The Greater Crime

     While I lament the slow death of Blogdom, I must admit that intelligence and insight can be found elsewhere on the World Wide Web. X / Twitter has become ever more interesting since the takeover by Elon Musk, though its mindless “Security” apparatus continues to present users with severe problems. One user who’s made some striking and thoughtful observations goes by the moniker of Black Dumpling:

     BD has made some penetrating and provocative statements, but none more so than this one:

The list of crimes I now think people should be put to death for has grown exponentially because I think it's not the crime one should be put to death for, but the mindset that informed committing it.

This is why I think people who engage in high speed police chases, torturing… https://t.co/ggKSwBhvtw

— BLACK DUMPLING™ (@BlackDumpling) June 29, 2026

     Please click through and read it to the end. For those who “can’t spare the click,” I’ll excerpt the part that hits hardest:

     What would be required for you, as an adult human being, to engage in the willful torture of a dog? Can you think of ANY rationale for why you would do such a thing? If the answer is no, then ask yourself why you would want to share a civilization with a person who not only can do such a thing but would do such a thing.

     BD’s questions cut to the heart of the matter we call justice.

* * *

     The Latin roots of the word justice mean holding rights. The philosophical basis of justice in Christian-Enlightenment societies is the proposition that we who believe in individuals’ rights have an ethical obligation to redress violations of them: if possible, to make the victim whole. That obligation strikes some people as not pertaining to them personally: “Let it be someone else’s problem.”

     As with many other chores we’d rather not be bothered by, we’ve “outsourced” justice to a third party: The State. But while private individuals are largely unwilling to take personal responsibility for justice, popular sentiment about State justice is negative. Witness the tremendous outpouring of applause for the recent movie Citizen Vigilante.

     Black Dumpling’s proposition in the previous segment accords with the general conviction that at this time, State justice is inadequate. Citizen Vigilante and its popularity underscore that conviction. It’s been called “a feel-good movie.” Ponder that for a few seconds and feel your brain itch. But what matters above all else is the subconscious quasi-logic behind it.

     We entrusted the maintenance of justice to the State. The consequences include an expanding tide of violence and predation against peaceable citizens. That is unacceptable. Therefore, the maintenance of justice cannot be entrusted to the State; other enforcers must step forward.

     Note that the above paragraph makes no mention of what “justice” is supposed to mean. Indeed, it could mean nightly Bingo tournaments, or free durians on national holidays, or anything at all. All that matters is that unacceptable consequence. The implication follows directly, though with imperfect logic.

     Ponder that for a moment before continuing on.

* * *

     Most people don’t think about fundamental things. They’ve had terms such as justice indoctrinated into them. “Justice? Isn’t that what the courts do?” You won’t find many high school graduates who answer some other way.

     But as we can see from the previous segment, in the popular conception, “justice” isn’t about correcting violations of rights. It’s about the protection of the innocent from the violent and dishonest. By that criterion, State justice is a failure. But what else is there?

     Only vigilantes. Only killing.

     A people who feel imperiled will countenance the killing of miscreants. They’ll tolerate it, even if at some level they disapprove of it. They’ll know, without needing to reason it out, that when State justice fails, “private justice” – i.e., vigilantes – becomes the only recourse. Many will deem that to be acceptable. But they won’t have considered the second-order effects.

     The masters of the State will note the developments. They will reason that if the populace tolerates vigilantes doing the only thing vigilantes have ever done, then they’ll tolerate a State justice system that executes more often than it currently does. Moreover, the justifications for execution will embrace a wider spectrum of reasons, including imputed intent.

     If you must have a State, do you really want to empower it to kill a man because of what it conceives his mindset to be?

     Black Dumpling has fingered a fundamental question: what shall we do with persons too mentally aberrant to be tolerated among us? Are there any answers other than the one she propounds?

     Have a nice day.

Marching Orders

     Today’s Gospel reading is one of the most difficult parts of the Gospels to accept literally:

     Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
     He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
     He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
     He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
     He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
     And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

     [Matthew 10:34-42]

     That’s Christ talking to His Apostles. The Son of God had something quite definite in mind. The Twelve were about to set out on a difficult, tiring, hazardous journey. That journey had more than one reason.

     One of the distinguishing marks of this passage is its absoluteness. Jesus was putting out the Word unadorned. Loyalty to Him must take precedence over other loyalties. The Twelve had to bear that in mind at all times. Others would surely offer them inducements to leave Him for some other master, especially after they demonstrated the power He had bestowed upon them. Equally imperative, they were not to take among them any of dubious commitment.

