A List of Modern Ideologies

What is called “modernity” (roughly 1500 to the present) has at times been called “the age of ideologies.” Ideology is an essentially diseased mode of thinking, based on a warped conception of reality. These are the familiar “isms." 

Some of the major diseased thought-systems or ideologies of “modernity” are listed below. All of these ideologies are alive, to some extent, in our contemporary culture; all oppose genuine openness to reality that is the life of the mind and soul. 

• Calvinism and the extremes of the Protestant Reformation
• Catholic reaction in “traditionalism” and the authoritarian Church
• Man-centered humanism of the Renaissance and since “Enlightenment” with the occlusion of reason; deification of truncated reason as “rationalism”
• Hegelianism, the intellectual father of Marxism, nationalism, Statism Comtean Positivism and Scientism 
• Romanticism and irrationalism; unchaining of emotions from rational grounding
• Liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism, free trade, etc.
• Democracy and the myth of “natural rights” (“human rights” later)
• Nationalism, with the idolizing of a particular “nation” and its “state"
• Utopian Socialism with Marxist “analysis” of political and social reality
• Statism, especially in form of “democratic Welfare State” (W Europe, US, etc)
• Communism, combining Marxist Socialism with Statism
• Anarchism and its more recent child, “libertarianism”
• Fascism and National Socialism, combining nationalism with the idol State Psychologism (including Freudianism), Biologism, and other forms of “determinism”
• Conservatism (as combining traditionalism, Statism or libertarianism, nationalism, etc)
• Selfism, and the absolutizing of the individual person (intellectualized egotism
  

Attention to the pettiness of American political “debate” (petty Left, petty Right) makes me think about the ideologies masking the naked drive for power and wealth that constitute the substance of “modern” politics. 

Some of the major diseased thought-systems or ideologies of “modernity” are listed below. All of these ideologies are alive, to some extent, in our contemporary culture; all oppose genuine openness to reality that is the life of the mind and soul.

Lent IV: On Spiritual Reading

In a few lines, I wish to attempt to explain a few points about reading a spiritual text, such as a passage from the Bible. To my surprise, two persons recently told me that they had difficulty understanding Jeremiah’s prayers in which he wrestled with God. The words are in everyday speech, the experiences are common to all of us, God is ever God, so I am puzzled by a difficulty in understanding. It occurs to me that many Christians do not understand how to read the Bible well, and that in the present period, not many persons even attempt to study sacred scriptures or read spiritual classics in our culture. Many Protestants, especially of the more fundamentalistic bend, read the Bible as if they were reading a history book with information, or as if the texts were written just for them. Most Catholics have not been schooled in reading the Old and New Testaments; their familiarity with them is limited to the snippets of passages read at Mass, and to which they may pay little attention. The use of biblical passages at Mass assumes that our parishioners pray over these texts in silence, and study the sacred scriptures, but I have found few who make the effort. Catholics seem to have a much easier time appreciating Gospel stories than passages from the Old Testament, or the Psalms, or the letters of Paul, let alone apocalyptic literature, such as the book of Revelation. In private, people who have active minds often tell me that they do not understand what is read at Mass, and so appreciate it when the priest makes the material come alive for them. And I have long noticed that if I question parishioners immediately after hearing the Mass readings, not much, apparently, came across. Occasionally it brings to mind the words of Amos: “The time is surely coming, says the LORD God, when I shall send a famine on the land: not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD” (8:11). 

In making short reading assignments from the Bible for all to do each week, the goal is for you to attain spiritual nourishment, to increase your awareness of God and of your need for God. Our common goal is not to engage in scientific or scholarly study of the scriptures, for we lack the proper tools for such study—knowledge of the original languages, historical knowledge, understanding of literary forms, intentions of various authors, and so on. This kind of study is for well educated and spiritually sensitive scholars. We everyday Christians, on the other hand, are reading these passages to allow ourselves to be read by God, to be scrutinized, to let the light of divine wisdom shine into our souls. Such reading is done slowly, quietly, either alone or with a close friend, and must be immersed in prayer. If one is not listening by the holy Spirit for the silent Word in and through the words, one cannot read any Scriptures—Hebrew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist—with understanding. Again: In reading a spiritual work, one must allow oneself to be read, to be searched, to be opened up to the presence of God. To read the Scriptures prayerfully is to share in the mystery of God unfolding in time—here and now. 

