Want to know which way the cultural wind is blowing at any time and place? Look to the innovative, pragmatic, malleable evangelicals.

1bde8-det-unproven

Heart Religion, Tradition, and the Evangelical Chameleon

 121  49  181

What can keep today’s young evangelical searchers in the fold? Only the recognition that their own questing puts them squarely in the lineage of martyrs, mystics, monastics, and the whole “cloud of witnesses.”

It is easy enough to see that contemporary evangelicalism indulges a sort of fetish for reinventing itself. Christianity Today editor Mark Galli once described a flier he received in the mail:

A new flavor of church is in town! Whether you prefer church with a more traditional blend or a robust contemporary flavor, at [church name], we have a style just for you! Casual atmosphere, relevant messages, great music, dynamic kids’ programs, and yes, you can choose your own flavor!

The “flavors” the flier advertised were things like “‘Real-life messages,’ ‘Safe and fun children’s program,’ ‘Friendly people,’ and the marketing coup de grace, ‘Fresh coffee and doughnuts!’”

Evangelicalism is and has always been chameleonic. It exhibits a uniquely strong instance of what Lamin Sanneh has called the “translatability” of Christianity. Sparked by the transatlantic revival of Wesley and Edwards in the eighteenth century, the evangelical flame has since flashed through almost every neighborhood of Protestantism’s heavenly city. And as it has spread, it has melted down every time-honored ecclesial structure in its pursuit of the direct, unmediated experience of God.

This pietistic, revivalistic impulse reached white heat in the late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century America, that furnace of “populism, individualism, democratization, and market-making.” Nineteenth-century evangelical worship and spirituality promoted a direct and personal relationship with God. It featured fluid, pragmatic worship forms tailored to specific situations and purposes, democratic lay participation in worship, and importations from popular culture. As one nineteenth-century Methodist exclaimed: “Why should the Devil have all the good tunes?” Thus was evangelicalism in the beginning, is now, and (quite likely) ever shall be.

As each new generation of evangelicals has forged its own culturally attuned modes, the movement has held on to only two sacred realities. The first is “the church invisible”—the fellowship of saints across time, space, and denominational traditions. The second is the individual’s relationship with God. Between these two, everything else—all the doctrinal formulations, liturgies, polities, and other ecclesiological frameworks—have been rendered negotiable and plastic, continually modified and remodified to achieve pietistic ends.

Years of feeding, promoting, and protecting its hunger for direct experiential access to God have encased this theologically conservative movement in a culturally liberal skin. The resulting incongruous religiosity has descended, in some of its forms, into a sort of Jesus-y multiple personality disorder. For despite its socially angular commitments to sin, salvation, miracles, and the theology of the cross, evangelicalism expertly camouflages itself in every setting, hugging the contours of the world around it. Want to know which way the cultural wind is blowing at any time and place? Look to the innovative, pragmatic, malleable evangelicals.

The Heart against Tradition

As it seeks camouflage in its surrounding cultures, evangelicalism tends to separate itself from its own Christian roots. To see why, we need to spend a moment more with evangelical experientialism. David Bebbington famously defined the movement with a fourfold typology: biblicist, crucicentrist, conversionist, and activist. In raising evangelical “matters of the heart,” we are, I suppose, talking about conversionism. Yet that term by itself is inadequate to describe the movement’s habitus of affective devotion.

To modern critics (including some evangelicals), the movement’s emotional bent can seem mawkish, self-indulgent, even theologically dangerous. This may miss the fact that Christian groups in the pietistic tradition of evangelicalism have typically treated (if not always fully articulated) religious emotion not as raw feeling but, quite biblically, as a response of the “heart”—understood as our unified center of feeling, thinking, and willing—to a Gospel both understood and acted upon. Evangelicals tend to understand better than most that it is impossible for us to live righteously unless our whole being, including our emotions, has experienced transformation. And they can claim as support for this understanding not only Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley, but also C.S. Lewis and such thoughtful modern pastors as John Piper and Tim Keller.

But whatever the merit of this affectively toned conversionism, what has it meant to the evangelical willingness to reinvent all ecclesial forms? Is there any way heart religion can lead toward, rather than away from, a firmer and better-grounded Christian identity?

Since the Reformation, Protestants have consistently worried that traditional forms of worship and ecclesial life may lead people away from God and back into what Martin Luther once called the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” Since their first cries in the Puritan cradle, evangelicals have lashed out against all tricks of the religious trade that are proffered as necessary mediations between humans and God. Any time ecclesiasts have prescribed images, rituals, gestures, or their own holy offices and orders as crucial to the believer’s relationship with God, evangelical Protestants have demurred. The proto-evangelical “free church” Protestants—first the Anabaptists, then later the varieties of Reformed Christianity stemming from Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, then the nonconformist varieties of Puritans (Baptists, Congregationalists, etc.), then all their heirs up to the modern Pentecostal denominations and Charismatic movements—have desired to be “free,” not only from state control and church hierarchy, but also from such priestcraft. How dare any human tell others they must do this or that to reach God! Each of us stands before God on our own two feet. And God, in turn, stands ready to meet us without the poor helps of human tradition.

The Heart for Tradition

Yet—and here is where I take hope—this very same attention to the heart’s experience of God’s presence is itself a piece of Christian tradition. The desire to experience intimacy with God in Christ and through his Spirit, and the understanding that this desire is itself God-given—a blessing to be enjoyed both in heaven and here on earth—runs like a golden thread through Christianity since its origins. It animated Paul, Origen, Augustine, the medieval monks, and the Orthodox mystical writers, as well as the evangelical family line of Pietists, Puritans, Baptists, and Methodists.

In fact, its emphasis on heart religion may yet prove to be evangelicalism’s way out of its long history of anti-traditionalism. For the movement’s tide of experientially driven heart religion pulls in not one, but two directions. Yes, it threatens to sweep some of its followers onto the rocks of a traditionless banality. But at the same time, its impassioned undertow is pulling others out into the wine-dark sea of older faith traditions.

In fact, it is the very evangelical desire to be “closer to God”—which has in the past separated the movement from its own Christian heritage—that drives this yearning for a more solid and satisfying Christian identity in an increasingly post-Christian world. From this yearning has emerged a now forty-year-old movement toward a more traditional Christian spirituality, reclaiming such time-honored practices as lectio divina (slow, meditative reading of Scripture), spiritual direction, and Ignatian retreats.

This modern evangelical retrieval movement started in America in the 1950s and 1960s, as walls between Protestant and Catholic camps began to come down (though, as Kenneth Stewart has taught us, it has analogues throughout evangelical history). It “broke out” in 1978, with the publication of Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline. By that year, conciliatory, culture-engaging “new evangelicals” (represented by the NAE, Christianity Today, and Fuller and Gordon-Conwell seminaries) had already begun to initiate themselves into the world of traditional Christian spirituality. They were using contemplative prayer techniques, attending retreats, sitting under spiritual directors, and reading Catholic and Orthodox books. But Foster, along with such teachers as Dallas Willard, Eugene Peterson, and James Houston, brought ancient spirituality into the evangelical mainstream for at least a season.

And although leaders confess that this movement has begun to stall out in recent years, committed evangelicals who regret their churches’ chameleonic adaptation to modern culture—and concomitant loss of historic Christian flavor, if not identity—are continuing to seek spiritual help along older pathways. For some at least, a reappropriation of older traditions seems the only way to re-anchor a church that seems more and more to be becoming “all things for all people.”

Though no church, of course, can be wholly immune to the influence of the culture that surrounds it, thoughtful evangelicals yearn for a Christianity that has its own strong culture, standing (where necessary) against the stream. This they glimpse in certain presumably golden times and places—the persecuted church before Constantine, early monasticism, Celtic Christianity, the anti-state ranks of the sixteenth-century Anabaptists—and such glimpses spur them to further exploration. They hope that, in patristic pastoral theology, monastic rules of life, and time-honored devotional forms, they can discover modes and practices of faith that look less like malls and rock concerts than the churches they’ve attended. Consider the popularity of Orthodox convert Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option: though many evangelicals critiqued it, many more read it with wistful hearts.

The quest is supported, too, by evangelical scholars, from whom has come a strong stream of books and articles. Translated and excerpted spiritual classics are now joined by monumental historical commentary series from evangelical presses, appreciative histories of confessional Protestantism, the popular explorations of Christian History Magazine and Touchstone Magazine, and even a nascent evangelical “medieval retrieval.”

This last is a ressourcement latecomer, and still much more on the edges of evangelical consciousness than early-church retrieval. My own recent book, Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians, seeks to contribute to this part of the conversation, as do works by Rebecca DeYoung, Greg Peters, Dennis Okholm, Douglas Wilson, Glenn Myers, and the occasional evangelical contributor to First Things, to name only a few.

In the face of continued attempts to make church “relevant,” many younger evangelicals have simply been leaving the mall-like megachurches, spurning the high-energy, entertainment-oriented worship services and marketing-driven strategies of modern de-denominationalized, de-traditioned “worship centers.” And why, indeed, should they stay, when it is not at all clear just how these culturally camouflaged churches can offer them anything more transforming than the flood of empty promises pouring from the consumerist world around them?

For a time, young evangelicals pushed these frontiers through “emerging” and “new monastic” experiments, sampling ancient- and medieval-inflected elements of worship and modes of community. Though highly selective in implementation, and far short of sparking any ecclesial revolution, these dalliances reveal the power of the modern evangelical spiritual hunger for tradition described by such authors of a previous generation as Richard Lovelace, Robert Webber, and Dallas Willard.

It is fair to say that young evangelicals continue to question received forms, to hunger for authenticity and community, to yearn for a spiritual therapy that will heal their sin-sick souls, and above all, to reach out for immediate, personal connection to the divine.

But with the ecclesial impulses of the “emergent” and “new monastic” crowd already fading, what can keep today’s young searchers in the fold? Only, I think, a dawning or renewed recognition that their own questing puts them squarely in the lineage of martyrs, mystics, monastics, and the whole “cloud of witnesses.” Only the solidarity that comes as we see that our own hearts’ impulses for God are the same impulses that drove every Christian generation’s quest, from the spiritual warfare of the desert fathers, to the spiritual and theological odysseys of Augustine and Aquinas, to the communal disciplines of the Benedictines, to the impassioned born-again activism of the early modern Pietists and Puritans.