     Bishops have to be like that. Bishops, be it remembered, have the authority under the Apostolic Succession to ordain priests and to elevate priests to the episcopate. The deadliest thing a bishop could do to the Church is to elevate an unworthy priest. Of course, if a priest is unworthy, whichever bishop ordained him committed a grave error of judgment at the very least.

     But the passage also speaks to lay Christians. We are commanded to put steadfastness in faith above all other priorities. That sounds harmless enough until we get to the implications. Could you, a Christian randomly selected from the pool of Liberty’s Torch Gentle Readers, profess your faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God if the consequences were to include the death by torture of everyone you love? Because that’s part of the deal. It’s not even in the fine print; it’s right out in front of God and everybody.

     That makes for tough chewing. But it’s at the heart of Christian commitment.

* * *

     We of the United States are blessed in many ways. Not the least of those is that until rather recently, ours was a Christian country. The overwhelming majority of Americans described themselves as Christians of some variety. There were minor faiths, of course: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, even some Taoism and Shintoism. But all of those were compatible with C. S. Lewis’s “Law of General Benevolence.” We are commanded to be “men of good will:” i.e., to will the good of others, and to labor for it at need. A faith that rejects that Law is “outside the Tao,” in Lewis’s formulation. It is unfit for human consumption.

     Today, matters are not so pleasant. Two faiths go among us that reject that Law: Islam and militant atheism. Both of these are threats to the Christian. The Muslim is the sworn enemy of all persons of other faiths; he wills their subjugation or destruction. The militant atheist concerns himself with faith alone. Paradoxically that may make him more dangerous than the Muslim, for he appears harmless.

     I could go into details about those threats to body and soul, but I hardly think it’s necessary. A Christian, whatever his denomination, is sworn to follow the teachings of Christ. Anyone who attempts to induce a Christian to deny Christ – to set anything above His Word – imperils the soul. And one cannot know whence the threat emanates. It could come from within the circle of his temporal loves: his family and cherished friends.

     There is a challenge here, for we are not licensed to forsake our families. We must remain in Christ while also conserving our family relations and bonds. It’s not quite squaring the circle, but it can be difficult, especially if Brother Atheist or Daughter-in-Law Muslim is aggressive about the matter. The challenge is hardly less when the threat comes from a beloved friend.

     Those interested in embracing Christ must be fully conscious of the requirements. Clerics who specialize in Christian initiation have no higher duty. Indeed, a cleric who fails that duty will find forgiveness hard to get.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Race War News

     My gentler Gentle Readers don’t like for me to write about this stuff. Yet I have, and I will. From where I sit, we’re looking at a civilizational crisis. I can’t watch without commenting.

     Have a couple of tweets:

This is how we live. This is how all of us live. This isn't some random street in Peoria, Illinois..

This is the entire world.

As you watch the video you'll feel the tumblers click into place, one by one, over and over, it will be reinforced. As you become angrier.

Consider..… pic.twitter.com/j8jhnOEwkL

— BLACK DUMPLING™ (@BlackDumpling) June 26, 2026

     And even worse:

A pack of blacks surround two White girls sitting on a bench.

One White girl is holding her baby.

The blacks recording are telling the others “take the baby, take the baby, that’s why she not fighting, dam Dey really dat scared to fight, take the baby.” (They think it’s… pic.twitter.com/ojnG66Vn7r

— White Girl (@WhiteGirl1776) June 26, 2026

     These are representative of the trends in recent events. They are not exceptions to a more civilized pattern. Neither are they far from the behavioral norm among blacks.

     Do you remember the “knockout game?” It hasn’t vanished. It’s just that with Colin Flaherty having passed away, no one is writing about it. And it’s blacks attacking Whites: in nearly every case, a young black male attacking an older White man.

     Armed robberies and home invasions have been “colorful,” too. There are plenty of reports of such. Usually, the races of the perpetrators go unmentioned. If there’s a video, it’s even money that the faces of the perps will be blurred. If a White homeowner shoots and kills a black invader, the invader's mother will immediately scream to the media that “he din’ do nuffin’ to deserve that.”

     American Whites haven’t been idle. They’ve been on the move. Residential segregation is making a comeback through White relocation. Demand has made White neighborhoods ever more expensive. Blacks with sufficient means have sought to follow Whites to their new neighborhoods… and have found that they’re not welcome.