How is this done? By asking for divine assistance, and then reading the words slowly and thoughtfully, questioning, thinking, seeking to understanding, letting oneself be confronted by divine judgment. For example, today at Mass we hear the parable of the Prodigal Son. I suspect few of our parishioners have ever bothered to read this remarkable story on their own, at home. Sadly, our people do not make the effort to become spiritually nourished. This is the “famine for the Word” of which Amos wrote; our culture has low interest in things of the Spirit. But if one makes the effort prayerfully and thoughtfully to study the masterful story of the two sons, one may discover that he or she is the prodigal son, and the elder brother, and perhaps at times, the merciful father. One must face the fact that one needs to “come to his senses” and turn around and return. The reader is forced to examine the ways in which one envies others for their spiritual and material blessings. And one gains insight into the God of Jesus Christ, for this parable presents Jesus’ image of God. Every word chosen by the evangelist Luke is rich in life-giving nourishment, if one but slowly reads and patiently attends—and takes the words to heart. Spiritual reading takes work, and many do not want to take the effort. 

Our reading assignment for this week: The Book of Exodus, chapters 11-15, the account of the 10th plague, Passover, and the Exodus event. Also, please remember to do our common Lenten practices which I have urged on all of us: (1) Sit or walk in silence daily; (2) Prayerfully read Scripture daily; (3) Attend an additional Mass weekly (and Stations of the Cross); 4) Visit our elderly or shut-ins. 

“May the LORD bless you and keep you; may the LORD let his face shine upon you; may the LORD look upon you with kindness and give you peace.” Shalom!

A Party Pulling Apart

We have all heard today (March 3), I am quite sure, Mitt Romney’s verbal assault on the character and political policies of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, with nearly all of his gunfire fixed on Trump. We have also heard or read various responses to Romney’s action and words.  I shall be brief.

Running through memory, I cannot recall a former President or party Presidential nominee offering such a blistering attack on his Party’s frontrunner during the nomination process.  A distant relative comes to mind:  when Theodore Roosevelt, one term out of the White House, went to the Republican convention that chose Taft as its nominee for his second term.  Roosevelt bolted from the Republicans, and ran on his self-created “Bull Moose Party.”  The action split the Republican votes, and gave the election of 1912 to New Jersey’s governor, Woodrow Wilson.  Roosevelt loved power, and was convinced that he did a better job than his former protege, Taft, and deserved the party’s nomination.  (Note:  although TR was known as the “trust-buster,” it was actually Taft who far more effectively broke up business monopolies.  In time Taft was named to the Supreme Court, and remains our only ex-President to serve on our highest Court.)

Romney’s charges against Trump’s character and temperament as “unfit for the Presidency” would seem to make it impossible for him ever to support Trump if he should win the nomination.  Indeed, Romney and other political bosses in the Republican establishment have been busy burning bridges this week in their assaults on Trump.  Verbally, Romney shredded Trump and his policies. One can watch the speech or read the script online. Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together? 

If Romney truly believes all that he said—in effect that Trump would be a political and moral disaster if elected President—what took him so long to denounce a man whose endorsement he eagerly sought four years ago, and who praised Trump’s business acumen at that time?  Why didn’t Romney deliver his attempt at character and political assassination last summer, soon after Trump entered the race?  Did he just assume, as so many pols did, that Trump would quickly fade?  In that case, during the fall and early winter, when Trump became the front-runner, why did Romney not “spill the beans” on such an evil man, as Romney implied he is? Surely Romney knows better than I do the effects Trump has had galvanizing a sizable part of the electorate that had been politically disengaged as a result of Republican policies and failures.  Or does Romney not see what has been happening in the electorate?  Are the “political insiders” really as blind as they seem to be?  And why discredit the political responses of millions of Americans at this time?  What is gained?  The whole Romney affair today has the appearance of being an act of desperation by the wielders of power in the Republican Party, who refuse to allow power to slip from their hands. In this case, Romney is a tool or pawn of Establishment forces.  To be honest, I thought that Romney was a good and descent man, beyond letting himself be used as a would-be political assassin. Apparently, he is a serviceable tool of hidden political forces.  And who exactly are these men who may have sent Romney out to do their dirty work? 