I pray we all will find this ancient sustenance for this post-Christian age.

Chris R. Armstrong is a faculty member at Wheaton College (IL) and founding director of Opus: The Art of Work. His most recent book is Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians: Finding Authentic Faith in a Forgotten Age with C. S. Lewis (Brazos, 2016).

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Want to know which way the cultural wind is blowing at any time and place? Look to the innovative, pragmatic, malleable evangelicals.

I KNOW THAT SOME OF MY READERS ARE SHOCKED AT MY FAR-OUT SENSE OF HUMOR, BUT, WITH FATHER RUTLER I OFFER NO APOLOGIES. RISIBILITY IS ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT DISTINGUISHES US FROM OUR COUSINS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly Column

May 13, 2018
I think the heroic nineteenth-century archbishop in Cuba, Anthony Mary Claret, was off the mark when he disapproved of laughter because Jesus is not known to have laughed. I might be a bit glum, too, if I had barely escaped fifteen assassination attempts. But Ignatius of Loyola said, “Laugh and grow strong,” and John Bosco protested, “I want no long-faced saints.” Philip Neri kept a book of jokes, and Teresa of Avila prayed: “Lord, save me from these saints with sullen faces.”

The Bible is a cornucopia of laughter in all its forms. There is cruel laughter, as when the Philistines mocked the blinded Sampson (Judges 16:25). Sarah laughed cynically when told that she and Abraham would have a child. Jesus himself was the target of ridicule when he said that the daughter of Jairus was not dead, and most viciously when the soldiers crowned him with thorns. “Their laughter is wanton guilt” (Sirach 27:13).

Then there is gracious laughter, or “risibility,” which Aquinas said indicates human rationality. Reason can be misused, and so laughing at what is sad is insane, and artificial heartiness, accompanied by insincere guffaws and Falstaffian backslapping, is vulgar. Dostoyevsky named laughter as “the most reliable gauge of human nature.”

Did Jesus laugh? The Quaker theologian Elton Trueblood wrote a book, The Humor of Christ, inspired by his seven-year-old son, who burst into laughter upon hearing the Lord speak of the hypocrite who ignores the log in his own eye. For the first time, Trueblood recognized the pointed playfulness of the Master’s hyperbole.

The Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53:3; 1 Peter 2:24) wept when Lazarus died and when Jerusalem shuttered itself against him, and hardest of all in his Agony surrounded by twisted olive trees. But surely, he did not frown when he gathered children around him, or when he dined with disreputable people, for which he was criticized by the prune-faced Pharisees (Matthew 11:19). In the Beatitudes he promised that those who mourn would laugh, and he was most blessed of all.

As perfect man, his risibility was perhaps like the sound of a violin that most thrills someone with perfect pitch. Emerson said that “Earth laughs in flowers.” You might say that Jesus laughed with the wildest flowers because they were more splendid than Solomon. Mirth is an interior disposition for happiness, far different from frivolity, which is why Chesterton said that Jesus hid it, not compromising the outward protocols of Semitic gravity.   Laughing and weeping support each other. “A merry heart does good like a medicine” (Proverbs 17:22), and “Sorrow is better than laughter, for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better” (Ecclesiastes 7:3). That nearly perfect mortal, John Vianney, told an imperfect penitent: “I weep because you do not.” The Christ in him could also say: “I laugh because you do not.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on I KNOW THAT SOME OF MY READERS ARE SHOCKED AT MY FAR-OUT SENSE OF HUMOR, BUT, WITH FATHER RUTLER I OFFER NO APOLOGIES. RISIBILITY IS ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT DISTINGUISHES US FROM OUR COUSINS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM

HERE IS YOUR DAILY DOSE OF SATIRE TO HELP YOU COPE WITH LYING POLITICIANS AND CLERICS

Eccles and Bosco is saved


Catholic Church opens new college for lying politicians

Posted: 11 May 2018 06:00 AM PDT

Following the Government’s decision to renege on its manifesto promise to lift the faith-based admissions cap on free schools, which has made it impossible for the Catholic Church to open new schools, it has been announced that the Church will nevertheless be opening a new college whose purpose is to to educate lying politicians in the difference between right and wrong.”You may think it easy for a politician to know what is honest and decent conduct, and what is the self-serving action of a lying scumbag, as we bishops describe it,” said Archbishop Malcolm McMahon, “but there is a clear need for education in this sector. If someone gets elected to public office having made certain promises, then he is certainly going to burn in Hell if he breaks the promises and attempts to remain in office. I am now going round to the Houses of Parliament to sing ‘Liar, liar, pants on fire’ to Damian Hinds, the Education Secretary, before formally excommunicating him and enrolling him in our new college.”

Damian Hinds

Damian Hinds (loosely described as a “Catholic”) on his way to the new college.

A special dispensation from Canon Law has been made allowing the new Damian Hinds College for Liars to open, so that more than 50% of the pupils can be non-Catholics. Since the first intake will consist entirely of MPs, there will be no shortage of eager pupils, both Catholic and non-Catholic, seeking instruction in the arcane skill known as “telling the truth for once”.

As for Archbishop McMahon – since his pathetic performance over the Alfie Evans case, he has been taking iron tablets in the hope of growing a backbone. It seems that he may have taken too many.

Malcolm McMahon

Archbishop McMahon vows to “get smiting”.

 


Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HERE IS YOUR DAILY DOSE OF SATIRE TO HELP YOU COPE WITH LYING POLITICIANS AND CLERICS

HERE IS YOUR LITTLE DOSE OF SATIRE TO HELP YOU COPE WITH THE JESUIT-SOROS-OBAMA-BERGOLIAN PLAN FOR ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

Eccles and Bosco is saved


Ernst Stavro Blofeld SJ – hero or villain?

Posted: 09 May 2018 04:19 PM PDT

A Damian Thompson special. Already Austen Ivereigh and Robert Mickens are rushing to Blofeld’s defence, so it must be good.Ernst Stavro Blofeld SJ is a priest living in New York, who has cornered the market in heresy and world domination. As editor-at-large of the SPECTRE magazine, he is the most famous Jesuit in the United States; probably the most popular, too. And also the most disliked. Hated, even.

Blofeld

Fr Blofeld, author of The Jesuit Guide to World Domination.

What is there to dislike about this scrupulously polite Jesuit? Compared with the activist Fr Goldfinger (“You expect me to talk? No, Cardinal Bond, I expect you to die.”) he is not particularly liberal. Yet, in middle age Fr Blofeld has moved to the left, and embraces the fashionable consensus on almost every issue that alienates conservative Catholics.

Although he does not have a good head of hair, I know that Fr Blofeld is fond of custard and the music of Gladys Mills, so… I’m sorry, I thought I was still writing for the Telegraph. This is the Catholic Herald, isn’t it? Start again.

You only live twice

“You only live twice” – a typical heretical teaching from Fr Blofeld.

Blofeld’s sex life (I thought that would get you reading again) is a mystery to all. When he joined the Jesuits he was asked whether he was a virgin and said no. However, he has not been known to sleep with members of either sex, although he has expressed himself anxious to build bridges with the LGBT community (this is an obscure Jesuit expression, and nobody would explain to us what it means).

The truth is that Fr Blofeld is, like many of us, a victim of the culture wars. His obsession with world domination has caused him to ally with the destructive side in every Catholic debate, alienating himself from Catholics who honestly disagree with his political opinions. This is not the true nature of Ignatian spirituality, which rarely concerns itself with firing nuclear missiles, destroying satellites, or holding the world to ransom.

Fr James Martin

“The name’s Martin. James Martin.” (You’re getting confused, Damian.)

If the engaging Fr Blofeld really cannot see the problem, then perhaps he should be learning, rather than teaching, fearless methods of self-examination.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WHERE ARE THE BISHOPS????????

The Pastoral Appeal, the Pope,and the Bishops

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek: Last week’s Pastoral Appealdoes not ask Pope Francis not to act like a pope; it asks bishops to act like bishops.

{ ABYSSUM }

Pastoral Appeal by priests to the bishops of the world was published last week (see curapastoralis.org). The signers urgently request help in ending a false understanding of Christian life that has harmed the clergy and laity for fifty years. The remedy they seek is that bishops exercise their apostolic office through a formal reaffirmation of the Gospel, which refutes the long-standing errors. To that end they profess the Faith in communion with the bishops and pope regarding ten particular aspects of the Gospel.

Much of the media coverage assumes that the Pastoral Appeal is directed against Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia. As one of the signers, I wish to note that such assessments fail to appreciate the purpose described in the Appeal and the accompanyingBackground Information. These documents actually invite us to consider the present crisis and the exercise of the apostolic office in a much broader context than is customary and which transcends the current pontificate.

 The rationale in the Background states the Appeal is based on two observed facts and one pastoral judgment. The facts are: 1) the resurgence of a long-standing, harmful approach to Christian moral life, and 2) the failure of ecclesial attempts to end this approach. The pastoral judgment is that healing the damage will now require that bishops formally exercise their apostolic office.

The Background further notes that since the Church has already, clearly and precisely, refuted the errors that are spreading, an individual bishop can respond without having to engage in theological speculation. He can simply speak formally as a Successor of the Apostles, providing that unique apostolic witness by which Christ builds up the Church and overcomes error and sin through His truth and love.

Consequently, it is a mistake to interpret these observations and judgment as being focused on the present pontiff. After all, the recognition that a harmful approach to Christian life has continually afflicted the Church for fifty years also reflects on the pontificates of Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

The Appeal asks for the full exercise of the apostolic office rather than joining in existing calls for clearer statements from Rome, episcopal conferences, and diocesan bishops or – more radically – for a new pope, because those means have already been tried and have proven insufficient. In the last fifty years, we have had five popes and innumerable pastoral statements at all levels without successfully confronting the crisis.

What we have not had is bishops refuting the errors through formal professions of faith in witness to Jesus and His Gospel. The Appeal urges bishops to exercise their apostolic office now, before the situation gets significantly worse. This request is rooted in the Lord’s mandate to the apostles which, exercised in a formal act by their successors, serves to gather and heal the Church.

Those who interpret the Appeal differently in this regard need to reconsider the actual language of the documents. They might also consult Lumen Gentium 23-25 on the teaching office of individual bishops within the universal Church.