     The prevailing residential quest of our time has been to live where there are no blacks, or as few as possible. That’s even the goal of well-civilized, law-abiding blacks. And as young blacks are proving repeatedly that they’ve bought the “White oppressor” propaganda, the trend will continue.

     To regular readers of Liberty’s Torch, this doesn’t come as news. I’ve been on this beat for years. But now and then, it seems important to emit a reminder:

     Whites are not safe around blacks.
     The police are still afraid to act.
     The media are still suppressing reports.
     The courts are still releasing offenders with no or low bail.
     The prisons are still furloughing and paroling violent criminals.
     And should you dare to defend yourself, race-hustlers will call you the real criminal.

     Always, always go armed. No exceptions.

Asceticisms

     Have you noticed the rise in people, occupations, and organizations telling you to give up your pleasures?

     I’ve lived through campaigns against many things. You may remember some of them as well. Butter. Red meat. Sweets. Games. Alcoholic beverages. Carbonated beverages. Fiction. Television. Video entertainment generally. Sunbathing and suntans. Boisterous play. Sexual pleasure! Even smiles and laughter, in some grim religious sects.

     People who denounce things the rest of us enjoy have a long history. The reasons they’ve offered us vary, but the intent is constant: Give that up. You shouldn’t (or mustn’t). They can get very strident about it, such that the rest of us scurry off to find somewhere they’re not admitted.

     You’d swear that the ultimate enemy is human happiness. That just might be the case. There have always been some killjoys among us. But let’s be kind and stipulate that some of the campaigners sincerely want to help us.

     How much of that kind of help can you stand, Gentle Reader? My tolerance for it is limited. Still, there’s always some of it about.

     And this morning it’s very much on my mind.

* * *

     I have a love of sweet things. Some of those things are currently under a cloud of sorts. In the interests of my waistline, I do try to limit my intake, but I refuse to treat sweet goodies as the works of Satan. Despite having been told that sugar is metabolically deceptive and physiologically useless, I still eat a bite of dessert after dinner, most nights.

     I also enjoy wine. Really. A lot! And I have a couple of glasses of wine just about every evening. Got to wash the dessert down, don’t I? The C.S.O. and I enjoy it enough that we bought a tiny piece of a fine winery: Willamette Valley Vineyards in Oregon. And when we go for a brief vacation, we prefer to visit the Seneca Wine Trail, in New York’s Finger Lakes region. You can guess how we spend our time there.

     Well, just yesterday I went for my annual physical. According to my nurse-practitioner, whom I love dearly, I “shouldn’t” be eating sweets or drinking wine. Why? That went undiscussed, save for the usual “bad for you” implication. As I’m 74 years old and in near-perfect health, I smiled and changed the subject.

     There’s a doctor of some sort on X who’s been proclaiming that “Alcohol has not one benefit.” Clearly, he’d like us all to give up the consumption of alcoholic beverages. (I’m against that; it would bankrupt our winery.) No, he’s not the first. But what stands out here is his rationale: no benefits. Were he to be more explicit, he’d say no physiological benefit. And he might be right. But what about the non-physiological benefits? The lowering of stress, the improvement of mood, the improvement to conviviality? What about the enjoyment?

     Don’t those things matter?

* * *

     A passage in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 comes to mind:

     Dunbar loved shooting skeet because he hated every minute of it and the time passed so slowly. He had figured out that a single hour on the skeet-shooting range with people like Havermeyer and Appleby could be worth as much as eleven-times-seventeen years.
     “I think you’re crazy,” was the way Clevinger had responded to Dunbar’s discovery.
     “Who wants to know?” Dunbar answered.
     “I mean it,” Clevinger insisted.
     “Who cares?” Dunbar answered.
     “I really do. I’ll even go so far as to concede that life seems longer I—”
     “—is longer I—“
     “—is longer—Is longer? All right, is longer if it’s filled with periods of boredom and discomfort, b—“
     “Guess how fast?” Dunbar said suddenly.
     “Huh?”
     “They go,” Dunbar explained.
     “Years.”
     “Years.”
     “Years,” said Dunbar. “Years, years, years.”
     “Clevinger, why don’t you let Dunbar alone?” Yossarian broke in. “Don’t you realize the toll this is taking?”
     “It’s all right,” said Dunbar magnanimously. “I have some decades to spare. Do you know how long a year takes when it’s going away?”
     “And you shut up also,” Yossarian told Orr, who had begun to snigger.
     “I was just thinking about that girl,” Orr said. “That girl in Sicily. That girl in Sicily with the bald head.”
     “You’d better shut up also,” Yossarian warned him.
     “It’s your fault,” Dunbar said to Yossarian. “Why don’t you let him snigger if he wants to? It’s better than having him talking.”
     “All right. Go ahead and snigger if you want to.”
     “Do you know how long a year takes when it’s going away?” Dunbar repeated to Clevinger. “This long.” He snapped his fingers. “A second ago you were stepping into college with your lungs full of fresh air. Today you’re an old man.”
     “Old?” asked Clevinger with surprise. “What are you talking about?”
     “Old.”
     “I’m not old.”
     “You’re inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age? A half minute before that you were stepping into high school, and an unhooked brassiere was as close as you ever hoped to get to Paradise. Only a fifth of a second before that you were a small kid with a ten-week summer vacation that lasted a hundred thousand years and still ended too soon. Zip! They go rocketing by so fast. How the hell else are you ever going to slow time down?” Dunbar was almost angry when he finished.
     “Well, maybe it is true,” Clevinger conceded unwillingly in a subdued tone. “Maybe a long life does have to be filled with many unpleasant conditions if it’s to seem long. But in that event, who wants one?”
     “I do,” Dunbar told him.
     “Why?” Clevinger asked.
     “What else is there?”

