberal left-wing powers is to refuse their manipulative lies.

On the other hand, Hungary is a deeply divided country, over politics. So too is America, and the election, whoever wins, won’t fix this. God only knows what will happen to our beloved country. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre understood what had happened to us across the West in his early 1980s book After Virtue. Though he was not a Christian when he wrote the book (he later converted to Catholicism), MacIntyre knew we had lost the ground of our common values — Christianity — and the Enlightenment gave us no universal framework within which to anchor our reason. The age of liberal democracy depended on residual Christianity to work; now that that has gone, we find ourselves at odds over what it means to live a good life, in community.

Take a look at this four-minute clip from Joe Rogan’s interview with Sen. John Fetterman:

  

What Rogan is pointing out here is that he pressed Fetterman on what it means that the Biden administration permitted millions of illegal migrants to settle in swing states. It looks like they are importing voters from abroad to cement their power. Fetterman squirms, but doesn’t deny it! Look, I live in Europe, and you can see in countries like France and Germany that the alliance between the left-wing parties, who hate their civilization and think it is nothing but a story of oppression and racism, have formed a political bond with Islamic migrants, to dispossess the ordinary people of those countries. This is what Renaud Camus means by “the Great Replacement.”

It is not as bad in America as it is here, because at least the Latin American migrants share a Christian background, which makes them more compatible with American mores. Still, it is a scandal that political parties would try to dissolve the American electorate by importing foreigners who will likely vote for them. The American people, of all races, were not given a choice here. In Europe, the only national leader who has consistently refused this is … Viktor Orban. That horrible fascist, if you believe the media, academia, and the US Government. But coming to Hungary to visit, and indeed to live here, tells a very different story. It tells you that we have been lied to, not only about him, but about what our ruling class is really about. It’s not liberal democracy, I can tell you that.

Whatever happens tomorrow, I am grateful for you all, even you Kamala-voting libs! We are all in this together, somehow. Let us meditate on the tragic sense of Lincoln’s words in his second inaugural address, delivered near the end of the Civil War: “The prayers of both [sides] could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully.” Yet America endured. I think it still can.

We Are Being Played

Here’s a must-read bit by the UK commentator Matt Goodwin, about the way the British government and the media managed public reaction to the stabbing deaths in Southport of three little girls by a young black man, the son of migrants. Goodwin begins by making a broad point about how the ruling class will not allow discussion of the deleterious effects of mass migration. Excerpts:

Wondering if a mass influx of millions of low-skill migrants might be one reason why our economy and public services are deteriorating, and why Chancellor Rachel Reeves was just forced to impose record rates of tax and borrowing?

“Oh, you’re misinformed!”, they cry in unison, while at the same time concealing information about the cost of our asylum system in the welfare budget and refusing to share information about tax and welfare by nationality and immigration status.

It is, put simply, outrageous and is something I will not stop talking about until all of this information is made available to the hardworking, tax-paying British people.

And nowhere has this trick been more visible than in the response of our hapless elite class to the horrific atrocities that were committed in Southport, where three precious little girls –Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice Da Silva Aguiar--were brutally murdered at a dance class, while many more were nearly stabbed to death.

More:

Once again, those who asked questions were instantly warned about “misinformation” while actual information about the suspect was suppressed or downplayed.

Interestingly, the few details that were initially released appeared to be ones designed to calm tension, telling people the accused was “Cardiff-born” and his parents were “a lovely couple”, which I’d suggest simply made little sense to most people.

Into this vacuum then arrived all the usual stories about “solidarity” and communities “coming together”, much like what followed the bombing of our children at the Manchester Evening News Arena by “British” citizen Salman Abedi, or the horrific murder of Sir David Amess MP by “British” citizen Ali Harbi Ali.

All of this, too, was rapidly contrasted with stark warnings about the “far right”, which has not been a serious force in this country for years, to essentially warn people off asking deeper questions about what is going on in our country.

A small minority who were unable to control their anger and rage rioted and were, rightly, sent to jail. But so too were many people who, often writing online in their own homes, drew a line from the atrocity in Southport to immigration and Islam.

… People from the left-leaning elite class, meanwhile, who had previously taken only minutes to brand past attacks as “far-right terrorism” suddenly urged caution and delay, while quickly moving the discussion on to debates about how best to clamp down on free speech and free expression in our country.

Well, well, well:

Now we know that the Southport attack does have something to do with these very issues. I don’t know if it’s the discovery, this week, that the son of Rwandan immigrants tried to make the deadly biological weapon ricin or that he downloaded an al-Qaeda training manual for Islamist terrorists titled ‘Military Studies in the Jihad Against Tyrants’, which offers advice on urban warfare, terrorist tactics, and how to establish terrorist cells, that has left me thinking we might not have been given the full story about this ‘Welshman’.

Furthermore, I’d hazard a guess that many people in the corridors of power have known a lot more about this story than they’ve been letting on. As anybody who has worked in Number 10 knows, as Dominic Cummings pointed out this week, despite what we’re being told, despite all the talk about “misinformation” or “disinformation”, it is in fact highly likely that Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, and the authorities would have known almost immediately about this information.

You cannot trust these people, anywhere — except to lie and manipulate in the service of their preferred lies. We have the same thing in America, of course. Last bit from Goodwin:

Sorry, but do they actually think we are this stupid? Do they actually think we will just blindly follow the officially approved narrative? Do they not think the Mums, Dads, and concerned citizens of this country will relentlessly pursue the truth and hold our rulers to account? Do they really just think we will shut up and go away?

Not. A. Chance.

Here's what I think. I think they think we are stupid. I think they think we will forget about the scandal in Southport and move on with our lives. I think they think we will be cowed into silence or duped once again by the same misinformation trick, that we will scuttle off and not dare ask questions about what is happening to our country.

But we won’t.