USCCB meeting, 2015

In addition to these observations, based solely on the Appeal, I would like to add some personal considerations that I believe expose the underlying weakness of the notion that Pope Francis or AL is the problem.

If Pope Francis were the problem, then a new pope would be the solution. Yet will the process that elects the next pope result in someone substantially different? Would the bishops advocating alterations of Church teaching and practice suddenly change their minds? Would the next pope be able to accomplish what Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI proved unable to do in fifty years of teaching and governing?

As for AL, ambiguities in the text could not be the source of harmful teachings and practices. The worst that ambiguities can do is provide space for promoting errors. But where did those errors and their promoters come from? They must have been present and operating in the Chu rch prior to AL.

Clearly, the problem predates Pope Francis and AL. The question, then, is how theologians and prelates wishing to alter the faith and moral life of the Church have been able to mount a campaign for decades without an effective response from the rest of the College of Bishops. The revisionists have prospered because they have chosen effective means to their goal. The rest of the College has evidently been uncertain of the goal or unable to find a way to achieve it.

Perhaps, like many Catholics, bishops have thought the only proper and effective response to such problems is “Wait for the pope to handle it.” This is a debilitating side effect of ultramontanism, a distorted notion of the papacy that in effect makes the pope the reference point for the whole of Christian life and the “boss” of the bishops. In truth, Jesus is the reference point and He entrusted the proclamation of the Gospel and care of the Church to the Apostles and their successors, not only to Peter and the popes.

Waiting for popes or fellow bishops to act does not always lead individual bishops to offer a faithful witness to Christ. Remember the hierarchy under the Renaissance popes and the English bishops under Henry VIII.

As long as the false approach to Christian life persists, our common witness to Jesus is at risk. In this crisis, the revisionists are happy to see bishops waiting for the pope or for a consensus to emerge – or even issuing oppositional pastoral letters and diocesan policies. This suits them fine because it allows their initiatives to flourish and, besides, it has proven insufficient for fifty years.

Apostolic proclamation is required, since only then are Jesus’ words “who hears you, hears me” fully realized. Then the voice of the Good Shepherd resounds within the Church to form the conscience of his people. The Pastoral Appeal is asking to hear His voice through formal expressions of apostolic witness by the bishops.

 

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek

Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek, STD has been a priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985 and is currently pastor of parishes in Gatesville and Hamilton. His doctoral studies were in Dogmatics with a focus on Ecclesiology, Apostolic Ministry, Newman, and Ecumenism.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

LEST WE FORGET

LEST WE FORGET: THE MISSION

At 94, Maj. Fredric Arnold (Ret.), Sole Surviving Member of his WWII P-38 Class of 42-J Group, Finished Sculpting A Monumental Bronze Sculpture in Memory of the more than 88,000 WWII US Airman Killed in Action

The completed sculpture can now be seen at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, Colorado
 The following video accompanies the finished monument and describes its history and significance.  Please take a few minutes to view this video.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/178550502

 The World Premier Public Unveiling was held August 6, 2016 at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver.
You are invited…
to join the more than 200,000 people per year who will now see the finished sculpture in person.
 (CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE MUSEUM WEBSITE)
3GenEndorsement03
DoleEndorsement03

Artist Statement

Ever since my early childhood, I’ve been an artist.  Fine art. Commercial art. You name it.  This project, however, is special.  It is my magnum opus… The most challenging from an artistic point of view, but more importantly, the most meaningful to me.  I put my heart and soul into this work.
The narrative below describes the overall origins of this sculpture.  Bear in mind, however, it is comprised of twelve individual figures.  Each figure has its own story and its own meaning.  I hope you’ll also take the time to read each of the twelve stories posted under the “Gallery” menu heading.
Here is the background behind this work of art:  Of fourteen original members of my original group of Class 42-J P-38 fighter pilots, only two survived six months of combat: Jim Hagenback and me. Much of our survival was due to luck. Years later, we vowed to each other that whoever was left standing would do something to honor the twelve. Lest We Forget: The Mission stemmed from our deep gratitude to the twelve original members of our Group that didn’t survive to live their lives in peace.
At 94, I am the last man standing of my original group.  Completing the sculpture in August, 2016 fulfilled my oath to honor my comrades. To my knowledge, I am the only commercial artist to live through combat as a US WWII fighter pilot in the North African theater of operation. Turning to my art, the idea of the sculpture grew out of an intense memory of the quiet bravery of my comrades attending a mission briefing as we recommitted to executing the day’s mission, even while flanked by the memory of our fellow pilots killed in recent combat.
Although the sculpture began as a testament to the twelve pilots in my squadron, the scope of the work has grown. Now the twelve individuals figures are dedicated to the memory of the more than 88,000 U.S. aviators who gave their lives during WWII.  I am honored that three former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former Senator have endorsed the deep meaning of my sculpture.
Arrangements have been made to loan Lest We Forget: The Mission to the National WWII Museum in New Orleans for exhibition on their 6-acre campus.
The sculpture depicts twelve fighter pilots during a mission briefing.  The lighter colored spirits of aviators already killed in action look over the shoulders of those still alive.  All are destined to die.  Please view the Gallery pages on this website to see images of the life size figures completed in clay.
The figures were cast in bronze and are now on display in Denver.  My family and I paid to complete this project.  We are hopeful the public will see the value in my work and help us offset the project costs through tax-deductible donations.  If you have an interest in helping with this project, please visit our Donate Page.
I invite you to watch the videos on this site to hear about the history and significance of my project.
Thank you for your interest and support,
Major Fredric Arnold (ret.), Artist
All photos on this site by Jafe Parsons, unless otherwise stated

 

65 COMMENTS

ADD YOURS →

  1. Such a beautiful tribute – let us not forget who & what was sacrificed for us.

  2. As an 8 year old I mingled with those Yanks in London knowing that a stick of yankee gum might come my way.
    All those yanks we made a cup of tea for were Aircrew and we cherished them especially if like us you had years of bombing hiding in a London Cellar
    Years later I spent time with the crews from SAC
    As an airforce store man I spent 2 years service in the Deserts of North Africa!
    A beautiful remembrance.

  3. This was outstanding to watch. I was in the AF never new the numbers of how many brave men we lost during that war. My father was in WWII in the AF he never spoke much about it I was in Nam and I don’t talk about it eather.

    • Like you and your father, my father didn’t speak of the war. He ‘stuffed’ his memories for more than 30 years. Then in 1977, he lost his brother and he suffered from a sort of breakdown that was diagnosed as a form of delayed PTSD. His doctor suggested that he write down some of his war memories that still plagued him so long after the war. He sat down to write a short ‘confession’ of sorts to me and my sisters. But once he started to write, it all came out. A couple years later, he’d completed a lengthy remembrance that was ultimately edited and became “Doorknob Five Two”, an autobiographical novel.

      It is 2018 as I write this. He is 96 and as recently as this morning, his eyes welled up with recollections of his role in the war. “So many killed…” he repeated over and over, shaking his head. He is still overwhelmed by the human cost of war.

      Be well and a sincere thanks to you and your father for your service,

      Marc Arnold

  4. Edward Schaffstall MAY 1, 2018 — 9:06 PM

    I was deeply moved by the video and the story behind the sculpture. I am retired from the U.S. Navy and, though my record shows I served in a combat zone (Viet Nam), I never had to put my life on the line as the Major did. In addition to being a wonderful tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, I was amazed by the fantastic detail of the sculptures. Thank you for your service during and after the war.

    • At too many public appearances to remember, men would make a distinction between their ‘non-combat’ military service and his experiences on the front line. “Bullshit,” he’d say. “You put on the uniform. You put your life on the line just like me. Service is service.” He taught me to respect everyone who serves equally. And I do. Thank you, sir. Marc Arnold

  5. Thank you! From the family of 2Lt Robert C Simmons 849th Bomber Squadron, 490th Bomber Group–Heavy, tail number 43-37776, KIA 9-27-1944

    • “Lest We Forget: The Mission” is dedicated to the immeasurable sacrifice of your family’s Robert Simmons. We hope you have the opportunity to see the sculpture in person. It is there for you and your posterity.

      With deepest respect,

      Marc Arnold

  6. As a modern era US Army Aviator (helicopter pilot) at first glance I was put off by some things that looked wrong, like wearing helmets in the briefing, but then having seen the video, I began to understand the symbolism of the art and changed my mind completely. I love this work and would love to have a miniature of it. Thank you Major Arnold.

    Major (Ret.) Matthew Arnold
    USA 1978 – 2002

    • Major — Thank you for your comment and for taking the time to watch the video. We watch the reaction of people at the museum and see the same transformation as people’s first impression of the exhibit solely as a static work of art gives way to understanding that Dad used the sculpture to tell his story of combat.

      If you would like a miniature, there are two options. A 20″ x 22″ miniature of all twelve figures is available. There is also a limited edition of 50 tabletop bronze sculptures of “Teenager”. Each, corresponds to one of Dad’s 50 combat missions. Each comes with a copy of his combat logbook and a certificate describing the specific mission correlated to the edition number. If you want more information, please use the Contact Us page to send a message.

      Thank you for your service, Major.

      Marc Arnold

  7. I WAS A B-17 FIRST PILOT ASSIGNED TO THE 384TH BOMB GROUP. OUR CREW FLEW 25
    COMBAT MISSIONS DURING THE LAST TWO MONTHS. THE EIGHTH AIR LAST COMBAT
    MISSION WAS APRIL 25, 1945. OUR GROUP, INCLUDING OUR CREW, PARTICIPATED. THE
    TARGET WAS THE SKODA WORKS NEAR PILSEN. CK. ON AN EARLIER MISSION OUR LEFT
    OUTBOARD ENGINE CAUGHT FIRE. WE HAD TO RETURN TO BASE AS WE COULD NOT
    KEEP UP WITH THE FORMATION. WE LEARNED THE B-17 THAT TOOK OUR POSITION IN
    FORMATION BLEW UP AND ALL WERE KILLED. THE CREW DESIGNATED TO DO SO WAS
    PILOTED BY A FRIEND OF MINE; NAMELY, ROBERT GRIFFEN. IT TURNED OUT THAT BOB
    AND HIS CREW DID NOT AS A B-17 FROM ANOTHER GROUP DID. UNFORTUNATELY, A
    WEEK OR SO LATER THEY CRASH IN BAD WEATHER WITH A COMBAT DAMAGED B-17.