     The characters above were at war. They were pilots and bombardiers. Every time they went aloft, people on the ground would shoot at them. When they were on the ground, sometimes people in the air would shoot at them. Truly, they could die at any instant.

     But isn’t that true of all of us?

* * *

     Asceticism’s opposite pole, hedonism, makes no greater sense. If life is nothing but pleasures, ultimately it will be pointless. All the hedonist’s memories will be of sensation. Love? Achievement? Legacy? Those would be absent from the picture.

     Not being either an ascetic or a hedonist, I can’t see the attractions. But there are people in both those camps. I’m willing to let them have their “fun” without any interference from me. What grieves me somewhat is when they try to pull me in after them.

     “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Genesis 3:19) But in between, we have plenty of chances to be more than mere dust: to live, to love, to achieve, to enjoy, to thank and praise God, and to enlarge life for oneself and others. The ascetic spurns those chances. His reasoning may not be that of the ascetic across the street, but their ends are the same: to exclude the pleasures from life.

     Would he answer Clevinger’s “Why?” as Dunbar did? If not, what would he say?

     Have a nice day.

The Unwelcome Cup

     Once in a great while, a politician tells us something significant by doing nothing: more specifically, by not reaching for a seeming prize that would be his merely for the reaching. I have before me a historical reminder.

     In August of the Year of Our Lord 1914, when the great powers of Europe had decided to settle some minor issues by killing millions of their best and brightest, France was in a bit of turmoil. Several shattering defeats of France’s armies by German forces had greatly undermined the existing administration. Premier Rene Viviani decided to look for a few popular figures to buttress the government. His eye lit at once upon the man known as “the Tiger of France:” former prime minister Georges Benjamin Clemenceau.

     Clemenceau politely declined the honor:

     Viviani found [Clemenceau] in a “violent temper” and without desire to join a government he expected to be out of office in two weeks.
     “No, no, don’t count on me,” he said. “In a fortnight you will be torn to ribbons, I am not going to have anything to do with it.” After this “paroxysm of passion” he burst into tears, embraced Viviani, but continued to decline to join him in office.

     [Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August]

     Politicians, however greedy for power, are nevertheless wary of traps that are baited with it. No one wants to be holding the baton when the Jacquerie kicks off, and at that moment in August 1914, popular sentiment was clearly inclined toward torches and pitchforks. Clemenceau, one of the ablest statesmen in Europe, could see that it was thus.

     Something similar is in progress in the United Kingdom. The current Labour government, headed by Sir Keir Starmer, has performed atrociously and seems likely to fall. However, a great deal of the odium for Labourite policies has fallen on Starmer personally. Labour’s “back room” has persuaded Starmer to resign his premiership: something of a “sop to Cerberus” so the rest of the administration might not fall as well.

     And so, there is a vacancy at Number 10 Downing Street. Who will be next to occupy that high post? Surely some grandee of the administration will put himself forward for the job. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy? Defence Minister Dan Jarvis? Perhaps even Foreign Minister Yvette Cooper?

     Nope. None of them want it. Among the seated ministers, the lack of interest in accepting the mantle of leadership is total. In consequence, a brand new Member of the House of Commons from Manchester, Andy Burnham, is expected to take the post unopposed.