Live not by lies! One major reason the lies flourish is that the ruling class makes it too painful to speak the truth. Another reason is that many people — perhaps most people — can’t bear to face up to the hideous realities of what we have become, and what we are facing. But face it we must. If we don’t, we’re over. This is not an abstract threat. This is real life. I had lunch on Friday with an Irishman furious over what migration has done to his village. The Irish government has imported and settled more Ukrainian migrants there than the population of the actual village! To say it has disrupted life is to badly understate the reality. These are not Africans, but Ukrainians, but the point is they are not Irishmen! The people of this small rural village have been forced to deal with something they are not prepared for, could not possibly be prepared for, and which is changing their settled life forever.

And they were not given a choice in the matter! They are paying the price for the moral vanity of Ireland’s ruling class. So, too, are Americans in similar circumstances. Look at this news last week from small-town Ohio:

The mayor of a small village near Cincinnati says he needs help from the federal government after a surge of illegal immigration primarily from Mauritania that nearly exceeds the local population and that he says is "unsustainable."

"Our county officials estimate that we have around 3,000 of those that have come to a village of 3,420 residents. And our complaint is, if the federal government is going to have an open borders policy, with that they need to have a policy directing these immigrants to communities that can absorb that kind of population increase," Lockland Mayor Mark Mason told Fox News Digital.

Democracy depends on the consent of the governed. And yet we are told by The New York Times, Harvard professors, and their kind that to be angry about all this only shows that we are threats to democracy.

We aren’t threats to democracy. We are threats to them. I hope they are frightened.

The Gender Gap, Explained

Mary Eberstadt considers the yawning gender gap in US politics. Excerpt:

The mystery isn’t that many of today’s young men are deserting the side that loathes them and fears them and sometimes longs to queer them. It’s that socially and economically superior players haven’t a clue anymore about what makes young men tick—whether it’s driving fast, failing to ask strangers for directions, treating Sunday football like church, or saving a subway car full of strangers from disaster. From Democratic politics to Hollywood, from prestige quads to the C-suite, those players haven’t only lost the script about young men. They’ve unlearned the alphabet of human nature.

There is something unique called male self-respect. It’s grounded in the belief that rules exist and retain their authority, from baseball to church to war, no matter how many times they’re broken. Forgetting that fact of nature renders progressivism and its fellow-travelers incapable of understanding a major chunk of the electorate. The real mystery in the political sex imbalance isn’t about boys and men, but girls and women. It’s why so many obediently keep trotting in the same lanes marked out for them since the 1960s, pelted with the same messages that have been making life miserable for decades now—men are badthe future is femininecareer first, egg-freezing nextthe best ending after falling for someone and making a baby together is to get rid of it.

White progressives are scandalized that not everybody hates themselves as much as they do.

Queering The Donbass (And Everywhere Else)

I coined the phrase “queering the Donbass” to mock the US Government’s desire to remake the world in the image of progressive America, whether or not it is in our country’s national interest. Now Christopher Rufo has produced a report on how the US State Department has made advocating for LGBT rights an essential part of American foreign policy Excerpt:

The diversity agenda has been translated to the day-to-day operations at embassies around the world. Some embassies are even screening security positions for adherence to DEI. In a job posting for a security escort position at the U.S. Consulate General in Lagos, for example, applicants are told that “[t]he U.S. Mission in Nigeria supports Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA),” and that “[a]ll genders are welcome to apply.” Some two-thirds of the job summary is dedicated to DEI, as if U.S. security officers should be more concerned with gender pronouns than terrorist attacks.

Inside the embassies, gender has become a near obsession. State’s latest annual LGBTQI+ progress report lists countless present and future efforts across all foreign agencies to make the world safe for queer theory, from “Pride Events at Headquarters” to “Gender Equity in the Mexican Workplace.” Among these is a department-wide partnership with the Global Equality Fund, a public-private entity “dedicated to advancing and defending the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world” that has directed funds to 116 “grassroots” LGBTQI+ organizations in 73 countries.

State itself asserts that U.S. diplomatic efforts should reflect progressive ideology. In a special report on “DEIA Promotion” by the department’s advisory commission on public diplomacy, State evaluates “how U.S. missions adapt existing programs to DEIA principles,” which are to inform “all aspects of the Department’s policymaking as well as efforts to address barriers to opportunity for individuals historically and currently burdened by inequality and systemic discrimination.” Realpolitik, in other words, should give way to critical theory.

These efforts raise a critical question: Does gender theory advance the U.S.’s national interests? The answer appears to be no. But that is hardly an obstacle for State’s gender activists. They want to hang the rainbow flag throughout the benighted parts of the world. This mission trumps all others.

What on earth does any of this have to do with advancing American national interests abroad? It’s cultural imperialism, straight up. This is part of the reason why more and more people abroad hate us.

Bach In Autumn

Let’s pivot to something happier, shall we? Autumn is my favorite season, and nothing musically says autumn to me like Bach’s Suites for solo cello. Here is the introduction to them, by the man who plays my favorite version, Yo-Yo Ma:

mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Fyoutube%2Fw_728%2Cc_limit%2Fl_youtube_play_qyqt8q%2Cw_120%2F1prweT95Mo0&t=1730721785&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c79-27012e01c700&sig=plwTv_BoqIgY7MngQ1S95w--~D

Bourdain In Lyon

I discovered over the weekend that one of my all-time favorite hours of television, Anthony Bourdain’s episode of his visit to Lyon, France’s gastronomic capital, is available on YouTube:

mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Fyoutube%2Fw_728%2Cc_limit%2Fl_youtube_play_qyqt8q%2Cw_120%2FTPicFnp0Wt8&t=1730721785&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c79-27012e01c700&sig=sxlsNFuaaOqkHUUZNjrLsA--~D

At the 16:00 mark, Bourdain and Bill Buford dine at Café Comptoir Abel, the city’s oldest bistro, where Bourdain tastes a classic Lyonnaise dish: quenellesa dish made of filleted river pike inside a soft dumpling, coated in a sauce of béchamel made with crawfish butter. Because of the Bourdain episode, I visited Lyon in 2015 with friends, including the incomparable James C. We made our way to Café Comptoir Abel, and I ordered the quenelles. James C. captured the very moment I tasted what was one of the best meals of my life:

  

They really are that good!

community logo
Join the At Padre's Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
MOTW 163 - Yabba-dabba-do!
00:00:45
July 16, 2025
There goes Europe, again... 😳😱
00:00:09
MOTW 162 Jeffery Epstein who?
00:00:45
November 22, 2024
Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf

Today marks the three hundred and thirtieth birthday of the Frenchman François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778).

