Stephen Roney's Blog, page 227

The Canaanite Woman

At that time, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out,
“Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David!
My daughter is tormented by a demon.”
But Jesus did not say a word in answer to her.
Jesus’ disciples came and asked him,
“Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.”
He said in reply,
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
But the woman came and did Jesus homage, saying, “Lord, help me.”
He said in reply,
“It is not right to take the food of the children
and throw it to the dogs.”
She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps
that fall from the table of their masters.”
Then Jesus said to her in reply,
“O woman, great is your faith!
Let it be done for you as you wish.”
And the woman’s daughter was healed from that hour.

(Matthew 15: 21-28).

This, yesterday's gospel, is a difficult reading. It seems to contradict the clear message of the Gospel that Jesus came not just for the Jews, but for all mankind—or rather, for all good people. St. Paul says “there is no Jew nor Greek in Christ.” The parable of the Good Samaritan opposes considerations of ethnicity. Note that, elsewhere in the Gospel, Jesus has no problems with healing a Gadarene demoniac, or the physically ill daughter of a Roman Centurion, despite their not being Jews.

We must conclude that ethnicity is not the issue.

Consider that what the Bible calls being “tormented by a demon” is surely what we today call “mental illness.” And that the primary cause of mental illness is parental abuse, or emotional betrayal by a parent. This is the current conclusion of psychiatry, and it seems to be the traditional understanding.

So the natural assumption when a parent comes to ask for her child to be freed from a demon is that she herself is its cause. Accordingly, were Jesus to say “let it be done for you as you wish,” were he to answer her prayer, the ultimate effect would be to confirm her authority and to make the child’s situation worse.

Now consider too that the Canaanites were, according to the Bible, to contemporary Greek reports, and to archeological evidence, practitioners of child sacrifice. To those Jews observing at the time, even if the charges are not true, “Canaanite” automatically implied “bad parent.”

Jesus might have been omniscient, and might have known that the mother’s request was sincere. Nevertheless, the crowd would not know. To acknowledge her authority over her daughter in this way would have been to publicly endorse bad parenting and dysfunctional families. It would be publicly absolving her of guilt, and abetting the abuse.

Consider in this light his stated objection: ““It is not right to take the food of the children
and throw it to the dogs.” “The children” may not here refer to Jews, but, more simply and literally, mean children generally. Jesus is here for abused children, not for their parents, who are morally equivalent to dogs.

This is a worse insult, in the Middle East, than the reader may imagine.

Who then are “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”? He actually cannot be referring to the Jews. If they are good Jews, they are not lost. If they are not good Jews, they are not sheep, but goats. “Sheep,” as Jesus uses the term, means those obedient to God. To be a sheep yet to be lost implies someone who is obedient to God, but without proper guidance, the unchurched. John 10: 16: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”

This might apply to the Canaanite woman. It is significant that the disciples ask Jesus to drive her away, and he does not. Instead, he says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And lets her stay. Being Canaanite, then, does not disqualify her.

When he calls her a dog, she accepts the grievous insult. This is the critical act, that shows she is a sheep, that she is spiritually of the house of Israel, of Jacob. She thereby shows she is not a narcissist, not a goat. Moreover, she accepts this insult in hopes of helping her daughter, showing true paternal devotion.

It is this that allows Jesus to perform the miracle before the crowd.

Like much of the Bible, the passage is about dysfunctional families.


'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

A Letter to Dr. Fauci

It says what it says.


'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Words of the Prophet

Leonard Cohen was a true prophet, and foresaw the current social collapse in the US back in 1992. He sang about it in “The Future.”

“Give me absolute control
Over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby
That's an order.”
Over every living soulAnd lie beside me, babyThat's an order.”

Here, he is speaking from the Nazi/postmodern viewpoint. Seen already in the Weimar Republic's sexual license.

“Give me crack and anal sexTake the only tree that's leftAnd stuff it up the holeIn your culture.”

It sounds like a plea for ecological awareness, right? Wrong. He seems to be saying instead that a preoccupation with trees shows a deficit in the culture. The environmental movement, the glorification of the “natural,” has dangerous moral implications. It suggests we ought to act on pure impulse, like animals. Animals kill and eat one another. The Nazis were great environmentalists.

“Give me back the Berlin wallGive me Stalin and St. PaulI've seen the future, brotherIt is murder”

Why would he want the Berlin Wall? The point is the clear distinction between good and evil, Stalin and St. Paul, the free world and the evil empire. It is an image of choosing sides. It is vital to preserve the distinction between right and wrong, or murder breaks loose.
Cohen betrays on which side of the Berlin Wall he stands, with Stalin or with St. Paul, with the phrase “I’ve seen the future.” It was famously applied to the early Soviet Union, by Lincoln Steffens in 1919: “I’ve seen the future, and it works.” Cohen clearly differs: it is murder.