     That isn’t because Burnham has the glow of the heaven-sent upon him. He just hasn’t had any previous association with the sitting government. No one who has that taint wants the crosshairs upon him with the government in such dire straits. Burnham, whose highest previous office was as the mayor of Manchester, will be no better than Starmer – indeed, with no experience in Britain’s national administration he’s likely to be well out of his depth – but the strategists and kingmakers of the Labour Party are happy to let him be the focus of popular attention for a while.

     I don’t expect much. I didn’t expect much when Boris Johnson rose to the premiership. The national government of the United Kingdom is even more dominated by unelected civil servants than is the federal government of these United States. “Permanent secretaries” and their staffers get their way in the same fashion as do American bureaucrats: by simply ignoring the elected and appointed officials nominally over them. Radical changes are highly unlikely.

     It’s those bureaucrats who constitute the true and enduring government of Britain. Their primary interests are in continuity, both in policy and in personnel. They know full well that for practical purposes, their positions are guaranteed. They will move, or refuse to move, in whatever fashion preserves those interests.

     Politicians come and go; bureaucrats are forever.

     The Sceptered Isle has been in difficulties for some time. Those difficulties are destined to deepen further. It’s a pity, for America has – or had – much in common with Britain. But with every figure of note unwilling to challenge the untried Burnham for the helm, inertia will be the only victor… and inertia always points downhill.

Timing

     Because I write frequently on matters of faith and the spirit, I occasionally get questions about – drum roll, please – how to lead others to Christ. Such questions make me want to run and hide. I’m no master evangelist. I’m just a thinker and writer. But the questions arrive anyway.

     The greatest Christian apologist of the Twentieth Century, Clive Staples Lewis, once wrote that “God does all things for each.” I sense that to be true. Yes, each of us was given free will, but that doesn’t mean we’ll never need a little help. We cannot predict the timing, nor the form, of that help. That makes it important to stay alert, attentive… and humble.

     I wrote the following in 2005. It first appeared at the late, lamented Eternity Road site. I’ve amended it slightly, to make it conform to events since then. If you’re a Christian of any denomination who hopes to become more effective at spreading the Faith, perhaps it will speak to you.

---

     Timing, they say, is everything. And while we all have our little disagreements with "they," I think on this matter they're more right than wrong. This being Sunday, my focus is, as usual, on matters of faith and the spirit.

     In recent years there's been a resurgence of interest in Christianity, a great part of which has gone to the Catholic Church and its Deposit of Faith. Many "cradle Catholics" who fell away when they became teenagers or young adults, as I did, have returned to the communion, oftentimes with wild expressions of astonishment and joy. I can only delight in this trend, not only because I love the Church and think it to have the best grip on eternal truth of all human institutions, but also because the great falling-away of the Baby Boom generation coincided with the rising of many social pathologies. The relation was more than a coincidence.

     But what does it mean? Are the returnees and recent converts flocking through the Church's ancient doors because they've had a spiritual awakening? Because they seek to change their lives? Because an hour a week with a psychiatrist has become prohibitive? For many persons have involved themselves with a church for reasons quite distinct from a true attachment to its mission and teachings.

     The Church, particularly the Church in America, has changed greatly. Fifty years ago, its presence on this continent was marked by an unpleasant degree of authoritarianism. Its priests and nuns seemed to want to declare everything either compulsory or forbidden, on God's Authority. They gave little or no explanation for their dicta; the subtext was always "It's this way or Hell." And one lesson we who attended parochial schools learned early and deeply, often from the business end of a Bolo paddle, was that you don't argue with a nun or a priest.

     The past half-century has seen a softening of the clerical attitudes that evoked the greatest resistance. Characteristic of the contemporary approach are these passages from What It Means To Be Catholic, by Father Joseph M. Champlin:

     The Church attempts to say something about [a wide range of contemporary issues with moral overtones.] Nevertheless, while it can clearly state the commandments, and almost as strongly teach certain general principles based upon the commandments, the further away the Church moves from the commandments and the more specific the issue at hand, the less authoritative the Church becomes. The Church on such points proposes its teachings more as tentative probings and studied insights designed to help Catholics resolve these delicate conscience questions....

     Catholics believe that an individual's conscience is the ultimate determinant of what is wrong or right for that individual. Moreover, God will judge us according to the fidelity with which we have followed our conscience. Nevertheless, this conscience needs to be formed by objective standards of moral conduct. The Church provides us with just that -- moral norms based on Jesus's teachings, the inspired scriptures, centuries of tradition and the laws of nature.