Born into a bourgeois family during the reign of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” (r. 1643-1715), Voltaire suffered tragedy at a young age when his mother died. Never close with his father or brother, Voltaire exhibited a rebellious attitude toward authority from his youth. His brilliant mind was fostered in the care of the Society of Jesus, who introduced him to the joys of literature and theater. Despite his later criticisms against the Church, Voltaire, throughout his life, fondly recalled his dedicated Jesuit teachers.

Although he spent time as a civil servant in the French embassy to the Hague, Voltaire’s main love was writing—an endeavor where he excelled in various genres, including poetry, which led to his appointment as the royal court poet for King Louis XV. Widely recognized as one of the greatest French writers, and even hyperbolically referred to by ...

Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf
January 01, 2025
Local's Lounge - All are welcome

Padre - Tom Miller invited you to a Microsoft Teams Meeting series:

The Local's Lounge with the ADD Irregulars - Home of Coffee Talk, Speakeasies, Schmoozes, Tea Times, Afterhours and other gatherings.

Coffee Talk - 6:00 AM Central - Daily
Afternoon Chats - Tuesdays, Friday & Sundays at 2:00 PM Central
Other Chats as scheduled by the community.

Please look for notifications for Speakeasies, Tea Times, Schmoozes & Afterhours for gatherings of the gang. New comers welcome, become an Irregular today!!

Wednesday, January 1, 2025
6:00 AM - 8:00 AM (CST)
Occurs every day starting 1/1 until 12/31

Meeting link: https://teams.live.com/meet/9392334144614?p=4Lr3AcWswEWjbzgHsZ

post photo preview
Perhaps space travel is not a thing of the future - from X
post photo preview
post photo preview
John Vervaeke and the meaning crisis.
Rod Dreher's Substack
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2F%24s_%2169GR%21%2Cw_1100%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F4e41ba02-3526-4a61-9f28-e5a1b5243898_1860x380.png&t=1752231364&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c2f-91001d01d200&sig=ir16_1wVLaDdYjdl7MtEUQ--~D

John Vervaeke & The Meaning Crisis

What I'm Learning From Engaging The Thought Of The Cognitive Scientist

Jul 11
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2F%24s_%21dnYe%21%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F762a4764-c24d-4d8a-87f0-ff761d14f527_1802x2355.jpeg&t=1752231364&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c2f-91001d01d200&sig=_C__U5wgnyW1PNAK6f3sjg--~D
 
 
 
 
 
READ IN APP
 
  
John Vervaeke

I’m in Germany at a conference. On the plane here, I started reading a terrific book, Awakening From The Meaning Crisis, by John Vervaeke and Christopher Mastropietro. I’ve been wanting for a long time to get into Vervaeke (pron. “ver-VAY-kee”), a University of Toronto cognitive scientist who is part of Jordan Peterson World, but I just don’t have time to listen to podcasts, which is how he presents most of his public work.

If you do, here’s a treasure trove: a link to video presentations of Vervaeke’s lectures on the Meaning Crisis. The book I bought seems to be a distillation of the first twenty-five episodes (a second volume is coming). Vervaeke is not a Christian, by the way. He is interested in Buddhism, not as a religion, it seems, but as an approach to cognition. His work is filled with useful insights — so much so that I don’t think I’ll be able to wait for the final book, presenting his Meaning Crisis lectures in written form (the form in which I best learn). Looks like I have my next thing to listen to on my daily walks. Here’s what I’m getting from the book so far:

The Meaning Crisis, in Vervaeke’s view, amounts to this:

… the decentering of human life from its cosmic significance, a decline in our sense of purpose, and a sensation of having lost the soul that gave earlier human societies their adaptiveness and vitality. It seems we are left with a feeling of having lost our place in the world along with a sense of who we are and what we ought to do with ourselves.

People today — those without dead souls — are grasping for meaning, trying to find their way out of the dark wood of despair.

There is a pattern to all of these efforts, a certain hunger in the human spirit, a depth of need that has not been fully understood. When we begin to recognize this need as a feature of our spiritual condition, we can begin to piece together a unifying account for why all of this is happening. Each of these movements is responding to a crisis of meaning, a disorienting sense that we have forgotten some essential dimension to reality and lost our relationship to what is good, true, and beautiful. This crisis has deprived us of something essential at the center of our lives. It has been described in many ways by many thoughtful people across time, but we might think of it quite simply as a famine of the spirit, an existential illness that has taken shape in the human brain, body, culture, and soul.

Vervaeke describes the search for meaning as the search for wisdom:

Wisdom is ultimately about how to generate and enhance this meaning. Wisdom is about realizing. This means that cultivating wisdom generates realization in both senses of the word: becoming aware and making real. Wisdom is about realizing meaning in life in a profound way.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting for me. My next book is (broadly) going to be about pilgrimage as a journey for meaning — specifically, a journey to recover God, and, in the narrative I plan, a way of seeing our civilizational inheritance as a material bearer and mediator of meaning and divinity. (Note: not divinity itself — that would be idol-worship — but as a mediator of God’s presence.) Vervaeke:

It may sound high-minded and mystical, but self-transcendence is an essential need for human beings. It performs core functions for our cognition. For instance, deep connections exist between meaning, wisdom and altered states of consciousness (ASC). Throughout our history, human beings have consistently sought ways to alter the quality of our conscious experience by manipulating our physiology and behavior.