Has Romney’s attack been effective?  Or, has he proven as ineffective in destroying Trump’s candidacy as he was in winning the 2012 Presidential election?  Reactions from various sources so far are suggesting that devoted Trumpians are unmoved, although one can measure the effects better in several days, when phrases and charges by Romney filter down to more voters—charges such as “a con man,” “a fake,” “a liar,” “a phony,” “a fraud,” “playing us for suckers,” a “business failure,” a man of poor character “with too much to hide,” unworthy to be President, whose policies would most likely bring about “a recession,” and so on. 

It is interesting to consider a few of Trump’s policies that earned special denunciation by Romney:  building a wall on the southern border (rejected by implication); limiting immigration, and especially observing Muslims desiring to enter as possible terrorists; limiting free trade by policies intended to keep jobs in America. In a word, it is Trump’s more nationalistic policies, distinct from Republican and Democratic sponsoring of absolute free trade and “open borders,” that Romney attacked.  Trump’s desire to protect the populace from illegal and destructive drugs (such as heroin) was not mentioned.  In fact, nothing positive or good about Trump was mentioned. Romney’s attack was utterly one-sided, and delivered with a pious smile on his face.  He executed his attack far more cogently than anything he ever unleashed on President Obama. Why? 

Finally, as others have noticed, for political strategy, Romney favors supporting one of the three candidates in a given state in order to deny Trump state victories (most of the remaining primaries and caucuses are “winner-take-all.”)  The likely result would be a convention without anyone having sufficient delegates in advance (just over 1200 delegates). So I assume that the “powers that be” in the Republican Party want an “open convention” because it most assures their ability to manipulate, to cajole, to buy off delegates with benefits—in a word, to maintain their power; and hence to assure that a candidate malleable by them, and to their favored economic and political policies, would be designated.  The Party leaders want the kind of man they have in the Bushes and in Romney:  someone who does the bidding of the leaders and behind-the-scenes power brokers. 

Here is a prediction: If Trump gets the nomination, and if he wins the election, he will not feel beholden to the Republican Party, and would have around him men and women deemed undesirable by the Party, and probably be drawn from both Parties, and from outside of both of our major parties.  Trump would embody an independence from political establishments unlike what we have seen in the Presidency for many years—at least since Eisenhower, perhaps not since before we had political parties.  And why not?  What has the Republican Party done for Trump and his movement? If he should “play ball” with one party’s leaders, he would be betraying the trust of the voters, many of whom probably support him precisely because of his relative party independence. 

A major political party is unravelling, and it has been doing for some years now.  Romney’s action may be seen as a late, desperate gasp by the Party’s elite to keep control of people who are spinning out of their control. 

Watching The Struggle For Power

Folks,

Listening to “talking heads” speak about Presidential candidates, primaries, electoral politics, all sorts of “issues” or “policies,” and a mud-smattering of personal attacks, it is good to pull back from the verbiage, withdraw from the heat of battle, observe and think:

What we are all watching unfold in this primary season is an enormous struggle to gain and to hold political power.  Human beings’ feelings, character, and various policy issues are all secondary at best.

The Democrats began to display the power struggle in open only when there appeared to be, for several months, a plausible threat to Clinton and her lock on power within the Democrat Party.  The Clintonians did not take Sanders seriously because he was so removed from the levers of power within the Party.  As he gained in popularity, and Clinton fell, she outmaneuvered Sanders by moving into his ideological territory.  Her enormous defeat in New Hampshire no doubt shook up the ruling powers somewhat, although if they looked at the larger picture—as I am sure the Clintons did—they knew that Sanders would be doomed by the fact that such a huge portion of Democrat primary voters are minorities, and especially the blacks have voted for, and favored, the Clintons overwhelmingly.  Sanders was a threat to Clinton only from the white youth he attracted; and from the higher-income voters, many of whom have long distrusted the Clintons for their less-than-noble qualities and their ability to shift positions quickly (something Sanders seems unable or unwilling to do).  Sanders has not, to date, hit Clinton hard on significant matters, and so never really threatened her power position.  Nibbling and quibbling over her speeches at Goldman Sachs proves to be pathetically insignificant.  When Sanders said, “Enough of those damn emails already” in their first debate, he virtually guaranteed Clinton the nomination.  How so?  Sanders would not take off the gloves and really try to deck the overwhelming front-runner in the Democrat Party.  His own lust for power has been overly bounded and constrained to defeat a very powerful Party machine.  