     In taking this position, the Church demonstrates not only its commitment to its Founder and the Deposit of Faith He left us, but also a quality to which all of us are advised to recur, especially at times when we're unsure of our ground and might well be spouting personal preference rather than sound reasoning based in eternal verities: humility. It's no less important in a two-thousand-year-old institution than in an individual man.

---

     All religious questions ultimately reduce to two:

1. What is eternally true?
2. What does God want from me?

     Historically, children who've undergone early religious indoctrination were seldom confronted with those questions in their fundamental form. Instead, they were drilled to repeat certain approved answers to certain questions, to do this and not that, and above all not to quibble with the hierarchy. Despite the obvious, long-established superiority of religiously based education to secular forms, especially to State-run schools, this is a significant error. Fundamentals should come first; no one of any age should ever be told of a compulsion or a prohibition without being given a clear explanation for it. To do otherwise is authoritarianism, especially if the person wielding the authority is not only unwilling but also unable to justify his dictates.

     Many young Catholics of my generation distanced themselves from the Church for precisely that reason. Their experiences conveyed bad lessons to others who might have become communicants. Contemporary priests and Catholic teachers are slowly coming to realize how great, and how greatly negative, the impact has been.

     In a comment to this essay, Father Ethan McCarthy of Easton, Massachusetts circled the matter in a particularly poignant way:

     As a priest, it is very hard to preach to my generation (I am 31) because they are not at church (I'm not that charismatic). Nevertheless, I try to go out around town and meet some of them. I think your insights are very interesting and similar to what I have seen.

     In the area I work, the cost and standard of living is very high. I could not believe my eyes and ears, but there is a standard to which everyone tries to live, often above their means. It was a very different lifestyle than I have ever experienced growing up and a lifestyle I would never want.

     To get to the crux of my comment, women in my generation want a career, good looks, and a good man. Men want a good job, money, a good car, and a good woman. Neither really wants to get married or have children, but they will if they think they can benefit from a marriage. And they are not getting married in the Church, but on a nice beach or resort.

     I usually come into the picture after their second child is born. For whatever reason, having a second baby is a crisis, I think, because they realize that they have no supernatural wisdom to hand down to their children. I "bless" their marriage and baptize their children. Sometimes they will come to see me when one of them (usually the man) has lost a job. I try to tell them to receive the sacraments (confession & Mass) and build up their domestic church by reading the Bible, praying together, staying away from sin, etc. Internet porn is a huge problem among married men. Past abortion(s) is a problem among women. But, I can never keep them around long enough for them to change their lives. As soon as they find a job, grandma moves away, a new ski house in NH, they are back to just dropping off their kids at CCD.

     I think the biggest problem is the lack of God in their lives. They never stop and think that everything I have will one day be dust. I will be dead and all of these things will not be with me on the other side. It will all be over someday. What they need to do is ask, "What does God want me to do?"

     Father McCarthy is himself young, and so cannot be held responsible for the defaults and missteps of those who instructed, or ought to have instructed, his sort-of-parishioners when they were younger. But the question he wants his parishioners to ask themselves is critical. If they truly believe in God, and in a Divine Plan that embraces all who live, why haven't they asked it?

     Perhaps because it's not time yet.

---

     No one on Earth knows the Divine Plan. God has not granted any man the power to read His mind. He speaks to individuals concerning His missions for them, but He has not deigned to sketch out the whole of His grand scheme for anyone. What He has done, and quite elegantly (if I may say so), is to write the laws of nature, particularly human nature, in a form legible to human eyes. What He has done is to send His Son into the world to reinforce those laws with the authoritative Word, and to suffer and die horribly as an ultimate testimony to their truth. What He has done is to promise that no man shall be tempted beyond his strength.

     That is all, but it is infinitely more than enough.

     Still, one must look in order to see. Many decline to look, or deliberately look away. Why?

     It's not because the Word is burdensome. Indeed, the great contrast between the simplicity of Christ's teachings, their negation of the complex and onerous Levitical Covenant, and the lightness of the yoke He asked His followers to accept is why the Pharisees and priestly caste of classical Judea regarded Him as a supreme enemy. Simplicity and clarity are the things arbitrary authority has always hated most. Ask any bureaucrat -- and judge not by the specifics of his answer, but by whether you can understand it.

     It happens that the central thrust of the Gospel passage for today, Matthew 25:1-13, is that we should be ready at all times to meet our fates, for "you know not the day nor the hour:"

     Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
     And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
     They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
     While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
     And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
     Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
     And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
     Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
     But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
     Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

     All true, but He knows -- and dare we say that the information is of no use, to Him if not to us?

     The resurgence of faith in our day could well be a matter of timing. Father McCarthy, quoted above, might burn with urgency over getting God and faith into his parishioners' lives, but his efforts, however anxious, must defer to the Divine Plan for each individual he approaches. Perhaps Smith, whom the good father has earnestly but vainly entreated, isn't ready yet because God doesn't yet want him to be ready. Perhaps Smith, like an alcoholic still mired in his addiction, must "bottom out" in some indefinable way before he can will himself to look, and so truly see. Or perhaps he, like your humble servant, was brutalized by a hyper-authoritarian indoctrination as a boy, and needs more time for the bruises to heal. The desires and efforts of men, even the holiest and most ardent of men, must be subservient to the will of God -- a will whose barest outlines are only dimly visible, except as He has already sketched them in the laws that govern the universe.

     A great and underappreciated aspect of faith is the willingness to trust that, at the proper time and in the proper proportions, God will provide. Granted, beyond a certain point it's up to us as individuals to embrace our opportunities and move forward on our own, but it should never be a matter of anguish to a Christian, or a Christian cleric, that there are others who have not yet seen.

     God will do all things for each of us, at the time of His choosing. To wait serenely for that time is part of faith.

---

     "What should I have told him?"

     Father Schliemann grinned ruefully. "Do you seriously think I'd have done better than you did?"

     Tony winced. "I'd hope so. All I had in me was a platitude."

     The older priest's eyes were kind. "Sometimes that's all you're going to have, Tony. Don't flog yourself over it. Counseling Louis is likely to be difficult no matter what the occasion."

     Tony had expected the pastor to disapprove of what he'd said, to have an elaborate alternative ready for use that Tony would feel an idiot for not seeing. Louis's visit and sudden departure had left him off balance. Schliemann's attempt to soothe him detached him part way from reality.

     The rectory kitchen seemed to have filled with a faint haze. It glittered at the edge of perception in the light from the overhead fixture. Tony balled his hands on the table before him and tried to compose himself.

     "I can see some of the reasons, I guess. But I wasn't ready for it, and I thought I ought to have been. Does it get easier as you...gain experience, Father?"

     Schliemann grinned again. "You meant 'as you get older,' didn't you? In some ways, it does. In others, quite the reverse." The pastor of Onteora parish reached across the table, gently pried the younger man's hands apart, and folded them between his own.

     "We are the vicars of Christ, Tony. Not Christ Himself. We struggle with the lightest of our duties, because He who defined them for us set a far higher standard than mere mortals could ever meet. But mere mortals are all we have. The Church must make do until the Second Coming."

     A sheen formed on the eyes of the man who had defined the priesthood for Tony Baldaserra.

     "Louis is unlike other men. You should know that, you've known him almost as long as I have. When his sister died, he was only fourteen years old, and he was already the brightest, most mature individual I knew. Today...Tony, he's challenged every notion I ever had about human limitations. I don't know what purpose God has in mind for someone so potent, but I do know that, whatever it is, it's something I could never fulfill. If you had to be more intelligent and more responsible than he is to advise him, who in the world could do it?

     "We who do God's work can't afford to compare ourselves to our brothers in Christ. Our ability to help them doesn't depend on our being brighter than they are, or more worldly wise, or even more moral. It depends on remaining humble, on holding fast to the eternal truths we've made the core of our lives, and reminding them of those truths when they lose their way. We have nothing else to offer, except love."

     The old priest squeezed the young one's hands. "And that you have in full measure, Tony. I've known it since you were a boy. Believe me, Louis knows it too. No matter what you said to him, if it had your love in it, it had to be alright."

     Tony bowed his head.

     [From Chosen One.]

     The most effective preacher does not preach; he ministers. He lives his religion where others can see it in action. He stands true to his convictions against all opposition and despite all inducements to betray them. He is, in other words, an exemplar.

     Leonard E. Reed, who founded the Foundation for Economic Education in Westchester, NY, was gifted at conveying the power of the exemplar to others. His basic demonstration was to light a candle in a well-lit room, to stand a little apart from it talking of other things, and to have a confederate slowly dim the lights. When the room lights had been extinguished, he would note that his audience's eyes had all been drawn to the candle's light, as they had not been while there was other illumination. It was his way of encouraging his students to "be a light in the darkness" to those who lacked conviction or guidance.

     A Christian of any denomination, lay or clerical, who wants to see Christianity spread would do well to follow Dr. Reed's advice. Ours is a code of love, hope, and joy. Therefore, love well, live hopefully, and be joyous, and when asked, be ready to explain how and why. You know not the day nor the hour! There's no need to collar "sinners" in the street and drag them to church; anyway, what good would it do? Their eyes will be drawn to your light, or your Christian brother's light, at the proper time. At God's chosen time.

     May God bless and keep you all.

A Cold House

     On this, the 21st day of June in the Year of Our Lord 2026, the first day of summer here in the Northern Hemisphere, I read something that chilled my heart:

     Why don’t Christians welcome new church attendees?
     I’m a baby Christian. Other Christians on here always tell me if I went to church, it would help me. But the one time I walked a very long walk to the only church close by, I had a very unpleasant experience.
     They were like a clique, looking at me as if I was a weirdo when I said hello. No one approached me or welcomed me. And when I tried to be friendly to them, I was ostracised.
     The sermon was great and the music was okay. But the people were not what I was told they would be at all. It broke my heart.
     Is this how Christians usually act towards new people in church?
     Everyone told me to call churches. The vast majority of churches don’t take calls and don’t return messages. Those that have called back asked why I think anyone would want to pick up a complete stranger to bring them to church. I guess that’s a valid point. We live in a dangerous world with a lot of scammers.
     I have been attending my best friend’s online church (in St Louis) since Christmas Eve. I always said hello and spoke in the chat but was ignored. Those in the chat all seem to know each other so it’s not at all welcoming. I love the music and the pastor so I’ve continued to attend.
     2 weeks ago, a woman in chat asked if I usually went in person and if she’d met me. I told her no and who my friend was. My friend has taught kids on Sundays for decades and her husband is involved in putting the sermons online. So my friend is *very* well known. Now, that woman in chat said hello again to me last Sunday.
     But it took 6 months. Wouldn’t it be better to make all new people feel welcome? Maybe someone else is like me, brand new.
     I don’t find most Christians to be anything like Christ at all, to be honest. I’m sure He would have welcomed me with open arms. Shouldn’t we aspire to be more like Him? What am I missing?
     I read in the Bible that Jesus commanded “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” He also said: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.”
     I guess He didn’t specify that Christians should welcome new people to a church but I thought it’s kind of implied in His words. Am I wrong?
     Please help me with this. I’m a bit lost.

     That broke my heart as well. It shouldn’t happen to anyone. That it happened to a new follower of Christ is especially tragic. Yet it’s become the rule in churches nationwide.

     A long time ago, I wrote:

     The physical light may stream from a bank of incandescent bulbs. The physical warmth may flow from a furnace. But these are the least part of the thing. Any Christian will tell you.
     Try it out. You don't have to wait for an invitation; you can engrave this one on card stock and sign my name to it, if you like. Visit the church down the block, some Sunday soon. Don't be shy. Shake a few hands; make the acquaintance of the pastor. Everyone there is as flawed as you, but they'll accept you anyway, if you'll grant them the favor of reciprocation. If you're the least bit open to it, I guarantee that you'll feel it as I do.
     Whether made of wood, stone, or grass and mud, a Christian church filled with its congregants is a warm, well lighted place.

     Remembering those words adds to the pain from reading Samsara’s tweet above.

* * *

     Christian brotherhood – true, unfeigned acceptance of the newcomer – is required of us. Christ said it Himself:

     And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

     [Matthew 28:18-20]

     Yet “baby Christians” such as Samsara are frequently met with indifference or suspicion. That’s especially the case when the newcomer looks a bit “alternative:”

     Why? Why not greet the newcomer as a brother, a sheep welcome in the fold, even if he’s covered with tattoos or wearing his hair in some bizarre style? A lot of long-time parishioners treat anyone unfamiliar as someone to be wary of. It makes no sense!

     While there are occasional exceptions, a visitor to a Christian church is there to learn, to worship, or both. Isn’t that cause for celebration, rejoicing? Why show the cold shoulder to such a person?

     I don’t know Samsara. I plan to engage her, if she’s willing to talk to me. I want to know more about the church she visited that treated her that way. I want to see what I can do to help. A congregation that frosty plainly needs some help.

     I could go on, but I’ve made a resolution to cease flogging dead horses. Yeah, yeah, we’ll see how long that lasts, but all the same.

     May God bless and keep you all…including the guy in the back row who’s dressed like an escapee from an insane asylum, and the woman with the spiky hairdo and the forest of tattoos, and the man, woman, or child who enters the nave of the church alone, looking lost and desperate for a hand of welcome. C’mon, fellow believers! It’s the least you could do.