Prayer, then — and not just petitions to God, but deeper, more mystical ways of prayer, like the Jesus Prayer in the Orthodox tradition. And pilgrimage: those 20,000 young people walking for sixty miles across the plains of Beauce to Chartres this past June were “praying with their bodies” — seeking to know the Lord through participation in Him.

Vervaeke says a true mystical experience is transformative. After you’ve had one — and you accept it as real — you know you can’t be the same person.

These are awakening experiences, wherein people return from the mystical experience feeling it was somehow more real than reality. They feel a compelling need to change their world and themselves to fit that new reality.

… When people use this word “meaning,” it is a metaphor. They mean that the way life becomes significant is somehow analogous to the way a sentence has semantic meaning. The pieces fit together in some way that impacts our cognition and connects us to the real world.

He goes on:

When words become a sentence, we no longer see the words, but see through them. They become transparent and give us access to participate in reality, allowing us a chance to grasp it, to have contact with it. We have to unpack this metaphor. Why do we use it, and what does it reveal when we talk about the meaning of our lives? How is it that some of the most meaningful experiences people have are precisely the ones that are completely ineffable to them, that they cannot put into words?

For Christians, the material manifestations of the experience of Christ — liturgies, prayers, hymns, church buildings, pilgrimages, and so forth — are metaphors, of a sort. A “metaphor” is an analogy, a kind of bridge. It comes from the Greek word meaning “transference.” The culture we create from our common experience of God serves as a bridge that allows us to have access, however imperfectly, to the “real world” of the divine. It is what allows transcendence — again, imperfectly — to be immanent. Vervaeke says that “metaphor is a way of reaching into the world so it seems to reach back.”

For the cognitive scientist Vervaeke, culture is necessary for knowing:

Your cognition is very participatory; you partake in large, distributed networks of cognition. Before the internet networked computers together, culture networked brains together to provide some of our most powerful problem-solving abilities. This is how human beings responded to an impossible predicament. They formed a social network. These networks were managed with a form of pattern-oriented activity that became so fundamental to human culture that its influence pervades nearly all of our behavior. We call it ritual.

Ritual is guiding your interaction without you noticing. It is the groundwater beneath these cultural forms. If you dig into your own behavior, social or otherwise, you will find it. Even when our interactions seem empty, they continue to convey—and convey us through—these patterns of meaning. In the minutest of gestures, in the smallest of small talk, ancient rituals are at work.

… Ritual trains your ability to regulate your emotion and to undertake a process called decentering: adopting a non-egoic perspective by redirecting your attention to something real outside of you.

It all began in the distant past, with shamans as the bridge between the transcendent and the immanent.

The shamanic integration of flow with altered states of consciousness (ASC), the insight and refinement of intuition, the capacity for metaphorical thought—all of these expanded human cognition by making it much more creative, capable of reading patterns and generating connections between different scales and categories of the world. This allowed our ancestors to gather the world together and unite different parts of experience to create working models of reality as well as the structures that seemed to exist beneath us, around us, and within us. These symbolic unities, or mythologies, gave us a new kind of agency in the world and an idea of who we were within it. This was the beginning of what we would later call a worldview.

You can see where he’s going with this — and where I, the Christian writer with a newfound, post-Chartres interest in the power of Christian culture, am going with this.

“Myth,” as Vervaeke uses it, is not something untrue, but rather a story, a metaphor that allows us to grasp transcendent realities, and order our lives according to those truths. Tolkien famously told C.S. Lewis that Christianity is “the myth that is true.” I believe that, certainly — but the point to take is that myths themselves, even if not true in the most literal sense, are crucial to human cognition and the forming of culture. Without building a sacred canopy (the term is Peter Berger’s) over ourselves and our societies, a canopy woven from myth, we are lost.

The Axial Age (from the 8th to the 3rd centuries, BC) was a period of profound shift in human consciousness, across many different civilizations. It was the period of the Greek philosophers, the Hebrew prophets, and the advent in the Far East of Buddha, Confucius, Lao-tzu, and Zarathustra. This caused what Vervaeke calls the “great disembedding,” in which humanity became conscious of itself as somehow separate from the cosmos. He became aware of a transcendent world beyond this one.

In the great disembedding, one world became two. The everyday world was that of the untrained mind, a world beset by self-deception, self-destruction, illusion, violence, and chaos. To live in this world was to be out of touch with reality. The real world lay behind this world of illusion. This was how the trained mind, the wise mind, saw the world.

In the two-worlds mythology, wisdom is not the acquisition of power or prosperity. It is the emancipation from a lesser reality. The axial hero did not want to conquer the everyday world. He wanted to be transformed out of it.

In the two-worlds mythology, meaning was not just about connectedness as it was in the continuous cosmos but specifically connectedness to the real world. This also changed the idea of the self. In the continuous cosmos, you were defined largely by how you fit into the world. In the two-worlds mythology, you were defined more by self-transcendence, how you transformed and grew as a person.

More:

The two-worlds Mythology is a mythological form of thinking that allows us to articulate and train the psychotechnologies of the Axial Revolution, the projects of self-transcendence and wisdom. It took the meaning-making of the shaman and refined it into a more precise way of cultivating human cognition. However, this mythology is failing us now. The scientific worldview, with its materialist and physicalist metaphysics, is gradually eroding the Axial project.

This is one of the great problems of the Meaning Crisis. Since the shaman, human beings have depended on mythology for meaning-making. It has become inseparable from humanness itself. The Axial worldview still holds up our idea of the sovereign person, the individual who has agency, freedom, and responsibility. However, a mythology must be livable in order to perform its function.