The Republican story unfolding before our eyes is a largely different matter.  The Republican Party elite had pre-selected the Presidential nominee (as did the Democrats with Clinton).  That choice was Jeb Bush.  Spending some $150 million on a candidate who barely rose above 4-5% in national polls shows the foolishness of their ways, and their belief that money and power could overcome any popular choice.  That plan failed with Bush’s poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and then decisively in South Carolina; except for Iowa, these states have been strong bastions of Bush power in politics.  (Remember that even in 2000, in the Bush-Gore election, the only state in the NE which Bush carried was New Hampshire; had Gore taken that state, he would have been President, even without Florida.)  The Republican Party bosses clearly underestimated Trump and the power of the movement he unleashed.  The blindness of the Republicans should not be surprising.  The same Republican Establishment has proven itself tone deaf for years.  To note a few examples:  disregarding popular sentiment and foisting the lackluster insider Romney on the electorate in 2012; the utter deafness to the Republican electorate after the huge waves of 2010 and 2014, which gave Republicans control of the House and the Senate.  What did these elected Republicans do?  They arrogantly disdained their own voters, and did what they pleased by doing virtually nothing to challenge the power of the President—the task they had been elected to do.  They failed, and they were too proud to recognize or to admit their errors.  The backlash has been not the person of Trump, but the movement that has been sweeping Trump to victories. “The Donald” has been capitalizing on the gross failures of the Party elites—failures and backlash to their failures.  

The Trump phenomenon is grounded on two primary forces:  the contempt of many Republican voters for their Party’s leadership in Washington; and the disgust of many Republican voters with governmental power in general, and with power from imperial Washington, D.C., in particular.  Part of the irony here is that Trump has not given much voice to reducing Washington’s power, and that could prove to be his Achilles’ heel with his base.  Trump is, on the other hand, being used by the electorate as a battering ram against the Republican establishment, and especially their leadership in Congress.  Understandably in terms of power-politics, the Establishment is fighting back, hard.  One of their main forces so far has been to use Mitt Romney, formerly Mr. Milk Toast, to attack Trump with nasty charges.  Senators and Congressmen have joined the chorus.  These men are not fighting for “ideas,” but to maintain their power-hold over the Republican Party, and over a sizable part of the American electorate.  If Trump continues to win primaries, as he is expected to do, it should be interesting to see how desperate the Republican elites become.  Expect virtually anything and everything to be used.  Of course the Republican elites gain support from non-Republican powers, such as the NY Times, and even the Clintons, who do not want to run against Trump, despite what polls say now.  Bill Clinton is far too astute a Machiavellian politician not to know that Cruz or Rubio would be easily defeated in a general election, but that the real treat to their attempt to regain the Presidency is Trump and the movement underneath him.  

Watch the lust for power at work. The rest is superficial dressing. These politicians use “policy” as a main cloak for their naked selves:  men and women greedy for gain—for power, and often for wealth.  Imposing their “ideas” on the populace—their “policies”—is primarily a means to exercise their power, and to guarantee the holding of power for themselves and their fellows in their Party. What is a political Party but an organization to acquire, to maintain, to increase, and to exercise political power?  In this regard, there is no essential difference between the Communist Party of the USSR, the National Socialist Party of Germany, or the Republican or Democrat Parties in the United States.  Our Parties are more benign, not because the powerful in this country are more virtuous than in Germany or the Soviet Union, but because their are more CHECKS on the abuses of power in their country than in the totalitarian regimes.  All of the key players in these parties are authoritarian, and driven by the lust for power.  Otherwise, they would not seek such power over others.  They would live more private lives. If their overwhelming desire were to help formulate and effect policy, they would work in a think tank, or on Capitol Hill as members of a staff, or as lobbyists, or even quietly pursue scholarly work, for examples.  

One last point. As Trump closes in on the Republican nomination, we will hear shrill and increasingly brutal assaults from the holders of power in both parties to destroy the man and the movement that threaten them. They will not openly admit:  “We want power, and to keep our power, we must destroy the greatest threat to us.”  Trump will gain power as discontented voters, disgusted with their Party elites and with Washington’s rule, feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable (“unprotected”), as by international violence and domestic acts of terror (whether from Americans or from foreign sources). Threatened people lash back. Feeling powerless, they look to a powerful force to increase their security.  Most Americans feel highly vulnerable now:  personally, economically, financially, and with their lives threatened by terrorists.  And what are terrorists, but men and women so driven for power that they will resist to any means to assert their will?  Physical murder is the last resort of the power-driven. Before that, they engage in character assassination and every possible trick short of murder.