    THE ENTIRE CREW WERE KILLED. I ALSO KNEW HIS NAVIGATOR, ROYAL RUNYON. IN
    1995, ALONG WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE 384TH ASSOCIATION, WE ATTENDED THE
    50TH ANNIVERSARY OF V-DAY ON MAY 8, 1945. WE VISITED THE AMERICAN CEMETARY
    NEAR CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND. RUNYON IS BURIED THERE. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
    DEDICATED THE LAND FOR THE CEMETARY. YES, THE EIGHTH AIR FORCE EXPERIENCE
    MORE LOST AIRMEN THAN DID THE MARINES IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC. THE COMPARISON
    IS ONLY MENT TO INDICATE WHAT LOSSES “EIGHTH” EXPERIENCED FROM BEGINNING.

    WHILE, AT 94, AS I DO NOT TRAVEL ANYMORE, I APPRECIATE ANY SUCH DEDICATIONS.

    • Mr. Lewis —

      Thank you for sharing a bit about your experience with the Eighth. Those of us who are too young to have experienced the horror of WWII personally can’t possibly imagine the hair-thin difference between life and death in those terrible days. We owe the modern world’s safety, security and prosperity to you and your generation.

      Thank you for remembering and passing on your memory of Mssrs. Robert Griffen, Royal Runyon and their crews. I will pass on your thoughts to my Dad, who at 96, doesn’t access the internet that much.

      I salute you, sir.

      Marc Arnold

  8. WE where proud to be AMERICAN in those days! Today hey want everything right now?

  9. What a wonderful remembrance of such a tragic loss, God Bless them and Thank you for your sacrifice.

  10. My uncle, Harold Lorenz, was with the 51st Fighter Squadron in Panama during WWII. They also had P-38’s and he was a gunnery sergeant making sure the guns were working and aimed properly. He got a ride one time in a jump seat behind the pilot and found out why the pilots said the P-38 climbed like a homesick angel.

    • Mr. Lorenz —

      Thank you for your comment. Dad described an interaction with ground crew that is reminiscent of your uncle’s comment. From Dad’s book, Doorknob Five Two: “When they had finished refueling the plane, the sergeant said, “After take off, maybe you could fly low across the field so we could see this baby in the air? We’ve heard a lot of rumors about how good they fly. It’d give the men a kick.”
      It was their fuel. I owed them a pass. I raced down the runway and pulled into a steep climb. I was flying again! I’d survived six missions. Nineteen to go. I can do it, I thought, and I relaxed into the feel of the plane again. At 6,000 feet I turned the plane on its back, pulled it through the loop, and roared back down to the runway. The airspeed indicator hit the redline as I shot across the boundary a few feet above the ground, the men waving wildly from their Jeep. Two jumped off the hood as I hurtled a few feet above them. The others scattered, unable to hold their balance in the prop wash. I climbed straight up and rolled the plane, once, twice, three times. I loved the sensation of plunging through space and I was happy to be on my way home.”

      Be well,

      Marc Arnold

  11. This art work is there to show us what these men and women have given for so many and I hope to see this wonderful Art work in person in the near future in Denver. Thank you, those who gave their all and to the artist for giving us a way to remember them and God Bless.

    • Thank you for your kind words. I am confident you will be moved by the sculpture when you see it in person. There is always a crowd of people around the sculpture. No one misses the impact of seeing such a meaningful work of art

        by someone who was there

      .

      Be well,

      Marc Arnold

  12. I have viewed this very touching Memorial in Denver. I sat in a nearby chair and studied each subject. Very touching and centered around the great planes that kept us free. A great grouping that all young people should see.

    • Mr. Christensen —

      It was Dad’s fondest wish that the import of the sculpture would reach across the generations… Not every young person ‘gets it’, but in any school group, there are always those who do. When Dad was up to public speaking, he addressed hundreds of school gatherings in the greater Denver area. The many thoughtful thank you notes demonstrate without doubt that his message reached a sizable fraction of those kids. The horror of war is a tough message, but one that Dad felt needed to passed along.

      Be well,

      Marc Arnold

  13. This is awesome. Thankyou

    • Pat —

      I read your comment to Dad today, who doesn’t use a computer anymore (he’s 96 now). He smiled and waved a bit.

      Thank you for brightening his day,

      Marc Arnold

  14. HI MARK,THANK YOU FOR THIS EMAIL,SOME DAY MY WIFE AND I WILL GO TO SEE THE SCULPTURE .MY WIFE IS FROM COLORADO,AGAIN THANK YOU,I SERVED IN THE Air Force I WAS IN GERMANY,KOREA AND THE STATES TOO.TSGT.DANIEL C.MACIEL

    • Mr. Maciel —

      I do hope you and your wife get a chance to see it in person. Be sure to check the website before you make the trip to verify it is still here in Denver. At some point, it will likely go to New Orleans for exhibition at the National WWII Museum.

      Be well,

      Marc Arnold

  15. While none of my family members were pilots, a couple uncles were bombadier’s with the 505th bomb group, neither survived, they were both killed prior to end of war in January and February 1944. The older uncle, Lt. James Allen Burner’s plane caught fire and wound up going into the ocean completely on fire near Japan, with only survivor parachuting out. My second and younger uncle, Lt. Hugh Donald Burner’s bomber collided with another bomber over Japan and both crashed and burned on the ground with no survivors. There is now a memorial in that Japanese town for these two bombers and the ashes of all crew members were turned over to the U.S. Military after war was ended. I know that many bomber crews made it safely home due to the resiliance and perseverance of the fighter pilots who were their guardians while they were on their bombing missions. May all the families of all 88,000 American Airmen be blessed as they realize the service as well as the lives of their family members that were given for their country. God bless America and God bless all military who are currently still alive in all branches of service.

    • Dear Barbara —

      Thank you for your heart felt good wishes. The project is dedicated to men like your two uncles. Dad dedicated seven years to convey the very message you’ve written. I hope you have the opportunity to see and appreciate the sculpture in person as a memorial and remembrance of your uncles.

      — Marc Arnold

  16. My WW2 aviator father; his aviator brothers and my, P-38 pilot cousin (who also flew w the RAF 171 Eagle squadron). All survived except my cousin Fred Scudday who was accidentally killed by a tent mate cleaning his .45 in China ALL of these men inspired an undying love of country, patriotism and military service. Your fathers beautiful sculpture brings to life such sacrifice inherent in military service for the sake of FREEDOM which has a flavor the protected will never know. Thank you so much. Bill
    McDonald Colonel USAF retired

    • Colonel —

      You come from an extraordinarily dedicated and lucky family line. My deepest thanks to you and your family for serving.

      While the general public can never fully appreciate the debt we owe, we are gratified to see people of all ages taking the time to sit and contemplate the message of Dad’s unique memorial. In this day and age of sound bites lasting seconds, it is quite amazing to see people of all ages sit for 20-30 minutes simply contemplating the sacrifices embodied in Dad’s artwork. Not a few tears are shed.

      Thank you for your kind words and for your service to our country,

      Marc Arnold

  17. MELVIN C ELLIOTT APRIL 1, 2018 — 1:40 PM

    As an EX A-1 USAF Skyraider pilot who flew 250 missions in S Vietnam in 1964-65 I was very impressed by your video, I hope someday to see the actual sculpture in the Denver museum. My best to you in your endeavor.

    • Mr. Elliott —

      I can’t even remotely imagine, let alone appreciate, the magnitude of 250 combat missions. Each war has it own technology and tactics, but it still comes down to the MEN. The Denver Air and Space Museum tells us all the time they are grateful to have the sculpture there because, more than any other exhibit, it is about the MEN.

      All good wishes to you, sir,

      Marc Arnold

  18. Melissa Capen Rolston NOVEMBER 1, 2017 — 2:49 AM

    My father, Robert Capen, is also the last surviving P38 pilot from his squadron. Devilishly handsome still, an artist and sculptor, he walks 3 miles daily and would welcome cameraderie of surviving P-38 pilot/veterans.

    • Ms. Rolston — Thank you for writing. I am so glad to hear your extraordinary father is doing well. Please pass along my family’s best wishes and gratitude for his service. If there is any chance you may be in the Denver area, we would be pleased to arrange a special visit for you and your father at the museum. Be well, Marc Arnold

  19. So amazing and touching. A true artist a true patriot and great American. Deeply thank you for you service and artistic memorial. Please have Hollywood make a big screen movie of your story. Harrison Ford or Tom Hanks come to mind. I don’t have enough words to tell you how touched my family was. OUR GREATEST GLORY IS NOT IN NEVER FALLING BUT RISING WHEN WE DO. You no doubt are a man that rises . Beautiful man beautiful family and beautiful art work. Thank you

    • Thank you for your kind comment. Dad’s book, “Doorknob Five Two”, has been optioned by different movie production companies over the years, which is proof that it has appeal to Hollywood. One of these times, all the factors (financing, lead actors, aircraft special effects, etc.) will all come together and a film will get made.

      Be well,

      Marc Arnold

  20. I had the great opportunity to see this exhibit in November, 2016 at the museum. It touched me deeply. I am retired Army, and a history buff, but I may have overlooked the sacrifice of the US Army Air Corps in WWII. These sculptures, and the accompanying stories of the men they portray brought that harsh reality to the forefront. It brought tears to my eyes to think of so many young men lost in war, many whose identities and memories are already forgotten. We should never forget the sacrifice and service of our nation’s heroes. What an outstanding exhibit. I highly recommend you see it, and, if you can’t, watch the video!

    • Thank you for your service, Mr. Fuhrman. We can never fully know or appreciate the debt we owe to the countless soldiers of every branch of service that paid for our freedoms. It is heartening to see Dad’s sculpture affect people of all ages and backgrounds.

      Be well,

      Marc Arnold

  21. I thought you might enjoy teading about another “arty farty” warrior from a previous war. We are all Americans. I enjoyed your reading aboub your service, thank you, and will visit the museum in Denver thevnext time we travel
    West. All the best to youband your family. Sam Duncan, USAF 1961-68, Vero Beach, FL.

    Field of Shoes: Moses Jacob Ezekiel

    Moses Jacob Ezekiel, a world renowned “arty farty” sculptor, Jewish Johnny Reb, 1st Jewish Virginia Military Institute cadet, as a teenager, along with the other teenage VMI cadets, fought gallantly at the Civil War New Market battle (the battle site has been preserved and today as an American, it is possible to walk the field of lost shoes) depicted in the movie Field of Lost Shoes. This is another example of a teenager with a diverse heritage serving his country as a warrior, today know as a citizen-soldier, just like later in WWII when 14 million citizen-soldiers stepped up, served, not whiners, just like Moses did in his situation, the Confederate States of America. After the war, Moses Jacob Ezekiel went on with his life, contributed to the arts, as an American. The US and its residents/citizens has always been a diverse shining light on the hill. FACTUAL

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Jacob_Ezekiel

    • Thank you for your comment and the link to Moses Jacob Ezekiel. Yes, the concept of “citizen-warrior” is central to Dad’s message. They were called upon to do a job, then they returned to their life as it was before the war. All the best, Marc Arnold

  22. Thank you. Lt. Bob Fisher from Burnettsville IN, was the first cousin of my father. He spoke of him a view times, always with a great deal of pride mixed with sadness. I hope to be able to see this beautiful memorial someday soon.

    Thank you!
    Patti (Fisher) Lashbrook

    • Patti —

      Finding relatives of Dad’s original group of 14, including your father’s cousin, Lt. Bob Fisher, has been a rich reward for doing his monument. Bob Fisher’s son and two grand-daughters attended the dedication of another memorial project done by my father… a 20×16 foot mural. Their attendance was included in the documentary, “Between Two Worlds”, by Aaron Weisblatt. I was also there and it was a deeply touching tribute. The grandson of Jim Hagenback, the other survivor, is coming to Denver in October to visit with us and to see the sculpture. You are welcome anytime.

      — Marc Arnold

  23. Made a special trip to see sculpture on day off and worth the time to see it and contemplate the meaning of each of the figures and the positions of the figures. I have visited the WWII museum in New Orleans and it will be a wonderful addition. I have found the stories behind the people who have served in our military to be very humbling to me in what they had witnessed and experienced in their lives. I served in the Air Force in the late 80’s and early 90’s and have my own “military stories”, but I did not experience combat or the life threatening experiences of many of our past and current soldiers and airman. I have the utmost respect for them and thank them. Thank you Maj. Arnold for your service and this tribute to your fellow pilots.

    • Bill — Thank you for your service. Dad and I just came back from an “Honor Flight” to Washington DC. It was an emotional tour of the national monuments dedicated to the many soldiers who stood up and defended our freedoms. Thank you for your kind words. Be well, Marc Arnold

  24. This brought tears to my eyes. Thank you seems to little for the great gift you have given every citizen . I have been blessed by the freedom that all those who serve have fought so hard to protect. All of you are in my prayers every day.

  25. Arnold visited monuments and museums but could not come up with an idea. Eventually, his daughter-in-law suggested that Arnold use the 10 maps he had been given by his crew chief as background for painted memorials. Arnold liked the idea and, using the maps, created 10 panels on which he painted murals. While Arnold’s memories of the 12 fellow pilots in his class provided the inspiration, the sculptures intend to represent the 88,000 airmen who were killed in combat in World War II. The piece differentiates between living pilots and those who had been killed in action by the color of the metals, with the dead men in a more pallid hue.

  26. We unknowingly came across your sculpture at the museum yesterday. We brought our 14 year old WWII history buff nephew with us. He was quite enamored with your beautiful, thought provoking work. Our group all felt your work was a wonderful tribute to those who sacrificed everything for this country.

    • Thank you, Allison, for taking the time to leave a comment. Reaching young people like your nephew was one of Dad’s fondest hope… to reach across the generations, as it were, and make a connection. Be well, Marc

  27. Peggy Whitcomb Tuzicka AUGUST 15, 2016 — 3:31 PM

    As the daughter of a man who served two tours of duty during WWII, and survived, I am so touched by this beautiful tribute to those airmen who did not make it home. If my father, Walter Adren Whitcomb, had not survived the war, I would not exist. It is ironic that he survived his service in Germany, Japan and the Philippines, and then lost his life in a tractor accident, while preparing for a new home for our family. I was a little more than 3 years old, and my brothers were approximately 6 and 8 years old at the time of our father’s death. My mother, Bessie Lockhart Whitcomb, who was only 28 years old when my father died, worked very hard to provide for us and raised my brothers and myself in a way that would show respect to all who served our country, regardless of when or how they served. Both of my brothers served during the Viet Nam war, and my uncle, Ray Lockhart, who passed away several years ago, began his service during WWII and was a career Air Force pilot. This beautiful sculpture is an amazing tribute to those who served in The Great War, as well as to all who have served our country in any capacity. I am so moved by the dedication it took to complete this project and it is my hope to see it in person some day. Thank you so much for your devotion, Major Arnold and Marc Arnold. You have created a lasting treasure for our nation.

    • Peggy — Thank you for sharing your connection to the work.

      Dad was especially honored by the presence of the nephew of one of the original 12 pilots in Dad’s Group killed in the war. Like you, he had a strong bond to his uncle and other members of his family who served in the war. They hugged and cried over their shared loss after so many decades; Dad because he knew his uncle, the nephew because he never knew his uncle. Loss, mourning, respect and gratitude can all leap across generations, time and distance.

  28. On July 26th, while visiting old friends in Ft. Collins, CO, I received an email from an old buddy that I flew with in Vietnam, with a link to the “Lest We Forget: The Vow” video that is on the home page of this site. I watched it early in the morning. Later that day, my friend and I were going to drive down to Denver to visit the Wings Over The Rockies museum. During the drive, I told my friend about the video. He is a pilot and his father was a Navy pilot in WWII. Well, we toured the museum for a couple of hours and were on our way out when I was surprised to see the sculpture being set up, and then realized I was looking at Marc and Maj. Arnold as they worked on the project! I was astounded. I had just seen the video that morning and now I am talking to Maj. Arnold! It was a special moment for me and I want to thank you for taking the time to chat with us and allowing us to take photographs. My wife and I are donating to the project and look forward to seeing it in New Orleans. Thank you for your dedication, and your art, to help insure that those who paid the ultimate price will not be forgotten.

    • Thank you, David. It was a pleasure to meet you. You were present at a special time as the finished monument was coming together.

      Now that the finished monument is on display, the video on the home page of this website has been changed to reflect the 13 minute video that is part of the exhibit.

      All good wishes. Be well.

  29. What a GREAT project for you to do. I was in the Air Force 57H class where I flew the F-80 (T-bird) in basic training; graduated and flew B-47’s in 1957 with Lloyd Gray who became a pilot flying B-17s at the age of 17 during WWII in 1944. I later flew the F-86H in the Mass ANG….. and later owned a Cessna 182 that, with my wife, flew many places including AirVenture for over 10 yeqrs. I also worked for Pratt & Whitney for about 40 years doing all kinds of ‘Research stuff’ for future aircraft engines. It would be wonderful to ‘chat’ with you about your project, and aviation. PLEASE do contact me by telephone if you’d like (206) 382-xxxx

    • Mr. Godston —

      Thank you for your comment.

      Under the heading of “small world”… You flew the F-80 and my father did the initial flight acceptance test flight of the XP-80 on behalf of the Army Air Corp. His logbook shows his first flight of the XP-80 happened on Jan 19, 1945. It was a one hour flight and includes the note: “Checked out by Milo [Birchum… Lockheed’s chief test pilot at the time]. Prediction: Props [will be] rare 10 years from now … Bugs yet to be removed, but when they are!!!!! Greatest thing in aviation.”

      He went on to write and illustrate the first flight manual for the P-80. So it is possible you studied from his manual (or later revisions).

      It is kind of you to invite Dad to contact you by phone. He has many of his faculties, but phone calls have become difficult recently, so that is not likely to happen. He did, however, ask me to pass along his best wishes to you… I’ll add my own!

      Thank you for your service, sir.

      Marc Arnold

  30. I visited the Wings Over The Rockies Museum today and watched the video and was able to see at least something of the sculpture as it was still largely covered. It is beautiful and the stories behind each figure are so very impressive. I am so sorry I will not be able to see it unveiled in person but am gratefull for what I could see. I am thankfull for all those that fought for my freedom (I am Dutch) and the “Lest we forget : the mission” is a truly wonderful testament to all that fought and paid the ultimate price. Thank you Maj. Arnold

    • Mr. Libert —

      We worked on the installation for a week before the first public unveiling yesterday. You were among the lucky few that got a sneak peek. Now that it is fully exposed, I hope you have the opportunity to revisit the museum. As an occupied country during WWII, the Netherlands suffered dearly at the hands of the Nazis. The loss of life there was truly horrific.

      Thank you for your kind words of support.

      Marc Arnold

  31. I have had the pleasure of working with the Arnold family in designing and setting the lighting for the Lest We Forget memorial. I quickly recognized the importance and magnitude of this great work of art. Maj. Arnold not only created a masterpiece, but has brought new awareness to an often forgotten war and the people who lost their lives defending our Country. I hope that our younger generations will gain insight and appreciation of the enormous sacrifices made by a generation of Americans, now almost all gone. This sculpture is a great way to stir the interest and encourage all of us to go back and absorb this time in our history and really understand what WWII was all about.
    Congratulations Maj Arnold for creating a permanent dedication and remembrance for now and every generation to come.

    • Bob —

      Thanks for your help with the project. Bronze is a difficult medium to light and your expertise made a big difference. We have a photo shoot scheduled in the morning to capture images of the finished bronze figures. When time permits, we will post these updated images so people visiting the site can appreciate the lighting work you did.

      All the very best to you,

      Marc

  32. Truly awesome story. I just finished a book on my dad’s service in WWII and was touched by the lives that he touched (and was touched by) as a pilot. I so envy Maj. Arnold’s son for taking the time to help his dad create this lasting legacy. As a retired Air Force fighter pilot myself who lost far too many comrades both in battle and in peacetime, this memorial is a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives in defense of our Republic. There is a special place in Heaven for such noble souls.

    • Mr. Miller —

      Like you, I have been fortunate indeed to be able to support my father in a project that allowed me to appreciate the sacrifices of his comrades.

      Your comment about the loss of life in peacetime reminds me of my father’s common refrain, “I don’t care if a soldier dies in war, in peace, in combat or in training… it doesn’t matter a bit. In fact, it doesn’t even matter if they were injured. Fact is, they put on the uniform and that very act means they put their life on the line for the country.”

      My thanks to you and your father for your service.

      — Marc Arnold

  33. David & Ingrid Waggoner JULY 30, 2016 — 5:54 PM

    Our son and 5 of our young grandkids had the honor of meeting Maj Arnold July 27, 2016, the day y’all were setting up the sculpture exhibit at Wings. We talked for 12 – 15 minutes and captured a few photos of the war hero which we will treasure. I felt so humble conversing with this great unassuming man of my parent’s generation, the Greatest Generation. Thank you Major Arnold and your son, for bringing this profound, humbling, magnificent sculpture to Wings Over the Rockies . . . to our American countrymen. We will one day get to the World War II Museum in New Orleans to view this wonderful tribute to your buddies of 42-J and the 88,000 heroes otherwise lost to the ages.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LEST WE FORGET

‘BRAIN DEAD’ AND ABOUT TO HAVE HIS ORGANS REMOVED AND SOLD WHEN HE WAKES UP AND ASKS “WHAT ARE YOU DOING??????”

Brain dead boy wakes up day before organ donation

Trenton McKinley suffered severe brain trauma and seven skull fractures after the accident, and his mother said he was thought to have have been dead for 15 minutes at one point.
Trenton McKinley suffered severe brain trauma and seven skull fractures after the accident, and his mother said he was thought to have have been dead for 15 minutes at one point.PHOTO: JENNIFER NICOLE REINDL/FACEBOOK

A 13-year-old American boy miraculously came back to life in March, a day after doctors declared him brain dead and his parents signed the paperwork to donate his organs.

Trenton McKinley from Alabama was at a friend’s house playing on a utility trailer when it flipped over and crushed his head, reported American broadcaster CBS News on Monday. The teenager suffered severe brain trauma and seven skull fractures.

His mother, Ms Jennifer Reindl, told local media that Trenton was deemed dead on the table for 15 minutes at one point. “All I saw was a stretcher with his feet hanging out,” she told American television channel Fox 10 News.

The family added that for several days, Trenton was on life support and barely breathing. “They told me the oxidation problems would be so bad… he would be a vegetable if he even made it,” Ms Reindl said.

She agreed to sign donation papers when she learnt that her son’s organs could save five lives. “We said yes, as that also ensured that they would continue to keep Trenton alive to clean his organs for the donation,” she said.

But one day before Trenton’s life support was to end, he showed signs of cognition, CBS Today reported. Ms Reindl said: “He was scheduled to have his final brain wave test to call his time of death, but his vitals spiked, so they cancelled the test.

“He is a miracle,” she said in a Facebook post on March 23.

According to CBS News, Trenton is now going through a slow recovery process and still suffers from nerve pain and seizures daily.

He will eventually need surgery to reconnect half of his skull.

But since regaining consciousness, he has been walking, talking and reading, according to Ms Reindl. Said Trenton: “There’s no other explanation but God. There’s no other way that I could have came back.”

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on May 09, 2018, with the headline ‘Brain dead boy wakes up day before organ donation’.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
read this post to learn the REAL DEFINITION OF DEATH:
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ‘BRAIN DEAD’ AND ABOUT TO HAVE HIS ORGANS REMOVED AND SOLD WHEN HE WAKES UP AND ASKS “WHAT ARE YOU DOING??????”

HERE IS YOUR LITTLE DOSE OF SATIRE TO HELP YOU COPE WITH THE LATEST ANTICS OF TIMOTHY CARDINAL DOLAN OF NEW YORK AND HIS FRIENDS

Eccles and Bosco is saved


Met Gala’s “Heavenly Bodies” offends the faithful

Posted: 08 May 2018 02:22 PM PDT

An “art” exhibition in New York, backed by His Eminence Cardinal Timothy Dolan, and described as the epitome of non-religious Catholicism, has caused almost universal disgust in the Catholic world. Models wearing costumes that show no taste or sensitivity have been on display.On a blog such as this, intended for family reading, we do not normally show rude pictures, but on this occasion we shall make an exception. The real shocker was to see fancy dress such as the following, which can only be described as “blasphemous”.

women bishops

Rihanna and friends dress up as bishops.

Contrast this with the quiet dignity shown by a senior Anglican bishop who put in an appearance.

Rihanna

Dame Sarah Mullally, Anglican Bishop of London.

However, the promoter of “Heavenly Bodies” had many other horrors up his sleeve.

Kate Bottley

Barbara Windsor from “Carry on Nurse”, transformed into a mock-priest.

Still, it was not just the female models who caused offence. Jim Martin, a male model, writer of trashy books, and notorious bridge-builder, took part dressed as a Jesuit priest, and he even managed to fool some people into thinking he was the real thing.

James Martin

An obscene parody of a Catholic priest.

“How could the Vatican allow displays such as this?” you may ask – surely, one of the worst distortions of Catholicism since the bishops of England and Wales decided to speak out on the Alfie Evans case? Why, even Piers Morgan, not normally thought of as a strait-laced Catholic, was horrified. As with many things that emenate from the Vatican, the explanation is beyond us.

Tobin, Farrell, Cupich

Three extras from the new “Pope Francis” film turn up dressed as cardinals.

The actors in the above photo managed to gatecrash the event by persuading the organizers that they were real cardinals, but the mistake became obvious once they opened their mouths.

Fortunately, Cardinal Dolan was on hand, and he always knows how to maintain the dignity of a Prince of the Church.

Dolan, Rockettes

Liturgical dancing.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

CDL. DOLAN SELLS OUT CATHOLIC BEAUTY AT MET GALA

NEWS: US NEWS

Print Friendly and PDF

by Anita Carey  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  May 8, 2018    161 Comments

Consultant to exhibit Fr. James Martin beaming with pride

You are not signed in as a Premium user; we rely on Premium users to support our news reporting. Sign in or Sign up today!

NEW YORK (ChurchMilitant.com) – The archbishop of New York was “honored” to support a fashion exhibit that mocked Catholic beauty and the sacred, sponsored by million-dollar diocesan donors.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute’s spring exhibit, “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination,” attempted to show the influence religion and liturgical vestments have on fashion. The exhibit borrowed pieces from the Vatican and the archives of several fashion design houses, including Versace, Dior, Chanel and Balenciaga.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan spoke at the opening of the exhibit on Monday. He posted his comments on his blog, saying “he was honored to be here” and explained the Church is there “because the Church and ‘the Catholic Imagination’ are all about truth, goodness and beauty.” He said that God’s beauty and truth are reflected “even in fashion.”

Image
Rihanna sporting bishop’s miter

Dolan singled out for praise Steven and Christine Schwarzman, billionaires who have donated millions to the archdiocese, Catholic education and Catholic Charities. In 2015, they gave a record-setting $40 million to the archdiocese for the “Kids are Our Capital” endowment campaign. Days later, the couple got the honor to welcome Pope France to a school in East Harlem.

The Schwarzmans donated around $5 million to sponsor the Met Gala.  Additional support for the exhibit was provided by Condé Nast, publisher of Teen Vogue, lambasted for pushing anal sex tutorials to 13-year-olds.

Image
Bondage mask with Rosary beads

Forbes has estimated that Mr. Schwarzman’s net worth is over $12 billion, and the New York Times reports that his charitable contributions can ignite controversy.

“This is partly because the gifts often come with conditions,” it says.

Christine Schwarzman is Catholic, and not long after she married Steven — second marriages for them both — the couple began entertaining the late archbishop of New York, Cdl. Edward Egan. Steven Schwarzman “happily gave financial advice for Cdl. Egan to take back to the archdiocese.”

Cardinal Dolan attended the Met Gala, the fundraiser for the museum and an event that often pushes the boundaries of fashion and decency, as outfits from past events are often skimpy and inappropriate. This year’s theme was taken from the Heavenly Bodies exhibit and celebrities attending took their cues from the exhibit, profaning sacred symbolism with immodest outfits meant to emphasize sensuality.

Image
Alessandro Michele, Lana Del Ray and Jared Leto

While many of the exhibits were not offensive, some crossed the line, e.g., priestly cassocks made into women’s dresses and a leather S&M bondage mask adorned with Rosary beads.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibit’s curator, Andrew Bolton, explained his vision in a blog post, saying “garments will reference the hierarchies and gendered distinctions of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the cult of the Virgin Mary.”

He said “dress is fundamental to any discussion about religion” and went on to mention that most of the designers featured in “Heavenly Bodies” were raised as Roman Catholics but “many of them no longer practice Catholicism.” He said their use of Christian symbolism reflects the influence of their Catholic sensibilities, noting that the observations Fr. Andrew Greeley made in his book The Catholic Imagination “reverberate throughout the exhibition’s themes.”

Image
Solange

Greeley speculates in his book that “there is a propensity among Catholics to take the objects and events and persons of ordinary life as hints of what God is like,” making the case that in certain erotically charged art shows, “human arousal is a hint of divine arousal.”

Bolton consulted with homosexualist Jesuit priest, Fr. James Martin, during the creation of the exhibit. In an interview with WWD, Martin praised Bolton’s Jesuit education and his knowledge of theology, saying “sometimes it’s like speaking to a theologian.”

“I would suspect that most people who are going to a show like this are pretty sophisticated and already understand the place of the Church in art history,” Martin said.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Inline image
Inline image
Inline image
Inline image
Inline image
Inline image
Inline image

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The traditional and universal discipline of the Church is that of Communion on the tongue, because it is based on a centuries-old tradition, but especially because it expresses and signifies the reverent respect of the faithful towards the Holy Eucharist. And furthermore, “it avoids the danger of profaning the Eucharistic species.

The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

OnePeterFive
{Abyssum}

Don Federico Bortoli is presently the pastor of the parish of Sant’Andrea Apostolo in Acquaviva in the Diocese of San Marino Montefeltro. He is also diocesan chancellor, judicial vicar, and ecclesiastical counselor for the Unione Cristiana Imprenditori Dirigenti (Christian Union of Entrepreneurs and Executives). He is the defender of the bond at the Flaminio Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Bologna. His book, published last February 22, La distribuzione della Comunione sulla mano (The Distribution of Communion In the Hand), is his doctoral dissertation in Canon Law. We interviewed him on this important topic.

The key document relative to the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand is the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Memoriale Domini (29 May 1969) (henceforth M.D.), issued at the direction of Paul VI. Essentially, can you tell us how this document originated and what directives it contained?

The document originated because, in the years immediately following Vatican II, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand became widespread in many countries. This was obviously a liturgical abuse, which put its roots down in those countries where there were already doctrinal problems regarding the Holy Eucharist: Belgium, Holland, France, and Germany. The Holy See, not succeeding in stopping this abuse, decided to consult all the bishops on this question. This decision of Paul VI already allows us to understand the importance of the argument. I say this, because some would maintain that this whole question is only of marginal importance and unimportant.

And what resulted from this consultation?

The majority of bishops expressed their opposition to the introduction of this practice. M.D. acknowledged the outcome of the consultation and confirmed that the universal norm for receiving Communion is precisely that of receiving it directly on the tongue, giving profound reasons for it. At the same time, it consented that the bishops’ conferences of those places in which the abuse was already occurring would be able to request an indult for Communion in the hand, if the bishops were able to achieve a vote of a two-thirds majority in favor of requesting it.

M.D. thus confirmed that the two ways of receiving the Eucharist are not on the same level?

Absolutely. In my book, I examine the entire text of the Instruction, which when read clearly is understood to say that the traditional and universal discipline of the Church is that of Communion on the tongue, because “it is based on a centuries-old tradition, but especially because it expresses and signifies the reverent respect of the faithful towards the Holy Eucharist.” And furthermore, “it avoids the danger of profaning the Eucharistic species.” The document does not equate the two forms. Communion on the tongue is recommended and considered the most consonant way to receive the Eucharist, while Communion on the hand is permitted, provided that certain precautions are observed, such as checking to see if any fragments of the Host remain on the palm of the hand.

The other aspect of the Instruction that you emphasize in your book is the fact that the indult was not meant to be granted to whoever asked for it, but only to those bishops’ conferences in places where there were already verified abuses.

Exactly. The request was able to be made only in those situations in which there was already in existence the abuse of receiving Communion on the hand. Where this was not happening, the indult could not be requested. But what actually happened? At the beginning, they followed this criterion; then, almost every diocese requested and obtained the indult, also where there was no necessity for it. Cardinal Knox, who was prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, also acceded to the demands of the other bishops’ conferences. It is a fact that the interpretation of M.D. by Cardinal Knox was not correct.

In your book, you note that in January 1977, Paul VI, through (secretary of state) Cardinal Villot, asked Cardinal Knox to give him an assessment of the situation relative to the granting of the indult, to the way it had been put into practice, and also to verify whether, following the granting of the indult, there had been verified abuses and profanations or if there had been a lessening of the devotion of the faithful toward the Holy Eucharist. But Cardinal Knox seemed to greatly minimize the actual problems.

The popes, first Paul VI and then John Paul II, had grasped the problem, also thanks to the reports of Cardinal Bafile (prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints from 1975 to 1980). Notwithstanding this, Cardinal Knox continued on his course. Paul VI did asked Cardinal Knox not to evaluate the suggestions of Cardinal Bafile, but to think about how to apply them concretely. These suggestions were essentially the suspension of the concession of the new indult – the necessity of remembering that the practice of Commuion in the hand is discouraged by the Church and that, where the indult was not granted, Communion in the hand constituted an abuse.

What actually happened, above all beginning with the article published in L’Osservatore Romano by Fr. Annibale Bugnini in 1973, which you mention, is that the new practice was considered to be better, more faithful to the ancient way of receiving the Eucharist.

The idea of M.D. was to make the abuse legal where it had not been successfully eliminated, but a catechesis was still required according to the text of the Instruction, a catechesis that would highlight the merits of the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue and the risks being run with the new practice, in primis the dispersion of the fragments of the Host. The catechesis was not supposed to promote Communion in the hand, but in some way to discourage it, without prohibiting it outright. Still today, Communion in the hand is spoken of as the best way, faithful to the early Church and faithful to the liturgical reform. A fundamental point of the book is to show that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not mention it at all. Nor does any of the successive documents speak of it, nor the new Roman Missal, but only Memoriale Domini, which establishes it in terms of an indult. Bugnini’s article certainly gave a direction, but this direction was extraneous to the texts of the Council.

After M.D., there were not other explicit documents. What then is the present disposition of the Church relative to the distribution of Communion?

One noteworthy example is the document, which I include in the appendix, of Bishop Bialasik, bishop of Oruro, which clearly affirms that Communion on the tongue is the universal law of the Church, as M.D. establishes. Thus, Communion on the tongue is the universal law, while Communion in the hand is an indult, an exception. The other fundamental reference, outside M.D., is Redemptionis Sacramentum 92, which speaks of the right of the faithful to receive Communion on the tongue and also kneeling.

Also in catechesis, above all that of children, there is a need to teach the proper way to receive the Eucharist, that is, on the tongue.

Exactly. It ought to clearly be said that the best way to receive the Eucharist is on the tongue, and if someone wants to receive Communion on the hand, to do so with the greatest attention possible. As a pastor, I clearly cannot prohibit it, but I can discourage it, explain the problems with it, and educate. But it must also be said that the same Redemptionis Sacramentum 91 establishes that “if there is danger of profanation, Holy Communion should not be distributed to the faithful in the hand.”

Another aspect you bring to light is the fact that the obtaining of the indult by a bishops’ conference does not thereby obligate any individual bishops to apply it.

This is another fundamental aspect. The obtaining of the indult on the part of a bishops’ conference does not thereby require its automatic application in each diocese. It is simply the presupposition, based on which a bishop can decide to apply the indult or not. In Italy, what actually happened was the opposite: it was thought that the indult given to the Italian Bishops’ Conference authorized the reception of Communion in the hand in all the dioceses of Italy. But it was not so. Each bishop can decide whether to apply it and in what way. The Bishop of Oruro, for example, issued a decree in January 2016 prohibiting the reception of Communion in the hand in the territory of his diocese. This could be done by each bishop. Also, if we apply logic, without a decree of each bishop declaring the desire to receive the indult obtained by the bishops’ conference, Communion in the hand is not licit. Also Bishop Laise, in Argentina, did not accept the indult. He was accused by other bishops of not being in communion with them; he, however, appealed the matter to the Holy See, which said he was within his rights as bishop.

Your book is so valuable because it includes previously unpublished material.

Without a doubt, the main and most important contribution of the book is that of making known the unpublished documentation of Fondo Ghiglione, where they describe the dynamics by which Communion in the hand was introduced. It includes letters sent among the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia and reports sent to the Holy See. Above all the largest part of these communications regards those written by Cardinal Domenico Bafile, who was first the nuncio to Germany – thus, he was in one of those places where the abuse was most precocious and took into account all of the problems connected with it – and then prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. In the book I examine his letters sent to Paul VI and John Paul II, which display his great concern over the spread of Communion in the hand and the problems connected with it. They also suggest concrete steps to put into action to address the problem.

The great concern of the cardinal is with the dispersion of the fragments of the host, which is almost inevitable with Communion in the hand, and then the fact of the way in which it encourages irreverence toward the Eucharist, as well as the weakening of faith in the Real Presence.

Both Paul VI and John Paul II gave ample credit to the reports of Cardinal Bafile. This is proven by the fact that Pope John Paul II published the letter Dominicae Cenae on February 24, 1980, where he explicitly spoke of “deplorable shortcomings of respect shown towards the Eucharistic species” linked to the practice of Communion in the hand. One month later, John Paul II made the serious and important decision to suspend the concession of new indults, seriously considering the hypothesis of not granting more in the future, even though later, beginning on April 3, 1985, the granting of indults recommenced.

Perhaps the possibility of granting indults was then an open door, even though Paul VI clearly expressed the teaching of the Church on the way to receive the Eucharist and even though he had indicated the limitations which were to be followed in the granting of such indults (which were then not respected).

In effect, the possibility of the indult was perhaps a weakness. There is one part of the book in which I speak of the role of ecclesiastical authority, where I seek to demonstrate – in hindsight – that the concession of the indult has in some way allowed us to arrive at the situation now evident to everyone. If there had simply been a reception of the position of the majority of bishops that was against the possibility of receiving Communion in the hand, perhaps things would have been different.

It is necessary to keep in mind the priority of protecting the Eucharist in the best way possible from the possibility of fragments and from other possible profanations, which are clearly facilitated by the newly permitted way of receiving Communion. John Paul II, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, taught that “there can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery” (n. 61). This affirmation is decisive.

Originally published at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

POPE BENEDICT SPEAKS

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

Glory To God, That There May Be Peace on Earth. A Never-Before-Published Text From Pope Benedict

Benedetto

*

The book will go on sale May 10, but Settimo Cielo is previewing here the newest and most anticipated pages: a text by Joseph Ratzinger that bears the date of September 29, 2014 and has never been published until now, on the capital question of the foundation of human rights, which – he writes – are either anchored in faith in God the creator, or do not exist.

It is a text of crystalline clarity, which Ratzinger wrote in his retirement at the Vatican one and a half years after his resignation as pope, in commenting on a book – published in 2015 under the definitive title “Diritti umani e cristianesimo. La Chiesa alla prova delle modernità” (Human rights and Christianity. The Church put to the test of modernity) – by his friend Marcello Pera, a philosopher of the liberal school and a former president of the Italian senate.

In his commentary, the “pope emeritus” analyzes the irruption of human rights in the secular and Christian thought of the second half of the twentieth century, as an alternative to the totalitarian dictatorships of every kind, atheist or Islamic. And he explains why “in my preaching and my writings I have always affirmed the centrality of the questions of God.”

The reason is precisely that of guaranteeing that human rights have their foundation of truth, without which rights are multiplied but also self-destruct and man ends up negating himself.

The volume in which this composition is about to come out, together with other texts by Ratzinger on the connection between faith and politics, is published in Italy by Cantagalli:

Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI, “Liberare la libertà. Fede e politica nel terzo millennio,” edited by Pierluca Azzaro and Carlos Granados, preface by Pope Francis, Cantagalli, Siena, 2018, pp. 208, 18 euro.

It is the second in a series of seven volumes entitled “Joseph Ratzinger – selected texts,” on the fundamental themes of Ratzinger’s thought as theologian, bishop, and pope, published contemporaneously in multiple languages and in various countries: in Germany by Herder, in Spain by BAC, in France by Parole et Silence, in Poland by KUL, in the United States by Ignatius Press.

Both volumes issued so far have a preface by Pope Francis.

And here is the previously unpublished text that opens the second volume of the series. The subtitle is the original, by Ratzinger himself.

*

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, HUMAN RIGHTS COLLAPSE

Elements for a discussion of the book by Marcello Pera “The Church, human rights, and estrangement from God”

by Joseph Ratzinger

The book undoubtedly represents a great challenge for contemporary thought, and also, in particular, for the Church and theology. The discontinuity between the statements of the popes of the nineteenth century and the new vision that begins with “Pacem in Terris” is evident and on it there has been much discussion. It is also at the heart of the opposition of Lefèbvre and his followers against the Council. I do not feel able to give a clear answer to the issues of your book; I can only make a few notes which, in my view, could be important for further discussion.

1. Only thanks to your book has it become clear to me to what extent a new course begins with “Pacem in Terris.” I was aware of how powerful the effect of that encyclical on Italian politics had been: it gave the decisive impulse for the opening up of Christian Democracy to the left. I was not aware, however, of what a new beginning this represented also in relation to the conceptual foundations of that party. And yet, as far as I remember, the issue of human rights actually acquired a place of great significance in the Magisterium and in postconciliar theology only with John Paul II.

I have the impression that, in the Saintly Pope, this was not so much the result of reflection (although this was not lacking in him) as the consequence of practical experience. Against the totalitarian claim of the Marxist state and the ideology on which it was based, he saw in the idea of ​​human rights the concrete weapon capable of limiting the totalitarian character of the state, thus offering the room for freedom necessary not only for the thinking of the individual person, but also and above all for the faith of Christians and for the rights of the Church. The secular image of human rights, according to the formulation given to them in 1948, evidently appeared to him as the rational force contrasting the all-encompassing presumption, ideological and practical, of the state founded on Marxism. And so, as pope, he affirmed the recognition of human rights as a force acknowledged throughout the world by universal reason against dictatorships of every kind.

This affirmation now concerned not only the atheist dictatorships, but also the states founded on the basis of a religious justification, which we find above all in the Islamic world. The fusion of politics and religion in Islam, which necessarily limits the freedom of other religions, and therefore also that of Christians, is opposed to the freedom of faith, which to a certain extent also considers the secular state as the right form of state, in which that freedom of faith which Christians demanded from the beginning finds room. In this, John Paul II knew that he was in profound continuity with the nascent Church. This was facing a state that knew religious tolerance, of course, but that affirmed an ultimate identification between state and divine authority to which Christians could not consent. The Christian faith, which proclaimed a universal religion for all men, necessarily included a fundamental limitation of the authority of the state because of the rights and duties of the individual conscience.

The idea of ​​human rights was not formulated in this way. It was rather a question of setting man’s obedience to God as a limit on obedience to the state. However, it does not seem unjustified to me to define the duty of man’s obedience to God as a right with respect to the state. And in this regard it was entirely logical that John Paul II, in the Christian relativization of the state in favor of the freedom of obedience to God, should see human rights as coming before any state authority. I believe that in this sense the pope could certainly have affirmed a profound continuity between the basic idea of ​​human rights and the Christian tradition, even if of course the respective instruments, linguistic and conceptual, turn out to be very distant from each other.

2. In my opinion, in the doctrine of man as made in the image of God there is fundamentally contained what Kant affirms when he defines man as an end and not as a means. It could also be said that it contains the idea that man is a subject and not only an object of rights. This constitutive element of the idea of ​​human rights is clearly expressed, it seems to me, in Genesis: “I will require a reckoning of the life of man from man, from everyone for his brother. He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has man been made” (Gen 9:5f). Being created in the image of God includes the fact that man’s life is placed under the special protection of God, the fact that man, with respect to human laws, is the owner of a right established by God himself.

This concept acquired fundamental importance at the beginning of the modern age with the discovery of America. All the new peoples we came across were not baptized, and so the question arose whether they had rights or not. According to the dominant opinion they became genuine subjects of rights only with baptism. The recognition that they were in the image of God by virtue of creation – and that they remained so even after original sin – meant that even before baptism they were already subjects of rights and therefore could claim respect for their humanity. It seems to me that here was a recognition of “human rights” that precede adherence to the Christian faith and any state power, whatever its specific nature may be.

If I am not mistaken, John Paul II understood his effort for human rights in continuity with the attitude that the ancient Church had toward the Roman state. In effect, the Lord’s mandate to make disciples of all peoples had created a new situation in the relationship between religion and the state. Until then there had been no religion with a claim to universality. Religion was an essential part of the identity of each society. Jesus’ mandate does not mean immediately demanding a change in the structure of individual societies. And yet it demands that all societies be given the possibility to welcome his message and live in accordance with it.

What follows from this in the first place is a new definition above all of the nature of religion: this is not a ritual and observance that ultimately guarantees the identity of the state. It is instead recognition (faith), and precisely recognition of the truth. Since the spirit of man has been created for the truth, it is clear that the truth is binding, not in the sense of a positivistic ethics of duty, but rather on the basis of the nature of truth itself, which, precisely in this way, makes man free. This connection between religion and truth includes a right to freedom that can licitly be considered as being in profound continuity with the authentic core of the doctrine of human rights, as John Paul II evidently did.

3. You have rightly considered the Augustinian idea of ​​the state and of history as fundamental, placing it as the basis of your vision of the Christian doctrine of the state. And yet the Aristotelian view may have deserved even greater consideration. As far as I can judge, it had little importance in the tradition of the Church of the Middle Ages, all the more so after it was taken up by Marsilius of Padua in opposition to the magisterium of the Church. Afterward it was taken up more and more, beginning in the nineteenth century when the social doctrine of the Church was being developed. One now began from a twofold order, the “ordo naturalis” and the “ordo supernaturalis”; where the “ordo naturalis” was considered complete in itself. It was expressly emphasized that the “ordo supernaturalis” was a free addition, signifying pure grace that cannot be claimed on the basis of the “ordo naturalis.”

With the construction of an “ordo naturalis” that can be grasped in a purely rational manner, an attempt was made to acquire an argumentational basis through which the Church could assert its ethical positions in political debate on the basis of pure rationality. Correctly, in this view, there is the fact that even after original sin the order of creation, in spite of being injured, has not been completely destroyed. To assert that which is authentically human where it is not possible to affirm the claim of faith is in itself a correct position. It corresponds to the autonomy of the sphere of creation and to the essential freedom of faith. In this sense, an in-depth view is justified, indeed necessary, from the point of view of the theology of creation, of the “ordo naturalis” in connection with the Aristotelian doctrine of the state. But there are also dangers:

a) It is very easy to forget the reality of original sin and arrive at naive forms of optimism that do not do justice to reality.

b) If the “ordo naturalis” is seen as a complete totality in itself and does not need the gospel, there exists the danger that what is properly Christian may seem to be a superstructure that is ultimately superfluous, superimposed on the naturally human. In effect I remember that once I was presented with a draft of a document in which at the end some very pious formulas were expressed, and yet throughout the whole argumentational process not only did Jesus Christ and his gospel not appear, but even God did not, and they therefore seemed superfluous. Evidently the belief was that it was possible to construct a purely rational order of nature which, however, is not strictly rational and which, on the other hand, threatens to relegate that which is properly Christian to the realm of mere sentiment. The limitation of the attempt to devise a self-contained and self-sufficient “ordo naturalis” emerges clearly here. Father de Lubac, in his “Surnaturel,” tried to show that Saint Thomas Aquinas himself – who was also referred to in the formulation of that attempt – did not really intend this.

c) One fundamental problem of such an attempt consists in the fact that in forgetting the doctrine of original sin there arises a naive confidence in reason that does not perceive the actual complexity of rational knowledge in the ethical field. The drama of the dispute over natural law clearly shows that metaphysical rationality, which in this context is presupposed, is not immediately evident. It seems to me that Kelsen is ultimately right when he says that deriving a duty from being is reasonable only if Someone has placed a duty in being. To him, however, this thesis is not worthy of discussion. It seems to me, therefore, that in the end everything rests on the concept of God. If God exists, if there is a creator, then being can also speak of him and indicate a duty to man. Otherwise, the ethos is ultimately reduced to pragmatism. This is why in my preaching and in my writings I have always affirmed the centrality of the question of God. It seems to me that this is the point at which the vision of your book and my thought fundamentally converge. The idea of ​​human rights ultimately retains its solidity only if it is anchored to faith in God the creator. It is from here that it receives the definition of its limitation and at the same time its justification.

4. I have the impression that in your previous book, “Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians,” you evaluate the great liberals’ idea of God  in a way different than you do in your new work. In the latter it appears as a step toward the loss of faith in God. On the contrary, in your first book you, in my opinion, had convincingly shown that without the idea of ​​God European liberalism is incomprehensible and illogical. For the fathers of liberalism, God was still the foundation of their vision of the world and of man, so that, in that book, the logic of liberalism makes the confession of the God of the Christian faith necessary. I understand that both assessments are justified: on the one hand, in liberalism the idea of ​​God detaches itself from its biblical foundations, thus slowly losing its concrete strength; on the other, for the great liberals God is and remains indispensable. It is possible to accentuate one or the other aspect of the process. I believe it is necessary to mention both. But the vision contained in your first book remains indispensable for me: that is to say that liberalism, if it excludes God, loses its own foundation.

5. The idea of ​​God includes the fundamental concept of man as a subject of law and thereby justifies and at the same time establishes the limits of the conception of human rights. In your book you have shown in a persuasive and compelling way what happens when the concept of human rights is split from the idea of ​​God. The multiplication of rights ultimately leads to the destruction of the idea of ​​right and necessarily leads to the nihilistic “right” of man to negate himself: abortion, suicide, the production of man as a thing become rights of man that at the same time negate him. Thus, in your book it emerges in a convincing manner that the idea of ​​human rights as separated from the idea of ​​God ultimately leads not only to the marginalization of Christianity, but also to its negation. This, which seems to me to be the true purpose of your book, is of great significance in the face of the current spiritual development of the West which is increasingly denying its Christian foundations and turning against them.

© Edizioni Cantagalli / Libreria Editrice Vaticana

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on POPE BENEDICT SPEAKS