The scientific-materialist worldview makes it impossible for the Axial Age way of thinking — obviously, Christianity is part of this — to be sustained. This, says Vervaeke, is why we are having a Meaning Crisis: being human, as we have understood it for over 2,000 years, requires living by myths that connect us to a world of transcendence that we intuit is really there. The Axial Age way of thinking is deeply embedded in our psyches. But the modern way of thinking denies flat-out that there is anything transcending this world.

In 2015, the formerly Christian writer Damon Linker wrote a powerful essay challenging the complacent optimism of the New Atheists, saying that Nietzsche understood better than them the terror implied by the death of God. Linker wrote:

If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we're alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.

Back to Vervaeke:

The meaning of a mythology is like an atmosphere, and it gives oxygen to our idea of humanness. This atmospheric property of meaning—symbolized by the shaman’s soulfight—refers to human “spirit,” the idea that something about human beings is not confined to body and world but also extends beyond it.

When this symbolic reality begins to decline, it is like the thinning or pollution of that atmosphere. Our meaning-making is asphyxiated, and we are barred from accessing the spirit of soulflight. Human beings become homeless in the universe, as though the soil from which we have grown meaning, and grown ourselves, is no longer fertile.

As Nietzsche famously observed, if we live only for the next world, and the next world is taken from us, precious little is left for the project of meaning, and the consequences are nihilism and profound self-destruction⁠. We do not want to lose all that we gained through the great disembedding, but how do we live with this legacy when we can no longer inhabit its worldview? To begin answering this question, we must gain a fuller understanding of what this world bequeathed us.

(My next book is going to take up in part that highlighted line.)

Vervaeke continues:

To retrace the steps of the Axial Revolution, I will begin in ancient Israel. It is difficult for many modern people to fathom the scope of influence of the Bible—not just for practicing Jews and Christians but for all who grew up and live in the West. Biblical illiteracy has been steadily rising in tandem with our secularization, and this a thwarting problem for our culture—not because people should be Christians or Jews but because failure to grasp the grammar of the Bible is also the failure to grasp the grammar of your own cognition.

You may well profess to be an atheist and disbelieve the doctrines of these traditions. However, this kind of belief—in other words, the propositional belief—is irrelevant in this context. I am not referring to what you profess but how you think and behave. Defining belief only by creed and proposition is analogous to defining the democratic sensibility by whether or not you cast a ballot on voting day; you still participate, however unconsciously, in the ethics, rituals and institutions that structure this form of society.

… The mythology of the Judeo-Christian heritage, for instance, has become an invisible architecture for our thinking, a meaning we live in, furnish, and refurnish over time. One of the psychotechnological inventions that undergirds this architecture appears so obvious that we do not stop to consider its novelty: the understanding of time as a cosmic narrative, as a story. All cultures tell stories, and we will unpack the cognitive science of story in later chapters.

Yet the Continuous Cosmos [of the pre-Axial Age] was not a story. It was a cycle. The story has a beginning, a crucial turning point that forces a crisis and leads the protagonist to act, and a resolution. There is a direction to a story. There is a purpose to it.

Yes. I believe it was MacIntyre who said that we cannot know what to do until we understand what story in which we are a part. The scientific-materialist worldview denies that there is a story at all. Here, according to Vervaeke, is the breakthrough that came to us through Hebraic monotheism:

As with most historical transitions, the cross-fade from continuous cosmos to Axial mythology was gradual rather than immediate. You can detect many aspects of a Bronze Age god in the Old Testament, but He becomes more Axial as He becomes the force of progress, the idea that history, when directed to its proper course, is moving closer to its purpose, gathering together across time, perfecting and refining, becoming more real.

This gathering is happening on a cosmic scale but also on an individual scale, and God becomes the correspondence between these scales, whose revelations collapse together— like the character and the world of a narrative—when the narrative reaches a pivotal turning point. The turning point of the story is called kairos.

In common parlance, kairos refers to a critical or opportune moment, an opening in time that allows us to see, access or intervene in something that was once invisible or obscure. In the two-worlds mythology, kairos is a revelation of the real world from within the mirage.

Kairos requires a shamanic synonymy of knowing and participating. This synonymy is captured in the idea of Da’ath, an ancient term for knowing, used in the Bible to refer to sexual intercourse (e.g., Adam knew his wife Eve). Modern Westerners may find this confusing; we do not often use sex as a metaphor for knowledge. Yet many cultures do.

Moses receiving the Law on Sinai was a kairos moment. For Christians, the Incarnation was the kairos moment of all kairos moments.

The sexual metaphor is a rich one, and we should not shrink from it out of prudery. When one has sex — or, I should say, unites with someone one loves, as distinct from merely mating like animals — one opens a bridge in the most intimate way possible with another soul. One ceases to be oneself, but unites with another, knows the other through unsurpassably intimate participation in the other, and is changed by it. One might even produce new life from it.

When the Christian scripture calls Christ the Bridegroom and the Church the Bride, this is the way of knowing implied by that metaphor.

Vervaeke:

The identity relationship between knowing and participating is a fundamental Axial idea, and it is central to understanding the religious nature of the ancients and their symbolic way of experiencing the world. “Knowing” is not the apprehension of facts, seen dispassionately from the outside. It is nothing you could acquire from a distance. You know something by assuming its identity, by becoming it. Your becoming it somehow changes it, reveals it, makes it real.

When you are making love with someone, you are participating in them, identifying with them, empathizing and resonating with them. You are changing them as they are changing you, and this process of change rises—forgive me the pun—to a climax, after a turning point and before the resolution. You may begin to see why, in so many religious traditions, sexuality is a perennial symbol for our sacred union with reality. Da’ath describes our participatory knowing in the course of its unfolding.