A Note On The Trumpian Political Movement

It is evident that few Americans have studied our Founding documents, and know in depth our American political history.  My knowledge of the Founding documents is greater than my knowledge of American history.  For example, it was not until I read an article recently that I recognized the similarities between the Trump movement and the Jacksonians of the early 19th century.  That Trump is within the traditions of American nationalism and populism was evident.  In both the Jacksonian and Trumpian movements, there is a very strong sense that the national leaders, the (new) Federal government, has become elitist and distanced from the people they are supposed to serve.  And there is a strong desire to smash or limit the political powers that be by a decisive, charismatic figure who is able to get results, to “win victories,” to “make deals.”  

Leaving aside the comparison with the Jacksonian movement, just looking at Trump’s movement awakens some sense of surprise.  Part of the irony for the Trumpians is that Trump himself does not rail against big government, but most Trumpians would; Trump is not a conservative, whereas most of his supporters are; Trump himself is part of the business-political elites, whereas his followers are not; Trump says nothing about states’ rights or returning to constitutional Federalism, but many of his supporters would.  Ideologically, most Trumpians are probably closer to Cruz or even to Rubio than to Trump.  On the other hand, Senator Cruz is well-within the genuine conservative political traditions of this country, and he is both brilliant and learned.  But Trump provides something that neither Senator Cruz nor Senator Rubio presents:  a strangely charismatic political figure who is in some senses larger than usual life.  Rubio’s charge pronounced yesterday, that Trump is a “con man,” is not altogether false, and Trumpians probably know this.  Nor is the previous charge that he is a “clown,” “flamboyant,” or even “ego-maniacal,” as we hear charged.  There is truth in all of these labels.  (Note:  who but an ego-maniac would present himself or herself as the best candidate for President?  Maybe the elder Bush, but then, he felt “entitled” to hold power, did he not?)  

There is a mass movement stirring under Trump.  He has been carried on it, and he stirs it up, and feeds on it.  A sizable part of the American electorate, turned off by all politicians, has been longing for a powerful figure to smash much of the American political mess.  Along comes Trump.  The smashing effort will probably not work well, because party machines and bureaucracies, once solidified in power as ours are, do not change much at all from external forces.  Trump could effect some political changes, and surely he would set out to undo some of the worst damage inflicted by Obama, and even by Clinton-Bush-Obama.  He will try.  Again, political realities do not change easily or wholly.  How could anyone undo the enormous political and social damage inflicted by recent American regimes, especially by Bush and Obama, on the Middle East?  Especially with Russia and Iran unleashed there, how does America even carve out a sphere for responsible and prudent action?  The task has been made incredibly difficult by what our two recent administrations have done.  I cite this as an example of the enormous task of changing political realities, especially once destruction has been wrought.  Unleashing forces of destruction is much easier than bringing back order.  No one can accomplish very much in this area, although Trump intends to try.  He has promised to smash ISIS quickly, and to seek to broker peace between Israel and its neighbors—admitting that the task would be the most challenging of his life.  He is a realist, but has a noble goal towards working for peace in the Middle East.  Chances for success at this time do not seem high, given the millennial history of hatred between Israelis and Palestinians, and more recently, between millions of Muslims and the state of Israel.  

I shall offer more on the Trumpian movement later.  In sum, suffice it to note that it combines at least two major elements:  an attitude of rebellion against the powers that be, and especially against the two political parties and their failures to govern well from Washington; and a desire for genuine leadership that can accomplish good political results, such as protecting the body politic from Islamist terrorism, and from intellectual terrorism by the American quasi-Marxist Left, summed up in the phrase, “political correctness.”  It is the reaction to these forces that feeds the pro-Trump movement.  Trump garnered leadership in this movement by his independence from both party establishments; by his history of “getting deals done,” hence showing leadership; and by his utter disdain for politically correct language, time and again.  Whether one likes these positions or dislikes them is irrelevant to a political scientist who is trying to understand political reality in its complexities.  

An electoral note:  Because Trump is not an ideologue nor even a genuine conservative, but a populist and a pro-American nationalist, his appeal crosses party lines.  He will draw on support from Republicans, Democrats, independents.  That is the primary reason why he can and beat Clinton in the general election.  Her appeal is narrowly to loyal Democrats and to ideologically fixed Progressives; and she may be able to draw in some forces aligned with the Republican Establishment, which detests Trump precisely because he threatens and undermines their monopoly of power in the Republican Party.  Two of the best states in which to test the thesis of Trump’s appeal would be Pennsylvania and Michigan, states which Democrats have carried fairly handily for decades in Presidential elections.  One should also test the appeal of Clinton versus Trump in Florida, such a decisive state; a Republican must carry Florida to win the White House.  Pay attention to voter turnout in Michigan and Florida, and see how Clinton compares to Trump for the upcoming general election this November.

Primary note:  The Republican machine utterly failed to stop Trump with their chosen tool, Jeb! Bush.  Once this Bush got resoundingly defeated and withdrew from the primaries after South Carolina, the Party machine and huge big money backers quickly moved into the camp of Senator Rubio, who had already attracted some very wealthy backers and PAC money.  (Republican power brokers hate Senator Cruz, who is no Party puppet, but an independent thinker and voice, something considered dangerous to established power.)  Most of what happens in politics happens behind closed doors, so we do not know, but my guess is that clever minds like Karl Rove and other George-Jeb Bush handlers are now advising Rubio. Hence, he has come out swinging hard and low against Trump (who knows how to kick below the belt, too).  What I know is that the usual Republican Party intellectual voices we hear in mass media, such as Rove, G Will, Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and others, utterly detest Trump. Their main problem with Trump they do not admit in public, and perhaps not to themselves: they and the Party machine cannot control Trump—neither his actions nor his mouth.  They controlled the Bushes, and now they control Rubio.  Big money and power are at work.  Trump has plenty of money of his own, and the power of the Trumpian movement behind him, to give him independence from the Republican Establishment.  

—Wm. Paul McKane

    27 Feb 2016

Lent III: The God of Moses

In the famous prologue to St. John’s Gospel (chapter 1: 1-18), we read: “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:17). The verse capsulizes the attitude of the early Christians to Moses and the Law as being eclipsed by Jesus Christ, who is “the only begotten God” (Jn 1:18). Not wishing to criticize the spiritual masterpiece that is John’s Gospel, yet it seems to me that this view over-simplifies the truth. Moses is not only the one through whom Yahweh-God gave the Law; he also is the one through whom God established His covenant with His people, and the covenant is indeed God’s grace and truth to the Chosen People, Israel. The Christian claim is too extreme, and in effect denies that the Covenant and Law were themselves means of gracing God’s people with truth, and letting them experience God’s love as His people. Furthermore, the early Christians did not do justice to Moses. Why not? Moses was a competitor to Jesus in the sympathies of Jewish-Christians, and the Church too quickly brushed Moses aside, or downgraded his role in the history of God’s dealing with humanity. In light of Moses in the Hebrew Scriptures, I suggest that the role of Moses as God’s favored instrument of salvation needs to be re-discovered by Christians. 

 

Moses is the man whom God called to experience His Presence, and carry the divine reality to His people. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, this special role took a major leap forward on Mount Sinai, when God encountered Moses out of a burning bush. We hear the account today in our week-end liturgy. Be attentive, and take the words to heart. It would be going too far to say that “God revealed Himself to Moses,” if those words suggest that after the encounter, Moses “knew” God in any definitive way. God ever remains the unknown God beyond any experience, even when the divine lets itself be experienced.In biblical language, Moses was later permitted to see “the hind parts” of God, hence reserving the divine mystery as beyond human grasp or comprehension. Furthermore, after God presented Himself through His word to Moses, the man Moses became the human carrier of God to the Chosen People, Israel. Moses became the bearer of God, and not just the giver of the Law. Moses is more than a prophet, greater than Isaiah or Jeremiah; God is present in and through Moses. Because of this unique role, those Jews who experienced the living God in and through Jesus of Nazareth allowed Moses and his role to fall into relative obscurity, and over time, it became neglected by many Christians. It is time for Christianity to rediscover the unique “God-man Moses” (as he is called in the title to Psalm 90). 

 

Our common Lenten reading assignment for the next week is the Book of Exodus, the heart of the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament), chapters 1-6. (At the end of the page, click on "next chapter" to advance). Please pay special attention to the great thorn bush revelation, Exodus 3-4. Become aware of Moses, and the God of Moses, and how Yahweh-God intervenes to rescue His people. And take the words to heart. 

 

Please remember our common Lenten practices which I urge for all of us to do: (1) Sit in silence daily; (2) Prayerfully reading Scripture daily; (3) Attend an additional Mass weekly (and Stations of the Cross); 4) Visit our elderly or shut-ins.

Lent II: Spiritual Formation and 5-Year Pastoral Plan

Remember our common Lenten practices which I urge all of us to do:
(1) Sit in silence daily;
(2) Prayerfully read assigned Scripture daily;
(3) Attend an additional Mass weekly (and Stations of the Cross);
(4) Visit our elderly or shut-ins.

Pastoral Plan.

Our Bishop and his staff have prepared a 5-year Pastoral Plan, which has been mailed to all parishioners who receive the Harvest. Please read the Pastoral Plan. I am welcoming input from parishioners for our parish plan which we must develop and submit to Bishop Michael. A small number of us will be meeting on 7 March to discuss a 5-year plan, and prepare the first year plan that I will send to the Bishop, as required. Please note: We do not need to shoot out in many directions in our 5-year plan for our three faith communities. I met with Fr. Lou, long time pastor of OL Lourdes, and he strongly recommended that we keep our plan simple. (I did not find the diocesan plan so clear and simple; it is needlessly wordy and lacks a decisive, sharp focus.) In addition to a spiritual focus at liturgies, home study, and adult faith class, I am thinking of preparing a little “kit” to send to each family. We will discuss this on 7 March.

The Diocesan 5-year plan emphasizes well-organized liturgies with solid preaching. I have attempted to do this during my 25-years of full-time work in parishes. I understand the role of the parish priest to be the care of souls, and is primarily done through preaching the Gospel of Christ, through teaching adults (some of whom then work with our children), and through meaningful celebration of liturgies. “Care of souls” can also be called “spiritual formation.” If we do not provide it, where or how do you receive it? What else in your life aims to help you develop your life in Christ and to prepare you for eternity in God? Our 5-year plan must focus on spiritual formation, the care of souls. In a secular, worldly culture such as ours, it would be easy to become derailed into non-spiritual activities in our parishes, and I have steadily resisted that path.Your spiritual formation and well-being must be my primary focus. All that we do in our liturgies needs to run in this direction. I do not find it spiritually beneficial to use the liturgy primarily for other purposes, such as “building community,” or “making our children feel included,”and so on. These are secondary goals, not primary, and must not overshadow our common task: to be nourished and nurtured in Christ. As you think about our 5-year plan, please keep this general guideline clearly in mind. 

Scriptural Readings:

I have been giving you Lenten Scriptural reading assignments, intended for all parishioners to do. Why? It is part of our task of spiritual formation. The readings are intended to help turn your mind and heart to God, and to reflect on God’s work in the world and in your life. Last week I assigned the prophet Jeremiah, chapters 1-7. Two of you mentioned doing the readings, and I appreciate your effort to respond to our invitation. This week, we will read the six remarkable “confessions” of Jeremiah, in which the prophet wrestles with God.There is really nothing else like these six laments or confessions in the entire Bible; passages in St. Paul’s letters would come closest, and we may study some of these for next week. There are the six distinct passages that Hebrew scholars have recognized as Jeremiah’s confessions. Please read them prayerfully. You may consider them as a model of prayer; note how direct and honest they are. Jeremiah does not try to “sweet talk” Yahweh, the LORD. All of these prayers are found in the book of the prophet Jeremiah. Please read and study the following: 

                               (Click here for the links to these readings)
(1) Jeremiah 11:18—12:6 (that means, chapter 11, verse 18 through chapter 12, verse 6);
(2) Jer 15:10-21 (meaning Jeremiah chapter 15, verses 10-21, inclusive);
(3) Jer 17:14-18;
(4) Jer 18:18-23;
(5) Jer 20:7-13;
(6) Jer 20:14-18 (meaning the 20th chapter of Jeremiah, verses 14 through 18, inclusive)

Why read this material? For your spiritual formation. How? You can see how the prophet Jeremiah, a true man of God, wrestled with God, questioned God, even accused God—and then repented. Jeremiah is a model for us of a human being seeking to be faithful to his calling. 

“Redeem the Time.” May you make the best of the Lenten opportunities to grow in God’s grace.