"Won’t be nothing… you can measure any more.The blizzard, the blizzard of the worldHas crossed the thresholdAnd it has overturnedThe order of the soul"

This is the essence of the problem: the order of the soul has been overturned. The blizzard is an image of disorder. There is nothing we can measure any more, when we dispense with truth or right and wrong. These are the measures of all things.

You don't know me from the windYou never will, you never didI'm the little JewWho wrote the Bible

 Getting explicit, surely; we have lost touch with the Bible and our Judeo-Christian roots.

There'll be the breaking of the ancient western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There'll be phantoms
There'll be fires on the road
And the white man dancing

Isn't this a remarkably clear image of what is happening now? Nothing in your past is private any longer; anything can be dug up with a Google search. And has been, on anyone targeted for political reasons. We see news photos of "white" people kneeling before "blacks." We see black-clad phantoms setting fires in the streets.
Was this visionary, or was it all so predictable?

Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby
It is murder

This is not the only or the first time Cohen has sung against abortion. He seemed to see it, as I do, as a key issue.

When they said (they said) repent (repent), repent (repent)I wonder what they meant

And this, improbable and difficult as it seems, is the only solution: repentance. Cohen repeats the chorus relentlessly.

Cohen did; but can we hope for this for the world as a whole?


'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Gathering Storm

Self-actualization: Mussolini's face on the Fascist Party headquarters, surrounded by the word "Si"--"Yes." 
Is there anything more pernicious, more sinister, than the popular interpretation of Godwin’s Law: that if you compare anyone or anything else to Hitler or the Nazis, you have lost the argument? It is the perfect way to usher in the next Hitler; it almost looks calculated. 
The idea that Hitler and Nazism was a unique phenomenon is obviously wrong. We have seen the same script acted again and again: Stalin and the Holomodor, Mao and the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Armenian genocide under the Young Turks.

Rather than being a one-off, that we managed with brave determination to purge from the Earth, the philosophy we call Nazism has actually been steadily gaining adherents and influence over the years, without significant interruptions. Marcuse was big in the 1960s; same philosophy. Nazism is the doctrine we now usually call “postmodernism.” You can trace it back through “modernism” to Darwin and Nietzsche. I am only too familiar with it from graduate school. Even then, in the 1970s, it was pervasive. I remember checking myself at one point and thinking—“wait a minute. Isn’t that just what Mussolini said?” And then brushing off the thought. Couldn’t be. Fascism was something uniquely horrible, right?

It is at base simply the doctrine that there is no truth, no right or wrong, and all that matters is the imposition of one’s will. Nazism and Fascism never had any more to them than that. And, Nietzsche advised us, this is what is left when you turn away from God.

This necessarily proceeds to mass murder: you will want to murder anyone you think might be able to murder you.

We see the stormtroopers in the streets of the USA today, calling themselves “Antifa” or “Black Lives Matter.” We see how easily they bend the majority to their will, just as the brownshirts and blackshirts did. The majority seems to be on their side.

How will it end? If you accept the premise that a foetus is a human being, we already have a Holocaust underway, far worse than Hitler’s. Nazism did immense havoc when it took government in a second-tier power, Germany. It is already in power in China. What will happen if it takes power in the USA?

Will it be in power if Biden is voted in? We do not know who is behind him; might it be a situation like that of the aged Hindenberg, or Petain--a reassuringly familiar old face, a trembling hand easy to guide? Why did the Democratic Party establishment so suddenly and solidly unite behind him, when other candidates still looked viable?

It is Trump, of course, that everyone is casting as Hitler. They did the same with Churchill.

Can it be stopped? Perhaps only by God. Perhaps that is what the pandemic is for. It is, at least, exposing what has been hiding in dark corners.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Elijah and the Still Small Voice

Elijah in the desert. No doubt due to global warming.

At the mountain of God, Horeb,
Elijah came to a cave where he took shelter.
Then the LORD said to him,
“Go outside and stand on the mountain before the LORD;
the LORD will be passing by.”
A strong and heavy wind was rending the mountains
and crushing rocks before the LORD—
but the LORD was not in the wind.
After the wind there was an earthquake—
but the LORD was not in the earthquake.
After the earthquake there was fire—
but the LORD was not in the fire.
After the fire there was a tiny whispering sound.
When he heard this,
Elijah hid his face in his cloak
and went and stood at the entrance of the cave.

This is surely one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible. It was the first reading at last Sunday’s mass.

Bishop Barron posted a sermon on it. He reads it as a criticism of Elijah. Elijah was on the run from Queen Jezebel for having killed 450 of the prophets of Baal. Apparently the authorities were dead right to be after him. The signs were telling him that God did not want violence, represented here by the whirlwind, the earthquake, and the fire; but peace.

This interpretation seems reassuring. We are not keen these days on killing the priests of a rival religion. But it is simply not tenable on the Bible’s text.

For the text goes on to record the words God actually spoke, what the still small voice said to Elijah:

Yahweh said to him, “Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. When you arrive, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria. Anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi to be king over Israel; and anoint Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah to be prophet in your place. He who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and he who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill. Yet I reserved seven thousand in Israel, all the knees of which have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth which has not kissed him.”

Not a call to pacifism.

Bishop Barron begins by insisting that we look at the passage in context. Just so; the full context is not just that Elijah has just killed 450 prophets of Baal, but that the authorities and the adherents of Baal had previously killed all the prophets of Yahweh except Elijah, and were already hunting for him. It was not as though he had the choice of peace. And, for further context, their worship of Baal demanded child sacrifice.

The significance of the series of signs Elijah sees in the mouth of the cave, I suggest, is that we should not fear the powers or the terrors of this Earth, the powers Elijah was fleeing. The Kingdom of Heaven is within. The still small voice is the voice of conscience; and it is this to which we must listen, no matter what the world may say.

Bishop Barron worries me. He seems fully of the world.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Trump's Nobel

Napoleon is said to have preferred his generals to be lucky rather than good. Trump seems to be lucky. He is now credited with a major breakthrough in the Middle East, a peace deal between Israel and the UAE. But peace in the Middle East has been in the cards for a while.

Once upon a time peace in Ireland seemed impossible too; then it just happened.

Not hard to understand why. The Soviet Union collapsed; for a time Libya took over sponsorship of the IRA, but when they lost interest in turn, guerilla fighting ceased to be a viable career option.

The strife in the Middle East, as well as Islamist terrorism, has been funded by oil revenues. For the past few years, thanks to fracking, oil revenues have been drying up.

War is a luxury the Arab world can no longer afford.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Virtues of Conformity?

Why is Canada doing so better than the USA with COVID-19? The US has 16,364 cases per million population, and 515 deaths p.m.. Canada has 3,209 cases per million, and 239 deaths p.m.. Yet the two countries are next to each other, and culturally similar.

It may have to do with the larger Black and Hispanic populations in the US; dark-skinned people are more vulnerable to the virus, probably because of a deficit of vitamin D. Obesity is also more common in the US, and this is a risk factor for the coronavirus. A leftist friend wants to credit the difference to Canada’s government health insurance, but I don’t see any plausible argument for that.

A Chinese student has a theory. It’s due to good old American individualism. If the US government tells people to stay apart or wear a mask, Americans start to riot. In some other countries—he is thinking of China, but it applies to Canada—people are far more inclined to do as they are told by government or experts.

Canadians are famously law-abiding and orderly: in the much-quoted words of the original Canadian constitution, not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but “peace, order, and good government.”

The same thesis seems to make sense of the German experience in comparison to Italy, Spain, or the UK. Italians are always disorderly, and I imagine Spaniards too. The English are individualistic, like the Americans, and unusually tolerant of eccentricity.

This serves to explain again the lower levels of contagion in the Far East. We cannot trust the Chinese figures, but Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have all had an easier time of it; and all are notably for the sense of social cohesion and going along with the group, if not the government. Compare the Philippines, which has absorbed some of the American and the Spanish model, and so is more individualistic: higher numbers.

It may be that the virus has exposed a problem with that approach.

But the game is not over yet.


'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Ernst Zundel

Ernst ZundelA few years ago, everyone in Canada new Ernst Zundel. He was our leading “neo-Nazi.” He was regularly in and out of prison for denying the Holocaust. 
Zundel’s profession was graphic design. A Jewish friend of mine had some dealings with him, or perhaps some dealings with someone who had some dealings. And he reported something that made us both uneasy. Zundel had turned down a job from someone who asked him to doctor a photo of some factory to hide evidence of pollution. Because it was unethical.

He was a man of principle.

My friend assumed that Hitler must have been a man of principle too. But if so, how can we be sure that our principles are right, and theirs are wrong? Had Hitler won the war, would we look on Churchill as the monster?

I find that conclusion not just morally unacceptable, but logically. You cannot fudge morality; as Kant demonstrated, it is indisputable. It is the one indisputable thing: do unto others, as it is most commonly put.

Hitler had no principles. Hitler and the Nazis were all and only about the urge for power and the law of the jungle. Scholars and historians still argue about just what the Nazi program was; even the Nazis did not know. Were they socialists, as they claimed, “radical moderates,” or were they on the right? William L. Shirer, who was there, observed that Hitler said different things to different audiences. He said whatever he thought they wanted to hear. There was no principle involved but power, and whatever achieved power. The triumph of the will.

Zundel was the polar opposite. And the same has to be true of anyone claiming to be a neo-Nazi today. It is not what anyone wants to hear. They have to be doing it on principle, if perhaps misguided principle, because it only does them harm personally and ensures no one will ever consent to giving them any position of power. A modern neo-Nazi is the opposite of a Nazi.

Accordingly, all our measures against neo-Nazis are misdirected. We are targeting the wrong people. We are only persecuting people of unshakeable principle, the very people least likely to ever become real Nazis. Zundel was no doubt right: he was simply asking questions.

Indeed, the application of the hate laws to his case was obviously illegitimate. The charge was that, by expressing doubt that the Holocaust actually happened, he was fomenting hatred against an identifiable group. Isn’t that the opposite of what he was doing? He was denying an accusation against Germans that could inspire hatred. For comparison, would it really be a hate crime against Christians to deny that the Jews killed Christ? Why is sauce for the goose here poison for the gander?

The real Nazis, if they are real Nazis, are certain to instead call themselves “Antifa.” It is the properly cynical power play. And they will want to prevent people from asking questions.

Friend Xerxes reports approvingly, “In Rwanda, it is now a crime to deny the genocide. It is illegal to deny the Holomodor in Ukraine. Sixteen European countries have laws prohibiting denial of the Holocaust.”

This was the law that sent Zundel to prison in Canada, then in Germany. And there is an obvious problem here. Consider this: it is illegal in France to deny the Armenian genocide. It is illegal in Turkey to say it happened.

We cannot trust governments to legislate truth. Governments are the ones who commit the genocides. Then they try, with such laws, to scapegoat the common people. The only guarantee of truth is free discussion.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Sputnik V Ready for Launch

Reports are that the Russian COVID vaccine, Sputnik V, will be rolled out in just two weeks.

Here's hoping.


'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

A Journal of the Plague Year

I’ve had an intuition for a while that the coronavirus scare would be mostly over by September.
I think there are inklings that it might be so. The international race for a virus seems to be entering the final lap. Russia has actually announced that have one ready for distribution. This is a bit of a dodge; they are simply skipping the traditional third stage of trials, and will be testing it while using it. In this emergency situation, this seems to me to make sense. But it means that they have not yet won the race; we will only know in a few months, as with several of the other candidates.And it is a race; an international race for allies and prestige. Whoever does get a good vaccine out the door first will have scored a major coup. The Russians at least are well aware of this—they’ve named their vaccine “Sputnik V, an intentional reference to the space race.Another prime candidate in this contemporary space race is England. All seems on track there; the New York Times reports that their Oxford vaccine has already been given to more than 10,000 volunteers in Britain, Brazil and South Africa. 30,000 people in the United States are to receive the vaccine next week. This means they are actually ahead of the Russians. AstraZeneca is poised to put out two billion doses if and when it is approved. Some months ago, the Oxford team was saying September was possible; it looks as though it may be.

The next strong competitor is China; or rather, a China-Canada collaboration. They are also into stage three, and still looks promising. China has several other candidates, one of which they have already, like Russia, begun using on their military.

The US of course has several vaccines in development too, and are pouring a lot of money into them, with “Operation Warp Speed.” They are pre-producing massive numbers of doses to roll out as soon as one is approved. Dr. Fauci says he is cautiously optimistic that one will be ready by the end of the year.

Evidence is growing that there is already widespread semi-immunity to the virus. The figure that comes up most often is 50%: 50% of the population already immune, due to prior exposure to other coronaviruses, aka the common cold.

This bodes well for finding a vaccine for the other 50%; in effect, we already have one. Quick and not so dirty: isolate the virus, and expose people to it. They get a cold; they do not die from coronavirus.

And if a cold can do it, it stands to reason that a lab-based vaccine should do it equally easily.

This also suggests that “herd immunity” is a lot closer than we thought. If we already are 50% immune, only another 20% of the population getting vaccinated should do it. There are indications that herd immunity has already taken effect in Sweden, or in London or New York City.

If herd immunity is this close, the Swedish approach might have been the right one: at worst, just open things up, let it rip, and in a month or two, the virus will be spent everywhere. The death rate in the meantime is going down, as we learn more about how to prevent and how to treat. The virus is becoming steadily less deadly. 'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.