This idea of knowing is critical for our project because it changes the way we interpret religious ideas of faith and belief. In ancient Israel, faith did not mean having incredible beliefs without evidence. That is a recent, very modern idea. Faith was Da’ath. It described this symbolic relationship you had with the world and with your existence. It was your sense of living in this reciprocal realization.

Do you see the Chartres pilgrimage with different eyes now? Do you see all the various manifestations of Christian culture, beginning with the early Church, and extending through history to our own time, in a different way? You should. The idea that faith is about nothing more than assenting to propositions is a modern one, and one that leads to disenchantment.

In the Orthodox Christian faith, “sin” is understood not as the breaking of the moral law, in a legal sense, but rather more as “missing the mark” — of living in disharmony with what is Really Real. Vervaeke thinks something similar:

This kind of language returns us to the idea of sin, but our biblical illiteracy inhibits us; we are tempted to understand sin as doing something immoral, committing a particular act of transgression. This is much more a symptom than a definition. Sin is better understood as being in a distorted relationship with reality. It is the misdirection of love and attention.

Recall the archery analogy that sources the term’s meaning; you cannot shoot for where your eye tells you to look. If you do, you will miss the bull’s-eye. The true arrow is guided by Da’ath, the kind of knowing that conforms the attention of the archer with the proper target. The archer and her target seem to share the same body, the same identity. Their craft is a movement toward connectedness and participation. When she lands the target, it becomes real to her. She stakes herself in its reality. She is binding herself to the world and the world to herself. One way of understanding sin is as the failure to effect that binding.

In 2022, when I visited the medieval Orthodox monasteries in northern Romania, I noticed at the base of one of the painted churches images of kings. The monk guiding me told me that those are the pre-Christian Greek philosophers who opened the way, conceptually, for Christ.

  

Vervaeke writes about them at length, saying at one point, “If you were to put Western Civilization on two feet, one foot would be the Bible, and the other would be the works of Plato.” Here’s an excerpt.

Pythagoras’s cosmos anticipated the relationship between beauty, order, and realness that would become essential to the Greek philosophical tradition. When people report awakening experiences, they often rediscover these Pythagorean affinities. They suddenly perceive the world as a cosmos, and their perception of order and coherence is suffused with beauty.

The notion of cosmos created a powerful model for how we understood meaning and wisdom—what a self was, how it perceived and grew, how we fit into the universe, and how we made contact with reality. It draws a striking contrast with the modern worldview.

A cosmos is not the same thing as a universe. A cosmos is a universe suffused with order, pattern, and meaning — with logos. I didn’t fully understand the meaning of the opening of the Gospel of John (“"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."). What does it mean to say that God was the word, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnate Word? Finally someone explained to me that translating the Greek word “logos,” which John used, as “word” is limiting. Yes, “logos” means “word,” but it means far more than that. It means “reason.” It means “ordering principle.” To call God the Logos means that one of His properties is that He is the ordering principle of all of reality. To call Jesus the Logos is to say that the ordering principle of all reality manifested as a man.

Back to Vervaeke’s discussion of Plato:

Notice the role of participatory knowing in the “virtuous circle” above. Contact with reality is dependent on my self-transformation. I am not a passive observer forming true beliefs. I am implicated in my observations. The appearance of the world is a consequence of my framing, and I have to change myself to see the world more clearly. When I do, the world itself seems to change, and it places a demand on me to change myself. As I transform, the world discloses more of itself. This is the dynamic of participatory knowing. It is a reciprocal opening between me and my environment. I am not just changing my mind or knowing with my mind. I am knowing with my whole self, my whole identity, and all the machinery of my cognition.

The related quests for reality, inner harmony, self-knowledge, and transformation are explored deeply in Plato’s Republic. The quest is dramatized in the Myth of the Cave, perhaps the most famous passage in the history of Western philosophy.

I’m running out of the allotted space in this newsletter, so I won’t retell the Myth of the Cave, which most of you no doubt know — but if not, or if you need a refresher, follow the link. More Vervaeke:

Remember: these myths remain popular because they are not stories from the past. They are dramatic recreations of the perennial patterns we face as human beings, like the disharmony we experience in the parts of our psyche, the problem of being trapped in illusion and being out of touch with reality.

In this vision, reason and spirituality are not opposed. They are inseparably bound together. Plato paired the Socratic project (ordering the psyche to overcome self-deception) with the Pythagorean one (the soulflight of self-transcendence and transformation of consciousness). From this marriage, he discovered a way to depict this radical transformation. His depiction is so entrancing that it became a constant refrain throughout the West.

This is why the truest Christianity is a journey towards what we Orthodox call theosis, or unity with God, in which we achieve perfect harmony with Him, while remaining ourselves. Dante writes about this process in the Paradiso. He invented a word, transumanar, to describe the process — but he very much does not mean what Silicon Valley means by transhuman. He means that we become most fully human by becoming transhuman — that is, gradually changed and perfected by radical, ongoing communion with the Holy Spirit.

Vervaeke on logos:

As I mentioned in previous chapters, this word is among the most translated—and mistranslated—words in all of philosophy. It has to do with the order and arrangement of these real patterns, the concentering formula that fits everything together, integrates it with mind, and makes it intelligible to our comprehension. The research shows that our grasp of logos is intuitive, but not something we can define or express. We know it by conforming to it, by becoming like it, by matching the pattern of our cognition to the pattern of its disclosure, and entering into that reciprocal realization with it.

You see here why in the Christian view, conforming to the Logos — Christ — requires creating patterns of meaning through which the Logos is disclosed. We have to build a Christian culture so that our lifelong journey, both individually and collectively, to theosis can be effected. Rieff said that in the Christian era, Christians knew generally how to live because the answer to “What am I to do?” was “Do as the Saviour did.” We created all the structures and artefacts of Christian culture in an effort to order the material world to Christlikeness, and to create for ourselves immanent patterns of cognition that help us flesh-and-blood humans to do as St. Paul commanded: to put on the mind of Christ.

This aligns with Vervaeke here:

Plato provided us with the paradigm-changing insight that a connection exists between our conformity to reality and the necessity of self-transformation. As we track patterns in the world, we can reflectively internalize these patterns to better understand and harmonize ourselves. The inward transformation allows us to refine our grasp on reality, to awaken from illusion, and draw ourselves closer to what is most real.

That is as far as I got in the Vervaeke book yesterday. It is incredibly helpful to me as a plot out my next book (again, I will tell you all about it once I have a publisher’s agreement). But I think you can see where I’m going with it. Going to that Chartres pilgrimage really changed me. I hope I can publish this book inspired by it. You know, sometimes people ask me how I get ideas for my books. The honest answer is I just wait for them, and they appear. Well, this one appeared in a big way at Chartres, through the young people who walked that walk, and, of course, through the glorious cathedral itself. The second time in my life!

If you like all the stuff in today’s newsletter, please come to the Midwestuary Conference in Chicago on August 22-24! Vervaeke will be there, as will Jonathan Pageau (his frequent online conversation partner), Paul VanderKlay, and my fine self.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Inaugural Mass homily of Pope Leo the XIV with some commentary by yours truly
Signs of Hope

Good day all,

      My thoughts on the Holy Father's homily in bold print.  I see many signs of hopefulness in his homily and I am praying greater clarity and unity from Pope Leo.  The world will reject his clarity since it likes spiritual ambiguity and moral relativism, but I am hoping for a less divisive Pope than Francis.  - Fr. Tom

Dear Brother Cardinals, Brother Bishops and Priests, Distinguished Authorities and Members of the Diplomatic Corps, and those who traveled here for the Jubilee of Confraternities, Brothers and Sisters:

I greet all of you with a heart full of gratitude at the beginning of the ministry that has been entrusted to me. St. Augustine wrote: “Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you” (Confessions, I: 1,1).

In these days, we have experienced intense emotions. The death of Pope Francis filled our hearts with sadness. In those difficult hours, we felt like the crowds that the Gospel says were “like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). Yet on Easter Sunday, we received his final blessing and, in the light of the Resurrection, we experienced the days that followed in the certainty that the Lord never abandons his people, but gathers them when they are scattered and guards them “as a shepherd guards his flock” (Jeremiah 31:10).

In this spirit of faith, the College of Cardinals met for the conclave. Coming from different backgrounds and experiences, we placed in God’s hands our desire to elect the new Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, a shepherd capable of preserving the rich heritage of the Christian faith and, at the same time, looking to the future, in order to confront the questions, concerns and challenges of today’s world.   I never got the impression that Pope Francis considered it a rich heritage, but often just an interpretation and exposition of the faith for a given time and culture.  I am probably too harsh on the past Pope, but he was not one known for clarity.  I am hoping that the use of the word heritage indicates a more positive few of the past as a treasury of faith to be preserved rather than a liability to be dismissed.

Accompanied by your prayers, we could feel the working of the Holy Spirit, who was able to bring us into harmony, like musical instruments, so that our heartstrings could vibrate in a single melody. I was chosen, without any merit of my own, and now, with fear and trembling, I come to you as a brother, who desires to be the servant of your faith and your joy, walking with you on the path of God’s love, for he wants us all to be united in one family. The Holy Father uses phrase from St. Clement of Rome (Pope #3) and seems to borrow some additional imagery from St. Augustine like he did in his opening remarks.

Love and unity: These are the two dimensions of the mission entrusted to Peter by Jesus. We see this in today’s Gospel, which takes us to the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus began the mission he received from the Father: to be a “fisher” of humanity in order to draw it up from the waters of evil and death. Walking along the shore, he had called Peter and the other first disciples to be, like him, “fishers of men.” 

Now, after the Resurrection, it is up to them to carry on this mission, to cast their nets again and again, to bring the hope of the Gospel into the “waters” of the world, to sail the seas of life so that all may experience God’s embrace. Pope Benedict used the image of sailing the seas of life at the dawn of the digital age after his election as Pope.  I suspect Pope Francis might have as well, but when you stop paying too much attention you miss little details.  I prayed for Pope Francis his entire pontificate, but I didn’t give him much active attention.

How can Peter carry out this task? The Gospel tells us that it is possible only because his own life was touched by the infinite and unconditional love of God, even in the hour of his failure and denial. For this reason, when Jesus addresses Peter, the Gospel uses the Greek verb agapáo, which refers to the love that God has for us, to the offering of himself without reserve and without calculation. Whereas the verb used in Peter’s response describes the love of friendship that we have for one another.

Consequently, when Jesus asks Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” (John 21:16), he is referring to the love of the Father. It is as if Jesus said to him, “Only if you have known and experienced this love of God, which never fails, will you be able to feed my lambs. Only in the love of God the Father will you be able to love your brothers and sisters with that same ‘more,’ that is, by offering your life for your brothers and sisters.”

Peter is thus entrusted with the task of “loving more” and giving his life for the flock. The ministry of Peter is distinguished precisely by this self-sacrificing love, because the Church of Rome presides in charity, and its true authority is the charity of Christ. It is never a question of capturing others by force, by religious propaganda, or by means of power. Instead, it is always and only a question of loving as Jesus did.  The 21st chapter of John is so rich. It is one of my favorite passages to reflect upon.  It is how God heals us of our sins.  It is both a healing moment and a recommissioning of sorts.  Jesus can’t have Peter moping through life as a the denier, Jesus is calling him to shepherd the flock.

The Apostle Peter himself tells us that Jesus “is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, and has become the cornerstone” (Acts 4:11). Moreover, if the rock is Christ, Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat, lording it over those entrusted to him (cf. 1 Peter 5:3). On the contrary, he is called to serve the faith of his brothers and sisters and to walk alongside them, for all of us are “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5), called through our baptism to build God’s house in fraternal communion, in the harmony of the Spirit, in the coexistence of diversity. In the words of St. Augustine: “The Church consists of all those who are in harmony with their
brothers and sisters and who love their neighbour” (Sermons 359, 9).

Brothers and sisters, I would like that our first great desire be for a united Church, a sign of unity and communion, which becomes a leaven for a reconciled world. In our time, we still see too much discord, too many wounds caused by hatred, violence, prejudice, the fear of difference, and an economic paradigm that exploits the Earth’s resources and marginalizes the poorest. 

For our part, we want to be a small leaven of unity, communion and fraternity within the world. We want to say to the world, with humility and joy: Look to Christ! Come closer to him! Welcome his word that enlightens and consoles! Listen to his offer of love and become his one family: In the one Christ, we are one. This is the path to follow together, among ourselves, but also with our sister Christian churches, with those who follow other religious paths, with those who are searching for God, with all women and men of goodwill, in order to build a new world where peace reigns! Look to Christ! Pope Leo goes right into the invitation to listen and reflect upon the word of God. The invitation is unity through conversion.

This is the missionary spirit that must animate us; not closing ourselves off in our small groups, nor feeling superior to the world. We are called to offer God’s love to everyone, in order to achieve that unity that does not cancel out differences but values the personal history of each person and the social and religious culture of every people. The church is always missionary. Conversion to Christ does not annihilate all differences, but rather is a process of refinement, keeping what can be of service to the Gospel and losing what is opposed to it or hinders it. Getting rid of sin is just the beginning, putting on the mind and heart of Christ is the challenge.  I pray for our new Holy Father that he may be faithful, courageous and genuinely kind.

Brothers and sisters, this is the hour for love! The heart of the Gospel is the love of God that makes us brothers and sisters. With my predecessor Leo XIII, we can ask ourselves today: If this criterion “were to prevail in the world, would not every conflict cease and peace return?” (Rerum Novarum, 21).

With the light and the strength of the Holy Spirit, let us build a Church founded on God’s love, a sign of unity, a missionary Church that opens its arms to the world, proclaims the word, allows itself to be made “restless” by history, and becomes a leaven of harmony for humanity. Together, as one people, as brothers and sisters, let us walk towards God and love one another. Surprisingly short homily, bishops can often go on forever.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Practice Gratitude - A reprint and expanded post
Gratitude changes everything

Good Morning Digital Neighbors! Happy Wednesday Friends & Refugees, Early Birds and Later Dayers, Conversants and Lurkers, Phamily & Misfits, ADD Irregulars, WSN Curators, and Curmudgeons!  Today's reflection is one of my favorite ones from the past.  David Whyte's wonderful book Consolations - The Solace, Nourishment and Underlying Meaning of Everyday Words.  It is a treasure trove of reflection on the gift of language and the power of words.  His reflection on gratitude is outstanding.

GRATITUDE is not a passive response to something we have been given; gratitude arises from paying attention, from being awake in the presence of everything that lives within and without us. Gratitude is not necessarily something that is shown after the event; it is the deep, a priori state of attention that shows we understand and are equal to the gifted nature of life.

Gratitude is the understanding that many millions of things come together and live together and mesh together and breathe together in order for us to take even one more breath of air, that the underlying gift of life and incarnation as a living, participating human being is a privilege, that we are miraculously part of something, rather than nothing. Even if that something is temporarily pain or despair, we inhabit a living world, with real faces, real voices, laughter, the colour blue, the green of the fields, the freshness of a cold wind, or the tawny hue of a winter landscape.

To see the full, miraculous essentiality of the colour blue is to be grateful with no necessity for a word of thanks. To see fully the beauty of a daughter’s face is to be fully grateful without having to seek a God to thank. To sit among friends and strangers, hearing many voices, strange opinions; to intuit inner lives beneath surface lives, to inhabit many worlds at once in this world, to be a someone amongst all other someones, and therefore to make a conversation without saying a word, is to deepen our sense of presence and therefore our natural sense of thankfulness that everything happens both with us and without us, that we are participant and witness all at once.

Thankfulness finds its full measure in generosity of presence, both through participation and witness. We sit at the table as part of every other person’s world while making our own world without will or effort; this is what is extraordinary and gifted, this is the essence of gratefulness, seeing to the heart of privilege. Thanksgiving happens when our sense of presence meets all other presences. Being unappreciative might mean we are simply not paying attention.

Paying attention- LOVE IT. One of my most frequent reminders in my preaching. We get more out of life by paying attention and not simply existing. a priori state of attention that shows we understand and are equal to the gifted nature of life. The gifted nature of life- hold on to that thought, the gifted nature of life makes all the difference in what we think about our story.

that the underlying gift of life and incarnation as a living, participating human being is a privilege - EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS PRIVILEGED - some more than others, but every single one of us. A personal philosophy built on the dialectic of privilege & victimology will lead to legions of unhappy and resentful souls, and not because they lack privilege, but because they lack the appreciation of the gift of living. To focus on what you lack will never help you discover what you possess and what is unique about you. To be a someone amongst all other someones - welcome to LIFE, Digital Neighbor. 😁 The people I love the most and care for the least are still someone amongst someones. It is not always easy to remember that when thinking ill of those you care for the least.

We sit at the table as part of every other person’s world while making our own world without will or effort; this is what is extraordinary and gifted, this is the essence of gratefulness, seeing to the heart of privilege. Thanksgiving happens when our sense of presence meets all other presences. Amen.

Thank you all for allowing me to sit and share at your table.  I have been so blessed by the people God or fate has placed on my life path and I have been delighted that these digital paths have opened up my horizon so wonderfully.  I greatly appreciate the personal sharing, the cultural commentary, the political ranting and wrangling, and above all the shared laughter and memes.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals