#⨀ justice for saint mary || commentary

[maykrisms]

❮ I always forget that human gender norms specify dresses are feminine. ❯

[psalm22-6]

What May Possibly Be the Worst Les Mis Fanfiction of All Time aka the Legal Scholars AU

Look, if Mr. Justice Gilles Renaud reads this, I am sorry, but I read his 90 page book and each page was filled with some new horror. First of all, “Mr. Justice” is not his first name; Mr. Justice is apparently what you call a judge in Canada. And he is an actual judge, which kind of frightens, but does not surprise me. He is also a legal scholar and this book was published by a scholarly press, the Sandstone Academic Press in Melbourne. 

This is the book’s premise: 

The reader is invited to participate in an unprecedented educational conference, held at Deakin Law School [in Australia], hosted by the publishers of the International Journal of Punishment and Sentencing [also real, also based out of Australia] to which are invited Jean Valjean, Fantine, Javert and Bishop "Welcome" as guest lecturers. Each in turn, and at times together, will address a plenary session of criminologists, lawyers, judges, probation officers, politicians, and others vitally interested in the reform of sentencing law. Drawing upon their lives, as penned by Hugo, and upon a surprisingly well-developed knowledge of academic writings, they will debate the merits of current penology as defined in the widest sense, and in so doing, will confront contemporary views on themes such as the mitigation arising from social deprivation, the merits of criminalizing prostitution, the need to maintain prisons while radically enhancing the methods of re-integrating former detainees into the community, and the scope to be accorded rehabilitation in selecting a fit and fair sanction, among other issues. [emphasis mine]

Look, I don’t hate the premise but I promise this conference is going to be a wild ride. So, please head over to the registration booth, sign in and pick up your swag bag, then stop by the lobby for some light refreshments, and head into the first event of the day:

That’s right, Fantine will be leading the first session, and it will be chaired by Professor D. E. Nine of Harvard University (I do not think this is a real person, I think this is the first of the many OCs who are attending the conference). Professor Nine introduces Fantine to the audience. (In this introduction Cosette is spelled both correctly and incorrectly in the same sentence). You will be happy to know that Fantine strode to the podium "with a confident air." Apparently she has had a lot of time to study the law since she died (Canadian law, that is.) Fantine uses a projector to show the audience her notes on the Canadian penal code and argues that Bamatabois's attack constitutes sexual assault. 

"It is plausible for me to suggest that Mr. Bamatabois would be found guilty of a sexual assault as his verbal attacks coupled with his physical attack made it plain that he was assaulting me, a prostitute, by reason of my being one, coupled with the fact that I was unattractive in his eyes."

According to Fantine, Bamatabois could receive a maximum prison sentence of 18 months. However, she says, a person convicted of placing bets on behalf of others may be imprisoned for up to two years. Using a laser pointer, Fantine gives other examples of criminalized behavior that received harsher penalties than sexual assault, "to illustrate that certain values are given pre-eminence over those of the sexual integrity of men, women and children." 

After taking questions from the audience, Fantine concludes by saying "The point of my presentation this morning is to urge you to return to your home jurisdictions and to search out for these types of unequal penalty schemes and to seek legislative amendments in order that the violations of the personal integrity of our brothers and sisters be penalized with greater objective severity than gaming offenses." I'm not a legal scholar (unlike Fantine), I'm just trying to summarize a book so I'm not going to offer commentary on the ideas she presents here. Let's just go to the next session.

Professor Sacha Trofimenkoff of the School of Criminology at Saint Mary's University chaired this lecture and entertained the audience by name-dropping famous Australian judges. Some members of the audience were running late and came to the lecture hall directly from the airport. 

Bishop Myriel, or Bishop Welcome as he is introduced by Professor Trofimenkoff, "began his presentation in almost too soft a voice, apparently ill at ease at having to discuss his private affairs." Although he describes Hugo's account of his own life as "relatively unimportant passages," he cites his life story as evidence that humans can change for the better at any point in time, which he wants to see reflected in sentencing guidelines. 

"Sadly," Myriel says, "the evidence seems to suggest that many more offenders pursue the opposite journey and come to adopt anti-social behaviors or attitudes, as was the case of our beloved Fantine." (Kind of a rude thing to say about his colleague.)

Myriel gives many examples of books on the topic at hand and then "hesitated, fearful that his listeners were growing disinterested, but he realized the silence that marked the room was evidence of rapt attention." 

The bishop was about to end the first part of his lecture when he said "May I add a few words, which I wish to do as a result of a pointer I received from an American friend who suggests that I must always complete a speech with a humorous comment." The comment is not important, I just want to point out that apparently, Myriel has an American friend. 

The conversation turns to war criminals (?!), Dr. Trofimenkoff quotes Hamlets and the session is over (for now). 

During the recess, the Bishop receives many requests to speak at different schools. Upon returning to the podium, he introduces several books on the topic of restorative justice, arguing that the communities from which criminals originate (side eye at the idea that there aren't criminals in other communities that aren't being hyper-policied) and the communities to which they return need to be invested in. Although he is very modest and therefore hesitant to share about himself, he gives as an example the city of Briancon, a community in his bishopric where there hasn't been a murder in 100 years, as well as the improvements made to Montreuil-sur-Mer by Jean Valjean.   I know this doesn't seem that bad, and I am going to skip over Fantine's small group discussion on the subject of the unintended consequences of sentencing (except to say that she is a very skilled facilitator) and jump straight to:

The report on this small group session begins with a note on “concerns surrounding reliability of information.” I was expecting this to be about Javert’s reliability but instead, it was about the reliability of character witnesses who often exaggerate (for better or for worse) an offender’s qualities. As an example of unreliable information, Javert cites rumors which were spread about Bishop Myriel, as well as Fantine. Although there was a rumor that Fantine had abandoned her child, “ ‘the truth,’ noted Javert, who was always scrupulously punctilious as to the facts, although often blinded by class issues, ‘the truth is that Fantine had not abandoned her child, far from it!’ ” He urges sentencing judges not to rush to conclusions, saying: “in effect, most questions may be ‘flipped’ or stopped on their head, and one ought not to leap to judgment,” which is funny coming from a man who jumped off a bridge in order to avoid critical thinking.

The next morning, Javert kicked off the second day of the conference with his plenary session.

“Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen," intoned the career police officer whom Hugo had described initially as a Spartan, a monk, a pitiless individual lying in wait, possessed of a ferocious honest, ‘Brutus in Vidocq.’ Of course, he was no such thing as we well know given his subsequent suicide, the only means he knew to justify his decision not to arrest Valjean. [No, I did not know that about him.] "As you are all liberals who despise the prison system and libertarians who hate justice and retribution, I need not mince words in addressing you. I am a firm believer in populist law and order, in just deserts, indeed, in punishment for the sake of punishment . . ." Needless to say, he had gained the rapt attention of all those present. [Is he negging the audience?]

He explained the circumstances of his birth and his career in the police. He said “I owe my liberty and my freedom to the very existence of a jail system. . .Custody of some serves the liberty of all!” (Now do you see why I hate this?)

Javert took a sip of water (“disdaining the juices and other beverages”) while the audience thought about his words. Before he could continue he was interrupted by Professor Simon Segovia of the University of Seville, who quoted Hemingway and stated that “Prisons harm those they seek to improve.” In response, Javert emotionally revealed his strict moral code, as a result of which he “led a life of privation, isolation, abnegation, chastity, with never a diversion” (and thereby sidestepped Professor Segovia’s question).

Another professor (“who looked on at him with a mixture of frank puzzlement and understated bemusement”) asked him to comment on the case of Paul Crump (sidenote, you may be familiar with this name if you are a fan of Phil Ochs).

“What say you respecting the tremendous strides that felon achieved when given access to books?”. . . “What would you have me say,’ sneered Javert, “I have never stated that prison ought not to assist offenders, quite to the contrary. . .the fact that so many prisons represent abject failures in respect of their foundational purpose is no justification for demolishing them, however. In fact, it might be said that there is a better advocate of the. . . utility of prison. . .in our midst’s. . .and that is Jean Valjean himself.” 

That's right. The room was silent except for some whispers and the sound of pens on paper. Everyone in the audience disapproved of what Javert had said except one man, “the former forçât [sic] Valjean” who “began his comments with a whispered 'Bravo!' " He came up to the podium and continued:

Javert has said out loud what I have long believed. Indeed, prison did elevate my base instincts somewhat in that I did receive a form of education that was far superior to what I had obtained in my childhood. Further, I did learn discipline in the prison setting . . . In addition, I did acquire a grudging sense of respect for the justice that was meted out in that place.

After taking a drink and “whispering to those around him that being over two hundred years old meant that he should take his time in completing his assignment,” he said:

My old foe and friend is quite correct . . . it was just that I be jailed for my crime . . . It is important for me to acknowledge publicly, once again for the sake of emphasis, although this may affront certain liberal-minded reformers, that I was able to acquire the rudiments of an education while in prison . . . and I might well have done far better had I applied myself.

I'm sorry for putting the whole quote in bold but I can't help it. Jean Valjean says actually prisons are good! Then, in support of that idea, a South African student, Kagiso Nankudhu, (again, this is a fictional character) gives the example of anti-Apartheid political prisoners who studied while imprisoned.

Overall though, Valjean’s claim that there is no “new punitiveness,” and that the idea is just political rhetoric, did not go over well with the audience. He did concede, however, that Canada seemed to be heading in the right direction. (Really??) Javert closed the session by quoting Nelson Mandela. 

At the 1 o’clock plenary session, Professor Saku Maki of Helsinki University introduced Valjean thus:

Jean Valjean is the universal symbol for English-speaking lawyers and criminologists of the impoverished individual who became an offender only by reason of the State having offended against him . . . I will now invite him to explain in his own words how he feels about this popular image of Valjean as the victim, and never as the victimizer.

In short, Valjean has come to the conclusion that the theft of bread was “extreme and blameworthy,” that he should have just asked for the bread, and that, even though there were starving children involved, he should have waited to earn enough money because it is very rare for someone to die of hunger. (So what is the point of this whole "debate" if you are just going to change the character's beliefs from the book?)

Then Valjean turned the mic over to Professor Reed Johnson of the University of Ottawa, “a genial, ruddy-faced middle-aged individual whose nickname among the student body is ‘Guinness’” (another one of the author’s OCs), who lectured on the question “is it relevant to the selection of a fit sentence that an offender has known but sadness in life?” He cites Eponine and Azelma as examples of abused children who grow up to have a life of crime and speculates that Valjean’s nephews probably became criminals as well. This went on for some time until it was Javert’s turn to speak. Javert stated that he disagreed with Victor Hugo’s assertation that “the faults of women, of children, of the feeble, the indigent, and the ignorant, are the fault of the husbands, the fathers, the masters, the strong, the rich, and the wise.” (So why write a book about the law and Victor Hugo if you don't like what he has to say about the law?) Jean Valjean knew that the audience would want to debate the ideas discussed but to avoid that, he invited Bishop Myriel to provide some closing comments. (Why frame this as a debate if the characters try to avoid a debate!?)

On Wednesday, Jean Valjean recounted the whole story of his 19 years in prison and said:

Having reflected long and hard on my further crimes, and the foolishness of my behavior, I wish to state to you that my friend Javert cannot be faulted for his belief that each of the individual sentences was proportionate to my misconduct, that the total penalty in each case was fairly estimated, and that the gradation of the penalties was not ill-advised.

He asserts that the harsh penalty for his second escape attempt, in which he hit a guard, was warranted, in order to protect “those who hold such dangerous occupations, be they police officers, prosecutors, judges, probation officers, social workers engaged with offenders, etc.,” even though he admits that it is unclear whether punishing attacks against prison guards prevent further attacks. In fact, he admits that “it is the retribution visited upon the prisoners during periodic assertions of naked force by prison staff. . . .that serves to deter future acts of aggression and not the workings of an organized scheme of penalties.” 

If I may say, the worst of it is now over (but not entirely done.) At one o’clock, the Bishop led a small group discussion. Recalling the example of a woman in Les Miserables who was manipulated by the police into denouncing her lover for a crime punishable by death, the Bishop said “I am familiar with the words of Robert Reiner, ‘To fight crime the police must themselves resort to tactics which appear to mirror those of their foes, using violence and guile for just ends’, but I am not about to commend such tactics.” Well thank god.

Unfortunately, Fantine’s small group discussion at 3 was not well attended.

I do not doubt that many of you might be surprised that a literary figure such as me, who lived in the Napoleonic period, might be so vitally concerned with the welfare of animals, but such is the case, given Hugo’s own intense respect for all forms of life.

One participant, “Ms. Rita Joe, who was pursuing her doctoral studies at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore but who was a member of the Dene Nation and who was grown up in the Yukon Territory of Canada,” contributed to the conversation by quoting Jack London. This seriously short session was the last one on Wednesday.

Thursday was the last day of the conference and in the opening session, Fantine set out to argue that “it is a crime for society to make criminals and offenders out of women, and men, who sell their bodies for money. . .and I do not think that I will need to address you at length in order to demonstrate [my thesis’s] essential validity.” And indeed, she did not address the crowd for long at all, all she did was quote her own story at length. These last few chapters do not feel fleshed out.

Finally, it was time for the last plenary session. The Bishop delivered some closing words about reacclimating to life outside of prison. However, it was Javert who had the final word. He quoted (and no, I am not kidding) David Llyod George, who said, with regard to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, “our function is to guide the path of reform and all trail-blazing is fraught with risk.”

[divinum-pacis]

Divinum Pacis’s Reference Guide- 2022 Edition

Let’s face it, schooling is expensive, and you can’t cram everything you want to know into 4+ years. It takes a lifetime (and then some). So if you’re like me and want to learn more, here’s an organized list of some books I find particularly insightful and enjoyable. 

The copyright year is now provided, and NEW ADDITIONS are listed first under their respective sections, with an asterisk (*). Some books appear in more than one section. If you have any recommendations, send them in!

African (various)  🌍

(*) A Womanist Theology of Worship: Liturgy, Justice, and Communal Righteousness by Lisa Allen (2021)

(*) True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary by Brian K. Blount, Cain Hope Felder, Clarice J. Martin, & Emerson B. Powery. (2007)

(*) Africa Study Bible, NLT (New Language Translation) by Oasis International. (2017)

(*) De New Testament: The New Testament in Gullah Sea Island Creole by the American Bible Society (2005)

African Myths & Tales: Epic Tales by Dr. Kwadwo Osei-Nyame Jnr (2019)

The Egyptian Book of the Dead by E.A. Wallis Budge (2021)

Prayer in the Religious Traditions of Africa by Aylward Shorter (1975)

The Holy Piby: The Black Man’s Bible by Shepherd Robert Athlyi Rogers (2011)

The Altar of My Soul: The Living Traditions of Santeria by Marta Moreno Vega (2001)

African Religions: A Very Short Introduction by Jacob K. Olupona (2014)

Buddhism ☸

The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation by Thich Nhat Hanh (1999)

The Dhammapada by Eknath Easwaran (2019)

Liquid Life: Abortion and Buddhism in Japan by William R. LaFleur (1994)

The Tibetan Book of the Dead by John Baldock (2017)

Teachings of the Buddha by Jack Kornfield (1996)

Understanding Buddhism by Perry Schmidt-Leukel (2006)

Essential Tibetan Buddhism by Robert Thurman (1996)

Christianity ✝️

(*) Welcoming and Affirming: A Guide to Supporting and Working with LGBTQ+ Christian Youth by Leigh Finke (2020)

(*) The Fundamentalist Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention by Rob James & Gary Leazer (1999)

(*) The Human Icon: A Comparative Study of Hindu and Orthodox Christian Beliefs by Christine Mangala Frost (2017)

(*) The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences by Ron Rhodes (2015)

(*) Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition by John J. Collins (2018)

(*) The Jewish Annotated New Testament,  2nd ed. by Amy Jill Levine (2017)

(*) Welcome to the Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity by Frederica Mathewes-Green (2015)

(*) A Womanist Theology of Worship: Liturgy, Justice, and Communal Righteousness by Lisa Allen (2021)

(*) True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary by Brian K. Blount, Cain Hope Felder, Clarice J. Martin, & Emerson B. Powery. (2007)

(*) Africa Study Bible, NLT (New Language Translation) by Oasis International. (2017)

(*) De New Testament: The New Testament in Gullah Sea Island Creole by the American Bible Society (2005)

The Story of Christianity Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation by Justo L. Gonzales (2010)

The Story of Christianity Volume 2: The Reformation to Present Day by Justo L. Gonzales (2010)

By Heart: Conversations with Martin Luther's Small Catechism by R. Guy Erwin, etc. (2017)

Roman Catholics and Shi’i Muslims: Prayer, Passion, and Politics by James A. Bill (2002)

Introducing the New Testament by Mark Allen Powell (2018)

Who’s Who in the Bible by Jean-Pierre Isbouts (2013)

Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples (2014)

Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary by Miri Rubin (2009)

Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Romazansky (2009)

Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska (2016)

The Names of God by George W. Knight (2009)

The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God by St. John Maximovitch (2012)

East Asian Religions  ☯️

Shinto: A History by Helen Hardacre (2016)

Tao Te Ching, the New Illustrated Edition by Chad Hansen (2017)

The Analects by Confucius, Chartwell Books publishing (2016)

Tao Te Ching by Stephen Mitchell (2006)

Understanding Chinese Religions by Joachim Gentz (2013)

Taoism: An Essential Guide by Eva Wong (1997)

European (various)

(*) A Treasury of Irish Fairy and Folk Tales by Barnes & Noble (2015)

Iliad & Odyssey by Homer, Samuel Butler, et al. (2020)

Tales of King Arthur & The Knights of the Round Table by Thomas Malory, Aubrey Beardsley, et al. (2017)

Early Irish Myths and Sagas by Jeffrey Gantz (1981)

The Prose Edda: Norse Mythology by Snorri Sturluson and Jesse L. Byock (2005)

Mythology by Edith Hamilton (1969)

The Nature of the Gods by Cicero (1972)

Dictionary of Mythology by Bergen Evans (1970)

Gnosticism, Mysticism, & Esotericism

The Gnostic Gospels: Including the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (Sacred Texts) by Alan Jacobs and Vrej Nersessian (2016)

The Kybalion by the Three Initiates (Hermeticism) (2008)

The Freemasons: The Ancient Brotherhood Revealed by Michael Johnstone (2018)

Alchemy & Mysticism by Alexander Roob (2018)

The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity by David Brakke (2012)

What Is Gnosticism? Revised Edition by Karen L. King (2005)

The Essence of the Gnostics by Bernard Simon (2016)

The Essential Mystics: Selections from the World’s Great Wisdom Traditions by Andrew Harvey (1996)

The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall (2003)

Hinduism 🕉

(*) The Human Icon: A Comparative Study of Hindu and Orthodox Christian Beliefs by Christine Mangala Frost (2017)

The Ramayana by R.K. Narayan (2006)

7 Secrets of Vishnu by Devdutt Pattanaik (2011)

7 Secrets of the Goddess by Devdutt Pattanaik (2014)

Hinduism by Klaus K. Klostermaier (1998)

Bhagavad Gita As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1997)

The Mahabharata, parts 1 & 2 by Ramesh Menon (2006)

The Upanishads by Juan Mascaro (1965)

In Praise of the Goddess by Devadatta Kali (2003)

Beyond Birth and Death by Srila Prabhupada (1979)

The Science of Self-Realization by Srila Prabhupada (1994)

Krishna: The Beautiful Legend of God (Srimad Bhagavatam) by Edwin F. Bryant (2003)

The Perfection of Yoga by Srila Prabhupada (2012)

Islam  ☪️

(*) Muhammad, the World-Changer: An Intimate Portrait by Mohamad Jebara (2021)

(*) Sharing Mary: Bible & Quran Side by Side by Marlies ter Borg (2010)

Roman Catholics and Shi’i Muslims: Prayer, Passion, and Politics by James A. Bill (2002)

The Handy Islam Answer Book by John Renard (2015)

The Illustrated Rumi by Philip Dunn, Manuela Dunn Mascetti, & R.A. Nicholson (2000)

Islam and the Muslim World by Mir Zohair Husain (2006)

The Quran: A Contemporary Understanding by Safi Kaskas (2015)

Essential Sufism by Fadiman & Frager (1997)

Psychological Foundation of the Quran, parts 1, 2, & 3 by Muhammad Shoaib Shahid (2016)

Hadith by Jonathan A.C. Brown (2009)

The Story of the Quran, 2nd ed. by Ingrid Mattson (2013)

The Book of Hadith by Charles Le Gai Eaton (2008)

The Holy Quran by Maulana Muhammad Ali (2002)

Blessed Names and Attributes of Allah by A.R. Kidwai (2016)

Jainism & Sikhi

(*) The First Sikh: The Life & Legacy of Guru Nanak by Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh (2019)

Understanding Jainism by Lawrence A. Babb (2015)

The Jains (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) by Paul Dundas (2017)

The Forest of Thieves and the Magic Garden: An Anthology of Medieval Jain Stories by Phyllis Granoff (1998)

A History of the Sikhs, Volume 1: 1469-1839 (Oxford India Collection) by Khushwant Singh (2005)

Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction by Eleanor Nesbitt (2016)

Judaism  ✡

(*) Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever (2008)

Hebrew-English Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society (2001)

Essential Judaism by George Robinson (2016)

The Talmud: A Selection by Norman Solomon (2009)

Judaism: A Beginner’s Guide by Dan & Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok (introductory text) (2010)

The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd edition by the Jewish Publication Society (2014)

The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai (1990)

Native American

God is Red: A Native View of Religion, 30th Anniversary Edition by Vine Deloria Jr. , Leslie Silko, et al. (2003)

The Wind is My Mother by Bear Heart (1998)

American Indian Myths and Legends by Erdoes & Ortiz (1990)

The Sacred Wisdom of the Native Americans by Larry J. Zimmerman (2016)

Paganism, Witchcraft & Wicca

Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (Religion in the First Christian Centuries) 1st Edition by Naomi Janowitz (2001)

The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spells: 2nd Edition by Hans Dieter Betz (1997)

Wicca for Beginners: Fundamentals of Philosophy & Practice by Thea Sabin (2006)

The Path of a Christian Witch by Adelina St. Clair (2010)

Aradia: Gospel of the Witches by C.G. Leland (2012)

The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, & Witchcraft, 4th ed. by Rebecca L. Stein (2017)

Paganism: An Introduction to Earth-Centered Religions by Joyce & River Higginbotham (2002)

Christopaganism by Joyce & River Higginbotham (2009)

Whispers of Stone: Modern Canaanite Religion by Tess Dawson (2009)

Social ☮

Tears We Cannot Stop (A Sermon to White America) by Eric Michael Dyson (2017)

Comparative Religious Ethics by Christine E. Gudorf (2013)

Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America by Michael O. Emerson (2001)

Problems of Religious Diversity by Paul J. Griffiths (2001)

Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (2017)

The Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade (1968)

Miscellaneous  🗺

(*) When Men Become Gods: Mormon Polygamist Warren Jeffs, His Cult of Fear, and the Women Who Fought Back by Stephen Singular (2009)

Living Religions, 10th ed. by Mary Pat Fisher (2016)

The Norton Anthology of World Religions: Hinduism, Buddhism & Daoism by Jack Miles, etc. (2014)

The Norton Anthology of World Religions: Judaism, Christianity, & Islam by Jack Miles, etc. (2014)

Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices by Mary Boyce (2001)

The Baha’i Faith by Moojan Momen (2007)

The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong (2007)

God: A Human History by Reza Aslan (2017)

A History of God by Karen Armstrong (1994)

[oh-boleyn]

jane / infamy

words: 6216, one shot, language: english

anne / jane /  katherine / catherine

as I said on my ao3, this might be my last one shot in a while (I’m really struggling with college right now, like in this moment I should be doing two assigments which... clearly I’m not doing), but still I hope you all enjoy this piece of garbage of story!

TW: canon, Jane being mean? probably more swearing that what is expected from a jane one shot

the commentary between scenes are things I got from internet about Jane Seymour

Remembered for: being the only wife to provide Henry with a son and male heir.

(…)

Jane Seymour was relieved.

The light is brighter, and her dizziness is starting to fade.

No more pain or ache in her lower body, and she feels quite better than in a long time. Her arms are longing to hold her baby, dear Edward, who has just secured her the position of queen.

She opens her eyes, but instead of finding her chambers, she is in a strange looking room, with Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon. Jane wants to cry, knowing immediately what it meant. She is dead, there is no other way to turn it around. She died and was found guilty of her sins, was it her hell? Being with the other two queens? God punishment for seducing a married man?

They all stare at each other, not knowing how to proceed.

(…)

Virtue and common good sense.

(…)

The new house is nothing like what she was used to, and sharing a room with both Catherines wasn’t exactly in her dreams.

She had less problems with accepting Catherine rather than Anne, after all, with the last the relationship had been more than rocky, but Catherine probably wasn’t Jane’s biggest fan either. Even after the older queen’s death, Jane had always tried her best with Mary, attempting to help her image, trying to reconcile with the religion.

Parr wasn’t bad, but she was quite closed. They weren’t acquaintances in their past lives, but that didn’t mean Catherine would introduce herself and invite her to grab a snack or something. It was hard to think about her, how connected both were but how apart too. The most she would talk was about history, or science, or another thing Jane couldn’t bring herself to truly understand and would be left just nodding along.

(…)

When she died, he actually sunk into depression, officially mourning her for two years before marrying again.

(…)

Looking for a job is not an easy task, it’s not like she ever had to do that before. Her kinsman secured her a good place as the lady of the queen, and even when the court became hostile and fell apart, she managed to still have her place.

But now jobs required so much, not just her needlework and knowing how to perform the arts —whatever arts you want that to mean. Modern positions searched for way too many qualities she doesn’t have.

When Catherine offers the idea of doing a show, she says yes out of desperation of not knowing how to do anything else, not even how get the oven to work. Once it goes out of her mouth, she truly wishes the rest of the queens don’t notice how needy she is of the opportunity.

(…)

By that account, she was practically a saint!

(…)

Opening night was stressful to say the least. There are at least a hundred pairs of eyes on her, and her song – her song! While everyone clapped along Aragon’s and Boleyn’s, her part was different, way out of the upbeat modern pop style.

She couldn’t even have a fun, upbeat song.

It’s not like she didn’t want to, Jane tried so hard to add comic relief to her story, trying puns and obnoxious screaming. But her song was slow, more of a ballad instead of the pop-rock songs the show featured. And, to top it, she was the only one who talked about understanding Henry, about loving him, staying by his side.

Of fucking course, she had to be the sweet woman who just happened to love a horrible man.

(…)

Jane was Henry’s true love.

(…)

It is hard to fill her place, her own shoes she left behind when she died.

Jane Seymour, known because she was the one he truly loved. The one he asked to be painted years after she died, instead of just letting her rest in peace. Jane, the dutiful wife, the one who had the son he so desperately wanted.

And the audience loved it, they loved to see the dutiful mother, the one who can’t stop talking about her son. They cheered, they heard everything they always knew.

Because she wasn’t an interesting character in the story, she was just another woman there to obey the orders of the king.

She wishes she was known for something else, but that’s not her life. Of course, playing another character would be fun, being the temptress, the evil stepmother, the fun one, someone people actually cared about. Instead, she was the tedious, boring perfect wife. Reduced to her uterus capacity, and ability to shut her mouth.

(…)

I assure you she is as gentle a lady as ever I knew, and as fair a Queen as any in Christendom.

(…)

“Good morning, Katherine.” Jane says.

The teenager enters the kitchen with heavy steps, still not quite awake from the night of sleep.

“Morning.” She replies, voice small.

“Would you like something to eat?”

“Do you know how to cook?” Katherine retorts, a smug look on her face. “Don’t worry, I will buy something. Maybe cheesecake? Or apple pie?”

“Why not a chocolate cake.” Jane offers, getting the water off of the stove, almost burning herself in the process.

“Do you like chocolate cake?” The younger asks, “I would have pinned you as a vanilla kind of person.”

Jane feels judged. The smile on Katherine’s face just says it all.

“I prefer it, but never mind.” The teenager finishes.

(…)

Here lies Jane, a phoenix / Who died in giving another phoenix birth.

(…)

They move into a new house.

The moment Jane enters her new room, she knows it will take at least two months to get it completely clean. There are spiderwebs, and the white walls look more of a light grey. She makes mental notes to buy bleach, and other cleaning supplies.

At least her bed is clean, but she makes sure it doesn’t touch any wall for the sake of it not getting dirty.

(…)

Jane Seymour was a kind woman too, a better person than Anne.

(…)

“Are we coming to the bar tonight?” Anna asks.

Cleves is nothing less than an interesting character to say the least. They never got to meet in their past lives, but the woman knew her son. She even lived long enough to see him dead.

“I’m not sure,” Jane replies, “I don’t think that Boleyn is going to want me there.”

“But I would want you there.” The fourth queen says easily. “If it’s your decision, that’s alright, but I would like you to come.”

“I will keep that in mind.”

(…)

Her ladies-in-waiting and her maids were held to a strict code of behavior and insisted that they “serve God and be virtuous”.

(…)

The people, and society as a whole has changed.

Feminism is a common term, and women can –almost, to a certain point– hold the same power as men do.

Still, Jane feels more judged than ever. In her past life it was easy, if she did exactly what she was told, nobody would question her. She was bound to serve and obey, and planned to let everyone know about it. Unlike Anne, she was not going to take her chances. She couldn’t say that it brings her happiness, but it gave her peace of mind.

Nobody would contradict the orders of their king.

Nowadays it is different. People talk about freedom, about being able to own yourself, your body, your choices. Nonetheless, they talk about her. Judged her for saying good things about Henry in her speech, for loving him when it was her only choice.

It was her choice to keep her hair long, not like Anna’s. Her choice to wear make-up, to prefer dresses rather than pants. To talk about her son, to own her past. The public sometimes hated her for it, for her decisions, calling them a part of patriarchy leftover from the century in which she used to live.

They hate that she reduces herself to it, to being a mother, to fill what was expected of her, but that is still the only thing they know about her.

(…)

Jane herself was known for her quiet and soothing manner.

(…)

She sometimes sees it; the way Aragon and Boleyn are mothers.

Sometimes it is just a word, a name. Something totally irrelevant that snaps them into it, into caring in a way only mothers do. The way they treat Katherine, or how they look at a little kid on the street. How they talk to the younger fans of the show.

Jane feels like she doesn’t have it. She doesn’t care about babies and kids. Doesn’t have an attachment to them, to the idea of being a mother. If someone handed her a baby she would probably freeze and don’t know how to proceed.

Was it justice? Did she die so Edward wouldn’t have to put through with her as a mother?

Jane thinks she was just not born for that, to have a kid, to care for them. There were women who had maternal instincts, but she didn’t. Instead, when having to tend for Katherine, she grew overwhelmed, not having a clue of what to do next.

(…)

We will never know if Jane sought the king’s favor or was a frightened pawn of her family and the king’s desire.

(…)

“Would you like to go to brunch tomorrow?” Aragon asks one day.

It’s Saturday night, which means she is totally exhausted after a two show day, but still, she nods. Slowly, Aragon and Jane had started to rebuild the good relationship they once had. Both of them holding so much respect for the other.

“Have you seen Kat?” Parr interrupts Jane’s thoughts.

“She was here just a minute ago.” Aragon says, looking around.

“Well, Anne is looking for her and there’s no trace of where she could be.” The survivor explains quickly.

“Let’s look for her.” The first queen concludes, taking action.

They pass fans, excusing themselves, still taking a few pictures just for the sake of fulfilling the stagedoor the queens always did. Once they are out, a cold breeze hits their faces. Walking through the streets seems dangerous, but luckily enough Kat is near, curled up in herself. They signal to Anne and Anna to quickly come with them.

“Kitty, can you hear me?” Anne is fast to get on her knees, getting to be at the same height as Katherine.

“We should take her inside,” Jane states, “it’s not safe here.”

“Outside air can help, Jane.” Boleyn snaps at her. “Kat?”

She wishes she could be mad at her, but at the same time the second queen is just trying to do the best for her cousin. She acts almost instinctive, as if anyone would do that. The way she stays near her, but without invading personal space amazes Jane, even if that decision makes sense. She would’ve tried to pull the younger girl closer, thinking about it makes it seem like not such a good idea, the immediate response to fight or flight after a panic attack wouldn’t help.

“I’m okay.” Her voice is small. “Can we go home?”

Jane nods, and starts walking behind her towards the car. It comes as a surprise the fact that Katherine rides with them, instead of Anne and Anna as she usually does, but they don’t say a thing. She maintains her eyes on the girl, worried about her.

Once they arrive, Katherine is the first to get into the house, leaving the other two queens alone.

“I’m worried about her, should we try to have a talk?” Jane asks, Catherine denies with her head.

“No, we have to just make her trust us,” she says easily, “once she does, if needed she will come to us. Confrontation is mostly not the way to go with teenagers.”

“How do you know that?”

Aragon smiles.

(…)

She was the only one of his wives to be buried next to him.

(…)

If Jane said that she never wanted to be queen, it would be a lie.

The idea always sounded appealing. Who wouldn’t want to be one? Even in a modern context, girls still pretended to be queens, to live in the prettiest castles.  Being queen came with power, not nearly as much as men had, but still a fair amount. The chance to change things, to have opinions. Not counting how good it could be to the family, to secure a future.

Jane would be lying if she ever said that becoming a queen was not something she longed for. But she didn’t want Anne to suffer such a horrible death, no matter if it was or wasn’t fair.

(She used to think that another kind of death wouldn’t be as bad, to die for natural causes would just be God’s will, and to have a divorce would be the Man’s will.

Now she thinks every ending is horrible until proven different.)

In this life she kept quiet about it, knowing how she might have interfered in what Henry ultimately did to Anne. She preferred to not talk about her time as queen, how he threatened her with the same fate her predecessor suffered.

She once thinks about boarding the subject with Parr. She saw that the writer went through the same, a warrant order for her head that was never finished, and the painful death after a childbirth. Still, she doesn’t do so, knowing that her and the survivor are not the same.

Catherine Parr was smart, got her way because of her words. Jane Seymour was just the ignorant fool who kept quiet to please the man.

(…)

The ladies in waiting were expected to wear a belt of pearls with at least 120 pearls in them, and if they didn’t, they weren’t allowed to appear before her.

(…)

“Did you bring something for the cold?” Jane interrogates.

“Yeah, my pink sweater, I left it in the dressing room.” Katherine explains.

“Okay, I will look for it, finish taking your makeup off.” She orders.

The third queen stops staring at the queen, instead looking around. Finding the piece of clothing, she reaches out for it, but winces for a moment when the younger talks.

“Jane, just stop it, okay?” Katherine asks.

“It’s cold, put on a coat or something more, you will catch a cold.” She tried to give the teenager her pink sweater, but all she got was rejection.

“Just don’t. Stop acting as if I’m a child.”

It doesn’t come as a surprise, after all, Katherine usually snapped at her.

“You are nineteen.” Jane indicated, anger bubbling up in her voice.

“I am like almost five hundred years old.” There was bitterness in the statement. “Nobody cared about me being eighteen when the king beheaded me. They didn’t even care when I was younger, why now?”

“Because I care about you.” The words come out before she can really think about it.

Did she really? Cared for the younger?

Of course, she didn’t want harm to come to her, but then again also not to any of all the strangers she knew in this life. Nonetheless there is something about Katherine, an innocence, a broken past. Jane wanted to take care of the girl, to help her through whatever she was going through.

“You shouldn’t.”

It comes out almost aggressive, like a threat. The queen who died of natural causes doesn’t know how to feel about it.

(…)

She learned pretty quickly that it was best to stay out of religion and politics, and instead focused her energy on domestic issues.

(…)

Jane doesn’t break like Katherine, but she still does.

The way Katherine breaks suddenly, they can all point at that moment and say that is when she started changing. Harming herself in not obvious ways, drinking more caffeine than what she should, sleeping less, eating the unhealthiest food she can find. They notice, but their own egos and need to not gossip in order to not be the catty bitches fighting against each other like history has painted stop them from acting as a group.

Instead, the way Jane breaks is slowly, anger destroying her. Consuming every inch of her, growing and taking parts of her life.

It starts as a bitter, indignant feeling when she is left to cook or help cleaning up, but it quickly grows. Gets infuriating, maddening when people call her good . She is not, she might have been in another life, but not in this one. She was not innocent, but rather had a fair amount of guilt. It evolves to be hostile when she realizes that nothing will change it.

Jane Seymour, the mother figure who not only failed at being educated and staying alive, but also failed at having maternal instincts. The good queen, who did nothing but harm. The mother of the king, a king who died young and so did she.

She hates herself for it.

(…)

Her ladies-in-waiting and her maids were held to a strict code of behavior and insisted that they “serve God and be virtuous”.

(…)

She tries to self-isolate, to take a step away.

It doesn’t help, instead the anger comes back stronger each time, and she hates it. Jane hates how violent the feeling can be, how abrasive. She controls herself as she had always done, but it doesn’t make it any better, a resentment towards her fellow queens growing.

Seymour was not a jealous woman, not in her past life and not in this one. She didn’t want to be like the other queens knowing that there were so many things wrong in their lives. It was not about it.

It was about making a mistake, and how she never got to commit those. Jane couldn’t regret anything in her life without someone telling her that “she had it easy”, after all, she was the one he “truly loved”. Even when her problems were addressed, it always came before a way to minimize it, or worse, blame her for them.

The queens knew that it was none of their faults, but people still pinned them against each other, choosing favourites, giving each other a role. And she couldn’t say a word, because hers was good.

It didn’t matter what she truly wanted, or what her opinions about it were, because their mind was made up.

Why change something that is not broken? Why get mad over a good thing? What was better, being a bitch or a saint ?

Jane thinks that being the villain of the story would be easier, liberating. Heroes are just too unreal to exist, but pushing the narrative meant forgetting her own flaws, thoughts, problems.

But who cared?

All they ever wanted was a devoted woman.

(…)

Jane curbed her tongue and accepted her place as the dutiful wife.

(…)

"Can you stop being such a stuck-up child and act mature for a fucking moment?" The third queen asks, becoming irritable, "I just fucking asked you to do one thing. One fucking thing. You are not a toddler, stop throwing a fit!"

It turns out, living up to five hundred years of expectations become harder the angrier you get. The worse the feeling of burning grows, the worse it hurts inside. Jane refuses to let it slide, to let it show, but Anne is not making it any easier.

"Go off, Janey," the green queen laughs, "or chill out, it's not that deep."

"Except, it is." She demands. "I asked you to please do one thing, and it's not the first time. I ask you, you do it for a week, and then forget about it. Are you taking me for an idiot?"

"Honestly? No," she replies easily, "I just don't care enough."

They stay watching each other for a moment.

It brings back memories, but their roles are reversed. In another timeline Jane would be childish, not caring enough, or maybe caring so, so much, about the locket and chain around her neck. Anne would watch her with such a fury in her eyes, and the blonde would internally laugh.

She regrets it. Jane hadn’t seen it coming. The dreadful ending.

“But I know you do; I will try to change it.” Anne answers, her voice just above a whisper.

A soft: “Thank you” it’s all Jane can say.

“You’re welcome, darling .” A playful smirk passes through her lips.

“Bloody idiot.”

“I know.”

Boleyn gives her a sincere smile.

Maybe sometimes yelling is useful.

(…)

It is also true that she was not as sharp or witty as Anne Boleyn.

(…)

It doesn’t last long. Before she knows it, the show must keep going.

Jane smiles, sings her song, sings about Edward. Edward, her Edward. Her brother too, was named Edward. He died. Her brother too, was Thomas. Thomas who did so much wrong. Thomas who apparently loved Parr. Thomas who got sentenced to death.

Thomas and Edward. Thomas. Edward.

She doesn’t realize how much panic creeps in until she is alone in her room crying. An unexpected feeling of grief for the family she once had, as much grief as hate and resentment towards them. Horrible atrocious acts made just for the sake of it.

The Internet says that her son, her little baby, luckily died young.

They talk about luck, something good. And even as much as she wants to believe that her kid won’t ever be a threat, she knows his father. Henry was atrocious, ruthless. Growing under his influence was probably not the ideal childhood. If only she hadn’t died.

Her skin aches, and she has to ground herself controlling her breathing.

Was it possible that every man in her old life was terrible?

(…)

She never seemed to cause drama or do anything without her husband’s permission, and she managed to maintain her carefully crafted image of being virtuous, loyal and obedient.

(…)

“Jane, can we talk?” Aragon questions, knocking on the door.

The blonde nods, slowly looking up.

“What’s going on?” The divorcee asks, rather bluntly. “You stopped coming out of your room, and when you do, it’s just to fight. What’s wrong?”

“Nothing. I’m good. Great even.” She smiles.

“Do you think I’m a fool?”

Bloody hell.

Jane doesn’t want to hold this conversation, knowing that she has all the cards to lose it. But at the same time, she wishes to reach out, to explain what is going on. To say that she doesn’t know how to be angry, how to defy someone, how to speak up. All she knows is shouting, crying and hiding her real emotions.

She must conceal what she feels, to not let it show. The less she thinks, the less she feels, the less danger it represents. Jane can’t be the next one. If what happened to Aragon was an awful experience, where she couldn’t see her daughter or talk to her for the last years of her entire life, and Anne’s death was way worse, what is left for her? Torture worse than death.

“ Bonita, breathe with me.” Aragon commands, sitting a hand on Jane’s shoulder in an attempt to ground her. “Jane, breath in. Hold. Breath out.”

“Go away, Catherine, please . ” The queen begs.

“No. What’s wrong?”

“I don’t want you here, please .”

“I just want to help.” Catherine says, trying to get closer.

“Why don’t you try and help yourself first? I know I’m dumb, but even I can notice what you do, Catherine.” Her voice becomes steady. “Why are you so obsessed with fixing people? Is this because you couldn’t fix Mary from the monster she became?”

The venom in her words acts quickly, Catherine’s face changing in a few moments. First a pained expression, then developing hurt. She stands up from the bed, and Jane rage rises.

“Why can’t you just keep for yourself, Aragon?” She expels the name. “Is that because you don’t know us? Is this a trick? I know you loved him, is this your way to check us as competition? Or just because you want to see which one of us can take the blame for what happened with baby Mary?”

Catherine stays silent. Humble and loyal after all.

“I told you I wanted you gone.” Jane finishes.

“And I told you, you need help. You should seek it before it becomes too late.”

(…)

Jane’s son Edward was at best a useless boy-king, and at worst a divisive religious extremist who disinherited his sisters.

(…)

Maybe no other queen truly understands her.

Or maybe she doesn’t understand the others.

How Anne talks about her beheading makes it sound like a celebration, a great day everyone was looking forward. She talks about how people cheered, even if it sounds mostly like an old tale made by people who hated her. Jane doesn’t try to tell the truth. She hides it in her silence, just like she hid from Henry.

She should. She should make it better for Anne, but a part of her can’t do so. Can’t bring herself to tell the truth. To confront the other queen. She can’t break the need to be perfect, the need to be good, and innocent.

Talking to Boleyn would be an admission of guilt she is not ready to commit.

(…)

Jane Seymour fulfilled her most important duty as queen, but she was never crowned and died just twelve days after the long and arduous birth.

(…)

Catherine is distant, which shouldn’t surprise her.

Asking for help sounds like a trap. She can’t trust anyone. Even if she knows how much it would change things, even if she doesn’t feel like the queens would hate her or judge her, deep inside something tells her they will. And she can’t allow that.

She can’t break the idea of being perfect after fighting so much for it in the past.

(…)

The fact that she had died producing Henry’s only surviving male heir gave her a mythic near-martyr status in his eyes, and he would do creepy things like having her appear in a family portrait eight years after her death (and not even as a zombie or vampire, much to my dismay).

(…)

“Why are you here?” Her therapist asks.

Wasn’t being a reincarnated Tudor queen who died after giving birth to the next king of England enough reason to be?

“I think I’m having problems with being impulsive, and out of control, and managing my emotions.”

“Which emotions would this be?”

“I’m not sure.”

“It’s good that you are looking for help, Jane.” The woman says.

She takes the files and starts asking more questions, Jane finds herself being more honest than in a long time.

After the session she feels happier, lighter.

(…)

Let’s get down to business and look at just why Jane was in fact not a cute little wifey BUT a calculating master manipulator.

(…)

It doesn’t last long, and that is what hurts the most.

Feeling good for a moment just to then descend into the pain of unbelievable sadness that invades her. Not knowing how to handle it, making her go slowly mad.

It makes her think of her death.

Everything was good, happy, easy. But then it started going bad, failing. Her own body, organs shutting down, fever, agony. A pain in her chest that barely leaves her breathing. Death coming to her. And sometimes she feels it again.

Short, confused breath. A weight so heavy on her chest. Her thoughts all over the place. Death creeping on her. Her psychologist calls it a panic attack, stress coming to her. And she doesn’t know how to react to the idea that it’s just her brain. Drowning in thoughts, so deep that she can’t see the surface.

(…)

That’s two Queens brought back into the folds of power, a feat Jane achieved in just 6 months, thanks to her skill at manipulating Henry without him even realizing.

(…)

Anna doesn’t come to her, just the contrary. Jane tries to help.

Watching the queen crumbling down, makes her feel smaller. Just the contrary to her stage presence. This Anna is not partying, no joking. She is broken. Not a unidimensional character that they pull each night. Cleves has kept a mask for so long, that is just now breaking.

Jane can’t help but wonder if they all do. But it’s different. Jane had always been allowed to be sad, to cry, to be sensible and weak, while Anna never had that privilege. Each role assigned to them had their good and bad parts.

“We might not be great. I know I’m not. But we are here for you. We are all in this.”

“Do you really mean it?” The fourth queen asks.

She doesn’t doubt it. It’s just the way it worked, everyone had their places, what they tried to fulfil. It was harder on some of them. To keep or to destroy what they were. Create a new self being idyllic, impossible.

“Of course, I do.” Jane smiles.

(…)

Jane was not beautiful. She was not outspoken, or alluring, or exotic.

(…)

An article said he was sick for months. That he died slowly, painfully.

Her son had died when still young. And she never held his hand. She wonders if he was scared. If he thought what death might have felt like. Sometimes it keeps her up at night, her sick son who had to lay in a bed. Who she can’t help.

She wasn’t scared of death, as she never quite understood, fever coming to her, letting her slowly go. Making her confused, as she didn’t understand if she died until she came back.

What was better? To go without knowing or to stay knowing that the ultimate end is near?

Jane used to be catholic, used to devote herself to religion. But since she came back it all feels like a lie, an elaborated truth that kept her from making errors. Still, for his supposed last words, she hopes God had mercy on him.

(…)

Nobody wants an unfun queen.

(…)

“Jane, may I sit with you?”

The older nods, making space on the sofa. Katherine practically jumps to the spot but doesn’t relax until Jane opens her arms for the girl to get into the embrace. They stay like that for a few moments, just enjoying each other’s company.

They had managed to somehow have a good relationship. Maybe because Jane never feels as if Katherine judges. Maybe because Katherine never met her in life. Maybe because they know the least about their past. It somehow brings them closer.

“Is everything alright, sweetheart?” The third queen wonders.

She keeps in mind Aragon’s words, if Katherine feels safe enough, she will open up. Slowly the changes had been more noticeable, especially after starting therapy.

Maybe it’s the need to be a mother, maybe it’s just the way Katherine can charm anyone, with shy smiles and childish glee.

“I feel bad.” Katherine admits. “I… I have tried to ignore things and I just feel guilty about it.”

Jane nods, knowing what the feeling is about. Remorse is an even more common feeling in the queens’ household than it is probably in others.

Maybe they are both broken.

“What about?” She wonders.

Maybe it’s just meant to be.

“They beheaded the woman who helped me.” Katherine admits. “They beheaded her too.”

Maybe it’s because they both feel the blood on their hands.

“But it wasn’t your fault. You can’t make yourself responsible for others’ actions.” Jane confirms.

“I never cried. Since I came back, I never cried for her. I just pushed it to the back of my mind, acted as if it did not happen.” Her eyes water. “She died for me. And I am back, and she is not. I still don’t try to bring those memories back.”

“Some emotions need time.” The older one tries to explain. “Grief it’s not lineal, there’s denial, there’s guilt.”

“She didn’t deserve it.”

“You didn’t either. But you can honour her. We have a second chance, something impossible.”

“What are you using your second chance for?” Katherine wonders.

Jane doesn’t have an answer.

(…)

Jane Seymour: (shrug) enh.

(…)

Sometimes talking with fans is easier. They comment about the play with blissful glee, about the shiny costumes and loud music. Some go as far as making copies of her costume, to draw her, to write letters. They still don’t know her fully and they mostly don’t care to find out.

Jane can’t help but wonder if Edward ever felt love like that, blind, from someone who doesn’t know who you are. She can’t help but wonder what her son knew of her, because he never met her. She didn’t get to really meet him either, but she has Anna, who sometimes would drop a funny story of a young king, Katherine who remembers a little boy, and Catherine who talks about how smart he was.

She hopes that he had someone to tell him her story.

(…)

In her entire 18 months as queen, Jane Seymour failed to say one single thing that anybody thought was worth preserving for the future.

(…)

“Catherine, can we talk?” Jane asks.

The first queen nods sternly, sitting in front of her. Even though their relationship had been less tense since she started therapy a while ago, things were still not quite resolved within them.

“Yes, I’m sorry.” Catherine starts. “I shouldn’t have pushed, specifically not when I told you not to push Katherine.”

“No, it’s alright.” The blonde smiles. “Katherine shouldn’t be pressured, that’s true. But we are different. I didn’t understand what you were trying to do but now I do. And I’m sorry. I have been realizing things slowly and it’s just a matter of time until I will feel better again.”

“Penny for your thoughts?” The first queen asks.

“It’s the idea of being perfect. To fill in my own shoes. To comply, and obey and serve. You knew me before, and you know me now, but I just feel so much responsibility to be who people think I am. I talk about how I stayed, firm by his side, but in reality, I didn’t. I was scared. I am scared. And it’s such a weird feeling, because it drives me to do the exact opposite thing of what I try to do. My death was just something that happened, but I can’t help and think that I was lucky to have died. Who knows what could’ve been of me otherwise?”

“You don’t have to be perfect.”

“But I do.” Jane replies. “It’s just my place, and I’m a character. I just have to learn where and when I should be myself.”

“Are you sure? No one is expecting anything.”

“They are. And it’s okay. They want it, the love story, the tragic ending. I wish it was like that, but it was not. But I’m going to be fine, because I’m pretty tough. And it doesn’t come from screaming, being the loudest or the most anything. It comes from me, and I don’t have to prove it to anyone else.”

(…)

Or, god forbid, are you a fan of the insufferable Jane Fucking Seymour?

(…)

“I might miss some foods from the past, but I love this.” Anne said happily, devouring some chocolate lentils.

“Stop it! I want some too.” Her almost namesake replied, trying to take some.

“Anna, don’t worry about chocolate and help me pick a movie.” Parr insists. “I saw that this one was good, this account said that they used a new kind of animation to do it. Created a new program and all.”

Jane smiles, laughing lightly at Catherine who can’t keep facts for herself. Each time it becomes better, less superior talking and more nerdy, passionate about useless knowledge.

“Whatever you choose, please let it be short, I’m so tired tonight.” Aragon asks.

“That one is ninety minutes long.” Katherine offers.

The third queen sits, gossiping about the plot

(…)

So, don’t overlook Jane. Sure she’s quiet, but remember it’s the quiet ones you have to watch.

(…)

Second chances were overrated, that much could be said for Jane Seymour.

Sometimes, people don’t change, themselves or their minds. In her two lives, she dealt with it all. With trying and not, with fighting and keeping quiet, with being looked up to and with being irrationally disliked. Society, as a whole, would never be pleased. Setting standards too high, as much as those vary from time to time, from one century to the other, there was always going to be something wrong.

But it didn’t mean she had to just follow it.

Second chances were overrated, wasting hers into demonstrating things to anyone except herself. The general opinion might not change, but Jane does. She learns, grows. She cries, gets sick and has horrible days, she fights, speaks out, she loves, she smiles. It’s hard, to live a life she shouldn’t have, but it means that is her opportunity, not to be revolutionary, not to be a queen nor a mother.

Jane learns to be herself, to explore, to know her limits. And it never ends.

Second chances were overrated, but it doesn’t mean that Jane was going to try and make the best out of hers.  Maybe it is boring, or naïve to not try to take an impossible opportunity, but she doesn’t need it. To be true to herself is more than just enough.

[dmwelch77]

Hooray for the Matriarchy! Forgotten Voices

Hooray for the Matriarchy!

Week one: Forgotten voices

Matthew 1: 1-6, 12-16

You always know it’s going to be a fun Sunday morning when the sermon starts with a reading of a genealogy. More on that a little bit later.

A couple of years ago I did some work at the Museum of the Bible, in Washington DC. [Yes really, there’s an entire – and pretty large – museum dedicated to the Bible. If you’re ever lucky enough to be in DC, it’s worth a visit for reasons shall we say both good and bad.]

There is a whole floor in the museum describing the ‘global impact’ of the Bible. The exhibit begins with a series of displays about the Bible in American history. It’s a complicated picture. In one cabinet is a volume of ‘The Woman’s Bible’ published by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1895. Stanton was an influential advocate for women’s suffrage and blamed the teachings of the church for much of the problem of denying women their rights. Her Bible included commentary interpreting what she saw as the Bible’s real message about women.

In another cabinet is one of the so-called ‘Slave Bibles’ of the early 1800s – part of a large display outlining how the Bible was used both in justifying slavery, and in fighting for its abolition. ‘Slave Bibles’ radically edited the Bible text – missing out stories and sometimes whole books – to downplay themes of freedom and liberation and emphasise themes of obedience and submission. Verses like this one from Titus “teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything” definitely made the cut, used to perpetuate the idea that slavery and ownership was the natural – even God-ordained – order of the world.

In a roundabout way, that’s why we’re beginning a new series this week: Hooray for the Matriarchy! How we read the Bible matters, and for the next four weeks we are going to be exploring the stories of some women from the Bible.

We can’t possibly do that justice in just four weeks – neither incidentally should it be the only time in the year when we talk about women’s stories. In the next three weeks, we’re going to hear the stories of Deborah, Miriam, and Hagar. This week, we’re beginning with the title ‘forgotten voices’ – women whose stories are minimised and marginalised; women who (along with men) are often unnamed in the Bible, yet whose inclusion in the text – I think - tells us something about our own calling in the world. How have women’s voices been forgotten – and why does it matter?

Pop quiz: does anyone know how many women are named in the Hebrew Bible – the Old Testament? I wonder if we started shouting out names, how many we could muster. [Maybe we shouldn’t – we’ll be here all morning]

There are 111 women named – and very many more unnamed. Some we know – Ruth maybe, or Esther – both have books of the Bible named after them which helps. Many we may have never noticed or heard. But the women’s stories are there.

All about the patriarchy

We started with that reading from Matthew 1, listing the ancestors of Jesus – beginning with the patriarchs. Time and again in the Bible we’re told that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Right from Sunday school, we teach stories about the male heroes of faith [or so-called heroes – many of them are pretty violent, interesting that these are the stories we teach children!]. Abraham, Moses, Joseph, David, Samson, Gideon – the list goes on. But listen to that reading from Matthew 1 carefully and you’ll notice that – in an absolute break with how genealogies of the time were put together – four women are named. Tamar, Rahab, Bathsheba, and Mary. Their inclusion is intriguing – but it’s not an utter surprise. The Bible is a remarkable history. Most histories are written by those who conquered, those who won, these are the ones who control the narrative. Yet the Bible – the Hebrew Bible – tells the story of the Jewish people who are constantly conquered, occupied, and exiled. In that context the Bible is often subversive, often disruptive. It is written in a time and culture completely formed by patriarchy (a system where men hold power and women are largely excluded from power) – so the Bible is this weird mix. It is rich with stories of women who are oppressed, but who sometimes have agency. Women who are silenced, but who sometimes make their voices heard. Many of the women in the Hebrew Bible whose stories we know are foreigners, outsiders in Israel. Their stories aren’t the centre of the text, they appear and disappear. We get a little bit about them, then we never know what happens to them after that. Their feelings and actions are unexplored, their story arcs don’t get completed. In a text that is often about power and nation-building, the men’s stories are the point. But the women’s stories are there.

Because God is the God of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah. Without these matriarchs we have no more patriarchs.

Without Shiphra and Puah – the Israelite midwives who subvert Pharoah’s orders [to kill every Hebrew baby boy, and instead tell him that Hebrew women just give birth really fast before they can get there – they’ve already pushed them out and hidden them somewhere!]

Without Jochabed who hides her baby in the reeds

Without Miriam who watches over her baby brother and saves his life

Without the Egyptian Princess who raises him

We have no Moses.

And while Moses parts the waters of the red sea – Miriam leads the people of Israel across with dancing.

When Israel sends spies into Canaan, looking for their promised land – it’s Rahab who saves them. Deborah leads the people of Israel in peacetime, as well as in war – a war that’s won when Jael (another woman) puts a tent peg through Sisera’s skull. Tamar, Dinah, the daughters of Zelophehad, Hannah, Esther, Abigail – we don’t have time for their stories, but even to say their names is important, because we don’t. Time and again the fate of the people of Israel pivots on the actions of women. The women’s stories are there.

If we don’t think the Bible celebrates women – as leaders, prophets, a source of wisdom and courage, as leaders of the resistance, subverters, champions of justice – then we’re not reading the Bible very well. Patriarchy is not just a problem in the writing of the text – it’s a problem in our reading of it as well. We continue to emphasise the stories of men, missing out the essential stories of women.

Why is this important? Well – aside from the fact that 50% of the population can’t find themselves in this story if women’s voices are forgotten – when we read the Bible through our own bias, we compound the problem. We weaponise the Bible. We fail to challenge interpretations that justify and lead to injustice.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton wasn’t wrong when she argued that the teaching of the church over the centuries – based on this Biblical text which is steeped in patriarchy – has played a huge role in denying women their rights. From Eve to Mary, women have been cast as either sinners (whores) or saints (virgins). It begins with Augustine in the fourth century – but it carries on and it gathers pace. Here are some of my favourite quotes for you [I actually have a document on my computer called ‘quotes about women’, so I picked out a couple of my favourites]:

(This is from the fifteenth-century manual of the Dominican Inquisitors against witches): “When a woman thinks alone she thinks evil, for the woman was made from the crooked rib which is bent in the contrary direction from the man. Woman conspired constantly against spiritual good. Her very name, fe-mina means ‘absence of faith’. She is insatiable lust by nature. Because of this lust she consorts even with Devils. It is for this reason that women are especially prone to the crime of witchcraft, from which men have been preserved by the maleness of Christ.”

One more? Here’s Martin Luther the great reformer, on the subject of marriage: “Eve originally was more equally a partner with Adam, but because of sin the present woman is a far inferior creature. Because she is responsible for the Fall, woman is in a state of subjugation. The man rules the home and the world, wages war and tills the soil. The woman is like a nail driven into the wall, she sits at home.”

Those are rather extreme examples – but if you go into a Christian bookshop today, or step inside some churches, and you won’t have to look hard to find ideas that are rooted in patriarchy, and that still deny the place, the voice, and the role of women – in church and in society. And ideas like the purity culture that have heaped shame on women for their sexuality and their identity.  

This (weaponising Scripture) is all a problem not just for how we read the Bible in relation to women – but to everyone whose voice is minimalised or marginalised. To every group of people who find themselves pushed to the outside or ignored. I think we all know ways in which the Bible has been used against people because of their race, their gender, their sexuality, or their social status.

The Bible is problematic. Referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, Professor Wil Gafney – a brilliant womanist theologian [if you don’t know her work it’s worth reading – she’s written a brilliant book called Womanist Midrash] – says this about the Bible:

“The reprehensible gender and sexual mores of the Stone and Iron Ages are still in effect for some of the women, men, boys, and girls living in our Digital Age. Our sacred texts do not proclaim or even envision a world without slavery and the subordination of women, but they lay a foundation for us to transcend them and their limitations: ‘Remember that you were slaves in Egypt.’ ‘Do to others what you would have them do to you.’ ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to another.’ ‘In the Messiah there is no longer slave or free, male or female.’”

In celebration of women

The women’s stories are there in the Bible – we need to make sure we tell them well – that means we have to untangle them from their limitations, and from those that we’ve placed on them.

Some of you may know John Bell – if you are a Greenbelt regular. He’s a teacher from the Iona Community, and just a brilliant storyteller around the Bible. He tells a story about leading a retreat with a group of church leaders, where he sets them off into groups. Half of the groups – he asks to write down the names of the twelve male disciples, and also to write down three things that they know about each of them.

To the other half of the group, he says think about all the women who are followers of Jesus in the gospels, and write down what you know about them.

So off they go, when they come back again the men’s groups start and put their sheets on the wall. Most groups have named most of the twelve of the disciples – a few are a bit tricky to remember. What about when it comes to what we know about them? Peter – we know quite a lot about Peter, people could find three things to say about him. Matthew? He’s a tax collector … he collected taxes … James the Less? Lesser than … another James? Andrew? Andrew brought a small boy with loaves and fishes, and some Greeks, and his brother to Jesus.

What about the groups that thought about the women? John Bell says that when they came back with their pieces of paper, there was a whole wall full of information. The women at the well – we don’t know her name, but she gets a whole chapter in John’s Gospel, which she shares with Jesus. No other character in the gospel gets a whole chapter of their own. She’s the first evangelist. She brings a whole village to follow Jesus. [John Bell jokes that Andrew brings a small boy, some greeks, and his brother – for which he becomes the patron saint of Scotland. This woman brings a whole village and we don’t know her name.]

Not all are named

“We know more about the woman who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, than we do about five of the disciples after whom cathedrals are named. There has been an imbalance.”

There are 22 women in the gospels whose interactions with Jesus are recorded. We don’t know many of their names – but we know their faith and we do know how Jesus responds to them. The woman who was bleeding, and who touched Jesus. The Syro-Phoenician woman who calls Jesus out on his use of racist language. The woman caught in adultery who walks away, uncondemned. The woman who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears. The woman who gives away her last coin in the temple offering. The woman who pours expensive oil on Jesus’ head – which Judas thinks is a waste and Jesus chastises him. The women who wait at the cross, while Jesus’ male disciples flee. The women who watch his burial, who visit the tomb, who are the first witnesses of the resurrection.

They are not named – but they are bearers of the most important news in human history.

I want to say clearly: for those of us who have felt excluded or marginalised or unheard by a version of Christianity that has lifted up the powerful, and silenced those on the edges, the place of these women in the text reminds us that we are all equally made in the image of God. We are all included. We are all in. Against the odds, (yes) from the margins, unnamed, imperfect, nonetheless … the women’s stories are there.

Says John Bell:

“Jesus eats with women, is offered hospitality with women, argues with women, and takes their experience seriously. He engages with, eats with, enjoys the company of, and allows himself to be touched by those who are equally made in the image of God.”

Texts of terror

Women’ stories are there in the Bible – and we need to tell them well. But we also need to tell them honestly. And if we’re going to be honest about the story of women in the Bible, then we need to talk about what Rachel Held Evans called the ‘dark stories’ – or as Phyllis Trible calls them, the texts of terror.

I believe the Bible absolutely celebrates women, and we see that most in Jesus’ life and interactions. But the Bible also contains some horrific stories – women suffer beyond all others, and often God is silent about their suffering. Throughout the text, women are the victims of terror and violence and injustice. Even in metaphor – when Israel is in trouble, she is depicted as a woman. A daughter, destitute on the streets. A mother weeping. A harlot cast out. It’s impossible to read the Bible without encountering the voices of women who suffer.    

And as a woman, approaching those stories is hard.

Rachel Held Evans says that as she read these stories as a young woman: “I kept anticipating some sort of postscript or epilogue chastising the major players for their sins, a sort of Arrested Development–style “lesson” to wrap it all up—“And that’s why you should always challenge the patriarchy!” But no such epilogue exists. While women are assaulted, killed, and divided as plunder, God stands by, mute as clay.”

She goes on:

“Those who seek to glorify biblical womanhood have forgotten the dark stories. They have forgotten that the concubine of Bethlehem, the daughter of Jephthah, and the countless unnamed women who lived and died between the lines of Scripture exploited, neglected, ravaged and crushed at the hand of patriarchy are as much a part of our shared narrative as Deborah, Esther, Rebekah, and Ruth.”  

The story of the unnamed concubine in Judges 19 strikes me as one of the most terrible stories the Bible offers us. It comes at the end of the days of judges ‘when Israel had no king (and) the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes’. These are dangerous days, violence is everywhere, and those in charge abuse their power. In a gruesome string of events, when the Levite and ‘his concubine’ (or as Wil Gafney translates it, womb-slave [ask me later for Gafney’s translation of Bilhah’s story]) are travelling, they end up in the house of an old man, in a town in the hill country of Benjamin. [In a parallel to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah] a group of men surround the house, demanding that the Levite come outside. Instead, the two men offer up the women to the mob – both the daughter of the old man, and the Levite’s concubine. We don’t know what happens to the daughter, she’s not mentioned again, but the Levite pushes his concubine out, and the woman is sexually assaulted by a group of men and left for dead.

In the morning the Levite gets up to go on his way, seemingly undisturbed about what’s happened to his concubine, opens the door, and finds her on the ground with her hands on the threshold. So he takes her home – it’s not clear whether she’s alive or not – he cuts her body into twelve pieces, and sends one to each tribe of Israel. The story is an indictment (told at the end of the story arc of Judges) of what king-less and law-less Israel has become. Violence begets violence, begets violence, and war ensues between the tribes. [All the men of Benjamin except 600 are killed. All the women are killed, all the children are killed. 400 women are snatched to be wives for the remaining men … etc]

It is a terrible, terrible story. There is no justice for the woman. She is abandoned and used in every way. She is not even named – only the story of the violence done to her lives on. Phyllis Trible says that of all the characters in Scripture she is the least. The least. But her story is there. This nameless woman demands our attention. She doesn’t speak in the text, only her father and her husband speak. And yet she is not silenced. Her suffering speaks for her, calls out for our outrage.

Lest we need reminding, misogyny, violence, and abuse of power are not confined to the distant past. Violence still disproportionately affects women and girls around the globe. Worldwide, one in three women has experienced physical or sexual violence because she is a woman. Women are more at risk of domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, forced marriage, sex trafficking, and genital mutilation.

Although people of all genders experience violence and abuse online, the abuse experienced by women is specifically sexist or misogynistic in nature. Online threats of violence against women are often sexualised or target a specific aspect of a woman’s identity (involving racism or transphobia for example). 21% of women in the UK have experienced online abuse or harassment.

Time and again, in the Bible, the suffering of women points to the need and the fight for justice. To the failure of Israel to live up to its calling to care for the poor, the orphaned, the widow, the stranger. And when you read the story of the Levite’s concubine, or the story of Tamar, or the story of Rizpah … [Rizpah’s story we probably don’t know. She was Saul’s concubine. She sits in the desert with the corpses of her sons for six months after David has had them killed, fending off wild animals and birds, demanding justice for their deaths and burial for their bodies, and she wins – David has them buried along with the bones of Saul and Jonathan …] When we read these stories it’s impossible to not to think about contemporary stories [the mothers of the disappeared in Argentina parallel Rizpah’s story].

I think the Bible teaches us that these terrible stories … [do you know, I’m not ‘glad’ that they’re there – I don’t think ‘oh it’s good that women’s stories are included in the Bible even the violent ones’ … we wish they weren’t there because they’re awful stories.] But they are there and what they point us to is the need and the fight for justice for women and girls and men and boys around the world, and our part in that.

In her book, Texts of terror, Phyllis Trible concludes:

“The story is alive, and all is not well. Beyond confession we must say ‘never again’ … speaking the word not to others but to ourselves: Repent. Repent.”

Here – I think – is the challenge and the invitation to us, as we read the stories of women in the Bible. Yes – to be inspired by their leadership, their courage, their flaws, and their faith. Yes – to be encouraged that their stories are told, even against the odds, from the margins, subverting power, leading the resistance. But most of all to be reminded of our own calling as the people of God always to bring good news that is freedom for the poor, and justice for the oppressed.

Let’s pray

May we – each one of us – find ourselves in this story of faith.

May we know our value, our worth, and our identity – formed, each one of us, in the image of God.

May we learn to listen for the stories from the margins and amplify their voice.

May we be compelled to act for justice, to resolve oppression and exploitation wherever we find it.

May these stories not trouble us in vain – may we use them for some good.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Entertaining God: The 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time

This Sunday, as we continue to accompany Jesus on his fateful journey to Jerusalem in the Gospel of Luke, we are confronted with a pair of Readings in which human beings host a meal for God: Abraham for the LORD in the First Reading; Martha and Mary for Jesus in the Gospel. But is it really possible for us to “do God a favor” by giving him a nice meal? We are going to discover that, while God graciously accepts our services, it’s really about what God does for us, not what we can do for him.

1. The First Reading is Gn 18:1-10a:

The LORD appeared to Abraham by the terebinth of Mamre, as he sat in the entrance of his tent, while the day was growing hot. Looking up, Abraham saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them; and bowing to the ground, he said: “Sir, if I may ask you this favor, please do not go on past your servant. Let some water be brought, that you may bathe your feet, and then rest yourselves under the tree. Now that you have come this close to your servant, let me bring you a little food, that you may refresh yourselves; and afterward you may go on your way.” The men replied, “Very well, do as you have said.”

Abraham hastened into the tent and told Sarah, “Quick, three measures of fine flour! Knead it and make rolls.” He ran to the herd, picked out a tender, choice steer, and gave it to a servant, who quickly prepared it. Then Abraham got some curds and milk, as well as the steer that had been prepared, and set these before the three men; and he waited on them under the tree while they ate.

They asked Abraham, “Where is your wife Sarah?” He replied, “There in the tent.” One of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah will then have a son.”

This very beautiful and mysterious narrative has always suggested a mystical appearance of the Holy Trinity in the Christian tradition, and countless icons have taken their inspiration from it.

Certainly there is an intriguing interplay of one and three in the text. The text says, “The LORD appeared to Abraham,” in the singular; but three men show up. When Abraham greets the men in Hebrew, he begins by addressing them in the second person singular (“you”) and then switches to second person plural (“y’all”). So are they one or three? Yes!

The context of this meal is important. In the immediately preceding textual unit (Genesis 17) God had re-made his covenant with Abraham (first made in Genesis 15), introducing some revised terms, such as circumcision as the mark of the covenant. God also incorporates the promise of kingship as a term of the covenant, and specifies that the son of Sarah—Abraham’s first-and-should-have-been-only wife—will be the heir of the covenant. Now, in our present chapter, the LORD shows up to have a meal with Abraham.

Meals are important covenant rituals. Covenants form unrelated persons into family members. Families eat together. It is a sign of communion and relationship. Having formed a covenant with Abraham, the LORD now appears to share a family meal with him. In this meal, Abraham is eager to serve the LORD and feed “them” well. He wants to be a good host. But this meal is not about what Abraham can do for the LORD. Do we really think these three angelic visitors needed material food? Instead, this meal is about what the LORD can do for Abraham: provide him a son and heir, in fulfillment of his covenant promises.

2. The Responsorial Psalm is Ps 15:2-3, 3-4, 5:

R. (1a) He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.

One who walks blamelessly and does justice; who thinks the truth in his heart and slanders not with his tongue.

R. He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.

Who harms not his fellow man, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor; by whom the reprobate is despised, while he honors those who fear the LORD.

R. He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.

Who lends not his money at usury and accepts no bribe against the innocent. One who does these things shall never be disturbed.

R. He who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.

Since the First Reading and Gospel are both about sharing intimate communion with God (in fact, sharing a meal with God), the Psalm reminds us of what sort of persons we need to be to have this privilege of “living in the presence of the LORD.” To live in the presence of the LORD requires that we do justice, think the truth, refrain from slander, from harm, and criticism of others, from usury and bribes. It requires that we encourage those who honor the LORD and refrain from honoring atheists and those who mock faith in God (“the reprobate”).

These “rules” are not meant as a restraint on our lifestyle, but as a path to happiness. Can the man truly be happy who commits injustice to others; believes in falsehoods; slanders, harms, and criticizes those around him; charges unfair interest and takes bribes; who mocks and humiliates those who worship God, and encourages blasphemers and atheists? Can that person be joyful and content? Even if he is successful for a while in avoiding retaliation from all those he has harmed, I submit that man cannot be happy because he cannot have interior peace. The practice of evil is its own punishment, even apart from the negative consequences it inevitably provokes.

3. The Second Reading is Col 1:24-28:

Brothers and sisters: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones, to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory. It is he whom we proclaim, admonishing everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.

At this time in the Lectionary cycle, we are reading semi-continuously through the Epistle to the Colossians. Today’s reading is profound, but we will focus on just one striking statement by St. Paul: “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.”

In an essay on the topic of faith and works, Dr. Michael Barber quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on this passage of Colossians:

[This could be misinterpreted as teaching] that the passion of Christ was not sufficient for our redemption, and that the sufferings of the saints were added to complete it …. But this is heretical, because the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem many worlds…. Rather, we should understand that Christ and the Church are one mystical person, whose head is Christ, and show body is all the just, for every just person is a member of this head: “individually members” (1 Cor. 12:27)…. We could say that Paul was completing the sufferings that were lacking in his own flesh. For what was lacking was that, just as Christ had suffered in his own body, so he should also suffer in Paul, his member, and in similar ways in others. [Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Colossians (trans. F. R. Larcher; Naples: Sapientia, 2006)].

This is one of the places in Scripture that teach us the doctrine of redemptive suffering, that as Christians we will and indeed must suffer in this life, but our sufferings are participations in the suffering of Jesus, and as such have value in God’s eyes and advance the salvation of the whole world.

The truth of redemptive suffering is lost in Christian groups that teach “salvation by faith alone” understood as a path to heaven that involves believing, but not necessarily a transformation of one’s thought and behavior, much less the endurance of suffering for Christ’s sake. This was the kind of Christianity I was partially raised in. Thankfully, however, on a practical level there was a greater recognition for the need to transform behavior than there was on a theoretical level. Sometimes one’s religion can be better than one’s theology.

The theology of redemptive suffering spoke powerfully to my wife and I, especially to my wife, who has had more than the “usual” share of suffering in life. It was part of what led to her conversion to the Christian faith. The famous Austrain psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the Holocaust and the Nazi death camps, argues in his rightly famous book Man’s Search for Meaning that almost any suffering can be endured by the human psyche provided the human sufferer sees meaning in it. I think Frankl is right, so far as it goes, but what is lacking in his book and his counseling method, called logotherapy, is that he does not provide a metaphysical reason to believe that there is meaning in life. He would help his patients invent their own meaning, but this is unsatisfying, because finite creatures cannot make a meaningless world meaningful by an act of their will—its just an exercise in imagination, and we know it. What Frankl and logotherapy needs is the Christian faith. The Christian faith is the best framework for psychiatric health in world civilization, because the the cross provides the way to find meaning in any situation of suffering. If God can bring the salvation of the world out of the worst evil in human history—the shameful torture and execution of the only perfectly innocent human being ever to live—than surely he is able to bring good out of the lesser sufferings we face. The Christian faith asserts and provides evidence to believe that there is a God who has a purpose to this creation—a good purpose, capable of incorporating even the tragedies that we witness into a larger goal of making human beings suitable to dwell forever in the presence of furnace of God’s love, i.e. heaven.

4. The Gospel is Lk 10:38-42:

Jesus entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary who sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.” The Lord said to her in reply, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.”

In this part of Luke, Jesus has begun his “death march” to Jerusalem, where he will celebrate the great familial meal par excellence that will form the New Covenant. On his way, he stops in the home of Mary and Martha to share a meal with them.

Like Abraham, Martha and Mary have the opportunity to host God at a meal in their home.

Martha and Mary have different attitudes toward Jesus in their home. Mary is concerned about what Jesus can give to her, and sits soaking up his teaching. Martha is concerned with what she can do for Jesus, and is busy about serving the food.

But does a man who can multiply loaves to feed 5,000 really need someone to bring him food?

Martha is not ill-intentioned, and Jesus treats her gently. “Martha, Martha …” — the repetition of her name is a sign of affection and love. He understands her mindset and knows that her desire to serve is ultimately also an expression of love for him, even if misguided.

“You are worried about many things, but there is need of only one thing.”

What is the “one thing”? Some suggest Martha was serving an elaborate meal and Jesus is suggesting a single dish would have sufficed. Perhaps that is true. But Scripture has layers of meaning. On a deeper level, the “one thing” that is necessary is communion with God. Finally, this is the only thing that matters, and it is all we will do and enjoy in eternity.

Martha’s great business causes her to lose communion with Jesus. So busy serving, she is not spending any time with him.

There is a pleasing illustration of Martha’s attitude in an excellent German film marketed in the US under the title “Mostly Martha.” The lead character — not accidentally named Martha — is a German cook obsessed with perfection, who has forgotten that food and eating are ultimately forms of communion with other persons, an expression of love and fellowship. In the course of the film — and through much pain — she learns to open herself to a communion of love with her young niece and a fellow chef who becomes her husband. She comes to understand meals not simply as a chance for her to display artistic and scientific prowess, but as opportunity for the communion of persons. The whole movie is very much applicable to the themes of this Sunday’s Readings.

But back to the Gospel reading: Martha’s problem is that she is too concerned about what she can do for Jesus, when it is really about what Jesus can do for her.

Mary seems to understand this, as she sits at Jesus’ feet. About Mary, we can apply a pleasing interpretation of an important Old Testament text. After the Sinai Covenant was solemnized in Exod 24:1-8, the leaders of Israel went up on Mt. Sinai, and they shared a meal with God: “They beheld God, and ate and drank” (Ex 24:11). Some ancient Rabbis took this to mean, “They looked at God and in this way they ate and drank.” In other words, the Beatific Vision was their sustenance. We can apply this verse to Mary: while Martha tries to prepare a physical meal, Mary beholds Jesus and that is sustenance enough for her. We can meditate on this concept in Eucharistic Adoration.

This Sunday, we hear these words proclaimed at the Mass, our own covenant meal with God present. Yet we need to remember, the Mass is not something we do for God, nor is it a meal we host for God. The Mass is something God does for us; He is the host of the meal.

We don’t do God a favor by showing up for Church on Sunday and throwing something into the plate. This does nothing for God. It does not enhance his dignity or add anything to his power or glory.

God does us a favor by hosting a meal for us every Sunday in which he offers Himself to us as food, in the most intimate act of communion with Himself imaginable.

Mass is not about what we do for God, but about what God does for us. At this Sunday’s Mass, let’s pray more intensely for God to work in our hearts, to forgive our sin and transform the way we think and act, that we can become like the man of Psalm 15 who is suitable to dwell in God’s presence; or like Mary, who understood the “one thing” necessary and was willing to say “No” to distractions and demands in order to soak in the presence and teaching of Jesus.

From: www.pamphletstoinspire.com

[penguinteen]

Six Books to Read if You Loved Black Panther

If you haven’t seen Black Panther yet, stop reading this right now and go buy a ticket. If you have, and you’re craving more African fantasy, more girl inventors, or more badass female warriors, you’ve come to the right place. Black Panther truly had it all–a beautiful African-inspired setting, a power struggle between two princes, an all female army, a thread of social and political commentary, and a shirtless Michael B. Jordan…the list goes on! If you’re feeling the Black Panther-shaped hole in your heart right now, let us fill it with these 6 amazing reads! Wakanda Forever.

Akata Witch by Nnedi Okorafor

Nnedi Okorafor’s YA fantasy is a modern classic, and its Nigerian setting and story steeped in African lore is everything you need after leaving Wakanda. Akata Witch blends mythology, fantasy, history, and magic into a compelling tale that will keep readers spellbound. Sunny is kind of like Shuri–the kid sister figure that you do not want to mess with. The best part? Its sequel, Akata Warrior, is now available too!

Beasts Made of Night by Tochi Onyebuchi

In this thrilling debut based on Nigerian culture we follow Taj, the most talented of the aki, young sin-eaters indentured by the mages to slay the sin-beasts. This darkly beautiful fantasy explores themes of class inequality, political conspiracy, and the true meaning of justice and guilt. If you loved the political undertones and power struggles in Black Panther, welcome to the city of Kos. And don’t fret, because the conclusion to this duology, Crown of Thunder, is coming this fall!

City of Saints and Thieves by Natalie C. Anderson

We haven’t even begun to talk about Erik Killmonger. City of Saints and Thieves is set in a fictional Kenyan city and follows a girl named Tina who, after her mother is mysteriously murdered, is determined to find her killer. Tina spends the next four years surviving on the streets alone, working as a master thief for Sangui City’s local gang. We can’t help be reminded of her when watching Erik, who was orphaned after his father was killed and who you better believe is holding a grudge, eventually leading him to challenge the throne in Wakanda.

An Ember in the Ashes by Sabaa Tahir

If you thought Okoye, the spear-wielding general of the Wakanda army was inspiring AF, you need to be introduced to a Ms. Helene Aquilla of Sabaa Tahir’s Ember in the Ashes series. She’s the only woman at Blackliff, a training academy for the Empire, and to say she holds her own would be an understatement. We couldn’t help but get series Helene vibes watching the fiercely loyal Okoye on screen. Okoye is to Prince T’Challa as Helene is to the Emperor. The third book, A Reaper at the Gates, hits shelves this summer!

Warcross by Marie Lu

Not only did we draw parallels between the technologically evolved country of Wakanda and Marie Lu’s near-future Tokyo, we needed another comparison to Shuri because she is, in our humble opinion, easily the best character. Her lab of high-tech gadgets made us think of none other than Emika Chen, with all of her futuristic Warcross gear. Where one invents, the other hacks, and they both have a sharp wit, a keen mind, and are total badasses.

Flame in the Mist by Renée Ahdieh

Mariko from Renée Ahdieh’s Flame in the Mist is basically like if Nakia and Shuri were combined into one completely badass character. After she narrowly escapes a bloody ambush by a dangerous gang of bandits known as the Black Clan, Mariko must give up her dreams of being an alchemist and inventor, and goes undercover to infiltrate the Black Clan. Part spy, part inventor, totally. kick. ass. The sequel, Smoke in the Sun, is available this June!

[joannalannister]

Daenerys Targaryen & JFK

“...let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved. 

“All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”       --President Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

“Shall we begin?”      --Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones 7x01

This post was inspired by a Dany quote from the show, but imma do what I usually do with the show, which is project my book!feelings all over it. This post is not intended to be a commentary about the show**, it’s about the books.

**There is one other Dany quote from the show that I intend to comment on below, but only because I feel it ties into the above JFK quote, in terms of ASOIAF themes and Dany’s book!characterization.

I’ve been thinking about this since the summer, when I first saw show!Dany trailing her hand lovingly over the Painted Table, over the hills and valleys, the rivers and mountains, places she’d heard about her whole life. A quote from A Game of Thrones was playing over that scene in my mind:

Somewhere beyond the sunset, across the narrow sea, lay a land of green hills and flowered plains and great rushing rivers, where towers of dark stone rose amidst magnificent blue-grey mountains, and armored knights rode to battle beneath the banners of their lords. 

And when Dany went to stand at the head of that table, it was one of the only times in season 7 where I felt I caught a glimpse of things to come in the books. A pale shadow of GRRM’s Westeros, to be sure, but I could see it. 

Tiny, slender 16-year-old Daenerys, her hair shining like molten silver in the gloom of the Stone Drum. Daenerys, standing where Aegon the Conqueror had once stood, at the head of a great painted table stretching away from her into darkness, as a great Night falls over the continent. And this table! A table -- a map of Westeros -- so large that, if stood upright, it would be over five stories high. GRRM’s Westeros has such grandeur, “like in the great stories [...]. The ones that really mattered.”

(Like, I don’t think Dany would be in that special seat where Dragonstone is located on the map, I think GRRM would deliberately put her at the head of the table, beyond the Wall, foreshadowing her true destination.)

I have no idea what wondrous and highly quotable things GRRM would have Dany say and think while standing there. But that question show!Dany asked -- “Shall we begin?” -- that question captured the essence of it for me. 

And you’re all gonna think I’m lame, but my mind jumped to President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, to that similar line, “let us begin.” And no, I don’t claim the showrunners intended this parallel between Dany and JFK, and tbh I don’t care what they intended, but I feel like it’s an apt comparison when talking about GRRM’s Dany. 

(GRRM has spoken very highly of the Kennedys, saying on his livejournal: “They were men like any other, not plaster saints, and had their share of failures and mistakes. But they fought the good fight, and left the world a better place than they found it, and no more can be asked of any man.)

I see Dany as a dark horse in the race for the Iron Throne, similar to JFK’s unexpected win in 1960. More importantly, though, I see Daenerys as a reformer, as someone young and vibrant who wants to shake up the Old Guard and change the world. 

And like, I’ve said this before, but Westeros is currently without justice, without peace, without the rule of law. It’s a place where the Lannisters can enact a dwarf genocide with no one to stop them. Where no one speaks for the smallfolk, where families’ ancestral homes can be seized and sacked, where murder goes unpunished, where a Mengele-esque mad scientist runs free. 

And those are the kinds of things that Dany stands against:

“Justice . . . that's what kings are for." --Daenerys, ASOS

She values “peace, prosperity, and justice” while a lot of the people in charge of Westeros right now value vengeance. And sure, Dany obviously doesn’t always get these things right every time, and she makes mistakes, but she’s fighting to make the world a better place.

Daenerys cares about people. When most nobles in Westeros feel little or nothing for people of low birth, Dany raises the lowborn up and gives them a place at her side and on her councils. Think of Missandei, Grey Worm, her handmaids. 

Dany’s outlook is more radical imo than Arya befriending prostitutes, or Stannis raising Davos to a lordship -- which are both good and admirable acts -- because Dany goes further. Dany wants to get rid of this whole system that grinds the lowborn to dust under the indifferent heel of the mighty. Just consider how GRRM wrote Dany’s attitude toward the tokar: “It was not a garment meant for any man who had to work. The tokar was a master’s garment, a sign of wealth and power. Dany had wanted to ban [it.]” 

She wants to bring change. She wants to stop the abuse of power, and help people. 

It’s as if Westeros and Essos both have already been under a Long Night of dehumanization, one created not by the Others, but simply by other people. And when Daenerys takes that torch from her bloodrider’s hand and lights the pyre that night in AGOT, she’s lighting the world on fire. 

And it’s a good fire, my friends. It’s this kind of fire, the kind that gets passed around, and that makes your heart swell to see it:

It’s the kind of fire that rallies people to Daenerys like iron to a lodestone, and it’s what makes cynical people disparage Dany as a “Mary Sue” (whatever that is) when she gains followers. It’s the kind of fire that makes the Widow of the Waterfront dare to dream. It’s the kind of fire that gives Tyrion purpose and direction in the darkest depths of his depression. It’s a fire of hope: “...and for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons.”

Daenerys was the first spark in the forging of a brighter world. 

Light it up, girl.

(And while we’re talking about lighting fires, just FYI, I really fuckin’ hope Dany burns Randyll Tarly in TWOW, because he is a horrible person who represents everything that is wrong with the current Westerosi system. In GRRM’s early novel, Armageddon Rag, there is literally the prototype of Randyll Tarly, who GRRM describes on the page as a “fascist pig”. Burn him, Dany. And somebody necromance Tywin so she can burn him too, because only one death wasn’t enough for that bastard.) 

.

So when I heard “Shall we begin?,” Kennedy’s words echoed in my mind. “Let us begin.” Let us have “a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.” 

“Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can't protect themselves?" --Daenerys, ASOS

“Peace is my desire.“ --Daenerys, ADWD

Kennedy considered “tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself” to be the “common enemies of man” and it’s these things that Dany is fighting against. It’s this type of stuff that ASOIAF is all about imo. (It fascinates me to consider things like the pale mare in the context of this speech that GRRM grew up with.) 

But unlike Kennedy’s, Dany’s words were a question. An invitation, the way ASOIAF is an invitation: 

A Song of Ice and Fire [rubs] our faces in the reactionary brutality of its world, in the hope that we’ll see it more clearly, and fight it more fiercely, in the world we see when we look up again. [x]

I think I’ve said this before, but ASOIAF is the kind of work that requests audience participation. It doesn’t want you to remain passive. “Rage,” it commands, “rage against the dying of the light.” 

So I loved those three little words. Dany looks straight at the camera, straight at us, and she asks us, “Shall we begin?” 

“...let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.”

A new endeavor. A new world of law. Not a new balance of power. 

I said up above that Dany wants to get rid of this whole system that grinds the lowborn to dust under the indifferent heel of the mighty. 

She doesn’t want simply a new balance of power. She wants a world of laws, of justice, of peace.

Did you agree with me when I said that stuff above, about book!Daenerys? 

Because Dany says something similar in the show:

“Lannister, Baratheon, Stark, Tyrell, they’re all just spokes on a wheel. This one’s on top, then that one’s on top, and on and on it spins, crushing those on the ground. I’m not going to stop the wheel. I’m going to break the wheel.”

And, like, ok, this is not my favorite show quote, and I don’t like talking about the show, but people use this quote to condemn Dany (even book!Dany) for not wanting to create a democracy or a constitutional monarchy in Westeros (and no one demands a democracy of the other (male) contenders for the Iron Throne). (I have #receipts on this fandom, just send me an ask.) 

Quoting from the book, “Mastering the Game of Thrones” by Battis and Johnston, it gives historical background and analysis to this wheel quote:

If Martin is the god of the text, he is not a benevolent deity seeking to punish evil, reward the good, or console his faithful readers. His characters’ lives are unpredictable, violent, and often brief, and beloved figures quickly fall from happiness and security to suffer betrayal, maiming, illness, and death. In the middle ages and Renaissance, such downfalls were often subscribed to Fortuna, whose wheel pulled men up to success and tossed them down again in failure. Fortune, like Providence, is a guiding force whose motion is inevitable. Her effects, however, were unpredictable; how quickly her wheel might turn or how high or low it threw those caught on it could not be foreseen. Unlike providence, Fortune does not seek to punish ill or reward good; her only motivation is movement, her only constant change itself.

In both the books and the show, Daenerys wants to punish wrongdoers and reward good. She wants justice. Justice is not compatible with this concept of Fortune’s Wheel, hence the “breaking the wheel” line on the show. The “wheel” speech is where she literally says on the show that she doesn’t want the little people crushed by the nobility’s political machinations. (It’s reminiscent of Varys’s line, “Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?”)

Dany doesn’t want people to live merely at the whim of a tyrannical ruler. That’s no way for people to live, always uncertain whether or not they have the royal favor of the person currently at the top of the “wheel”, like when Cersei throws Falyse to Qyburn, who experiments on Falyse and murders her. 

Or like when Cersei approves of people bringing her the heads of people with dwarfism. 

Or when the Tyrells, while clawing their way to the top, throw Sansa and Tyrion under the bus. 

These are the types of things that Dany wants to stop (“break”), because life is not a zero-sum game, no matter how much Cersei would like us all to believe that “you win or you die” is the way the world works. Absolutist views like Cersei’s, where you’re either on top of the world or crushed underneath it, leave no room for the kindness and compassion and love that GRRM advocates in every chapter. That’s why people like Cersei are wrong, and why Dany will cast her down in the books. 

The entire time, books and show, the Dany I’ve seen and read wants to change how the world works, and create something bold and revolutionary. 

“All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”

This was the other reason that Dany’s “Shall we begin?” jumped out at me, because I knew what came before JFK’s “let us begin” in his speech, and I knew what came after in 1963.

In all the GRRM books and stories I’ve read, he has this tendency to leave a lot of things unfinished. Not in the sense that TWOW is currently unfinished as of January 2018, but in the sense that ... the worlds he creates go on without us, and often without the characters we love. There are things left undone at the end GRRM’s stories. 

Because, like, obviously I don’t know how ASOIAF is going to end, but I strongly believe that Dany sacrifices herself to save the world. (Like a president dying while serving his country?)

“All this will not be finished [...] But let us begin.”

For example, I get the sense that we’ll never see things all neatly wrapped up in Meereen, or see slavery completely gone from Essos. But Dany set it all in motion. Let us begin. She was the spark, and it’s now up to the people of Volantis, Lys, Myr, everywhere to fan the flames and keep them alive, even after Dany is gone. 

I was saying this in another post, that there’s a Romanticism to Dany, and in a way that’s similar to the Romantic-capital-R fairy tale attached to Kennedy and the “Camelot Era”. I’m just gonna quote myself (and Steven again) cuz I liked what I said the first time:

[...] “Coming out of the tradition of chivalric romance - where the point was about the purity and intensity of longing *from afar* not its consummation, which threatened the social order and had to be punished with a tragic end - a lot of the classic romances are cases of “star-crossed” love”. Steven cites classic examples of Guinevere and Lancelot, Tritan and Isolde, and Romeo and Juliet. Dare I add Dany and Westeros? The intense longing from afar, the threats to the social order, what I suspect will be a tragic end?

[...] I believe Dany would give everything for the people of Westeros, for the people of the world, that she would forsake her heart’s desire, her lifelong goal … that she would tear out her own heart for Westeros, and not expect to get it back, if only to keep her people safe … 

[post]

“...and it has been saved, but not for me.”

And after Dany dies -- if Dany dies -- it’ll be up to other people to pick up the pieces of Westeros and rebuild. But I don’t think Reconstruction is something we’ll ever see in Westeros. Like I said, GRRM tends to let his stories go on without us. 

.

Dany reminds me of the heroes in the big fantasy stories: Frodo from LOTR, or King Arthur from The Once and Future King (who Jackie Kennedy was arguably trying to build JFK’s legacy around with the “Camelot” comparison -- and I believe GRRM was a T.H. White fan? But I don’t remember where I read that), etc. Anyways. The Fantasy Hero often leaves us in the end, and it becomes time to stand or fall on our own as we turn the last page. 

But that’s what I think some of the best Fantasy stories are about: teaching us to stand. To hold. 

“I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going, because they were holding on to something. That there is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for.“      --The Lord of the Rings movies

.

wow ok that was a long post, sorry. idk man. those three words just gave me a lot of feelings. I’m sorta afraid now what TWOW’s gonna do to me because I think it’s gonna be a lot longer than just three words

im not gonna go back up to the top and read over this mind dump so i hope that made sense.

[piouscatholic]

#HAPPYSOLEMNITYOURBLESSEDLADYOFFATIMA🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘🌹☘

As is well known, Pope John Paul II immediately thought of consecrating the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and he himself composed a prayer for what he called An Act of Entrustment, which was to be celebrated in the Basilica of Saint Mary Major on 7 June 1981, the Solemnity of Pentecost, the day chosen to commemorate the 1600th anniversary of the First Council of Constantinople and the 1550th anniversary of the Council of Ephesus.

Since the Pope was unable to be present, his recorded Address was broadcast.

The following is the part which refers specifically to the Act of Entrustment:

Mother of all individuals and peoples, you know all their sufferings and hopes.

In your motherly heart you feel all the struggles between good and evil, between light and darkness, that convulse the world.

Accept the plea which we make in the Holy Spirit directly to your heart, and embrace with the love of the Mother and Handmaid of the Lord those who most await this embrace and also those whose act of entrustment you too await in a particular way.

Take under your Motherly protection the whole human family, which with affectionate love we entrust to you, O Mother.

May there dawn for everyone the time of peace and freedom, the time of truth, of justice and of hope.

In order to respond more fully to the requests of Our Lady, the Holy Father desired to make more explicit during the Holy Year of the Redemption the Act of Entrustment of 7 May 1981, which had been repeated in Fatima on 13 May 1982.

On 25 March 1984 in Saint Peter's Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the Bishops of the world, who had been convoked beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in terms which recalled the heartfelt words spoken in 1981:

O Mother of all men and women, and of all peoples, you who know all their sufferings and their hopes, you who have a Mother's awareness of all the struggles between good and evil, between light and darkness, which afflict the modern world, accept the cry which we, moved by the Holy Spirit, address directly to your Heart.

Embrace with the love of the Mother and Handmaid of the Lord, this human world of ours, which we entrust and consecrate to you, for we are full of concern for the earthly and eternal destiny of individuals and peoples.

In a special way we entrust and consecrate to you those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated.

We have recourse to your protection, holy Mother of God!'

Despise not our petitions in our necessities.

The Pope then continued more forcefully and with more specific references, as though commenting on the Message of Fatima in its sorrowful fulfilment:

Behold, as we stand before you, Mother of Christ, before your Immaculate Heart, we desire, together with the whole Church, to unite ourselves with the consecration which, for love of us, your Son made of himself to the Father.

For their sake', he said, I consecrate myself that they also may be consecrated in the truth' (Jn 17:19).

We wish to unite ourselves with our Redeemer in this His consecration for the world and for the human race, which, in his divine Heart, has the power to obtain pardon and to secure reparation.

The power of this consecration lasts for all time and embraces all individuals, peoples and nations.

It overcomes every evil that the spirit of darkness is able to awaken and has in fact awakened in our times, in the heart of man and in his history.

How deeply we feel the need for the consecration of humanity and the world;our modern world in union with Christ himself!

For the redeeming work of Christ must be shared in by the world through the Church.

The present Year of the Redemption shows this: the special Jubilee of the whole Church.

Above all creatures, may you be blessed, you, the Handmaid of the Lord, who in the fullest way obeyed the divine call!

Hail to you, who are wholly united to the redeeming consecration of your Son!

Mother of the Church! Enlighten the People of God along the paths of faith, hope, and love!

Enlighten especially the peoples whose consecration and entrustment by us you are awaiting.

Help us to live in the truth of the consecration of Christ for the entire human family of the modern world.

In entrusting to you, O Mother, the world, all individuals and peoples, we also entrust to you this very consecration of the world, placing it in your motherly Heart.

Immaculate Heart!

Help us to conquer the menace of evil, which so easily takes root in the hearts of the people of today, and whose immeasurable effects already weigh down upon our modern world and seem to block the paths towards the future!

From famine and war, deliver us.

From nuclear war, from incalculable self-destruction, from every kind of war, deliver us.

From sins against the life of man from its very beginning, deliver us.

From hatred and from the demeaning of the dignity of the children of God, deliver us.

From every kind of injustice in the life of society, both national and international, deliver us.

From readiness to trample on the commandments of God, deliver us.

From attempts to stifle in human hearts the very truth of God, deliver us.

From the loss of awareness of good and evil, deliver us.

From sins against the Holy Spirit, deliver us, deliver us.

Accept, O Mother of Christ, this cry laden with the sufferings of all individual human beings, laden with the sufferings of whole societies.

Help us with the power of the Holy Spirit to conquer all sin: individual sin and the sin of the world', sin in all its manifestations.

Let there be revealed, once more, in the history of the world the infinite saving power of the Redemption: the power of merciful Love!

May it put a stop to evil!

May it transform consciences! May your Immaculate Heart reveal for all the light of Hope!

Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984).

Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984�: Letter of 8 November 1989).

Hence any further discussion or request is without basis.

In the documentation presented here four other texts have been added to the manuscripts of Sister Lucia:

1) the Holy Father's letter of 19 April 2000 to Sister Lucia

2) an account of the conversation of 27 April 2000 with Sister Lucia

3) the statement which the Holy Father appointed Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Secretary of State, to read on 13 May 2000

4) the theological commentary by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Sister Lucia had already given an indication for interpreting the third part of the secret in a letter to the Holy Father, dated 12 May 1982:

The third part of the secret refers to Our Lady's words:

If not [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church.

The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated' (13-VII-1917).

The third part of the secret is a symbolic revelation, referring to this part of the Message, conditioned by whether we accept or not what the Message itself asks of us:

If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, etc.'.

Since we did not heed this appeal of the Message, we see that it has been fulfilled, Russia has invaded the world with her errors.

And if we have not yet seen the complete fulfilment of the final part of this prophecy, we are going towards it little by little with great strides.

If we do not reject the path of sin, hatred, revenge, injustice, violations of the rights of the human person, immorality and violence, etc.

And let us not say that it is God who is punishing us in this way;

on the contrary it is people themselves who are preparing their own punishment.

In his kindness God warns us and calls us to the right path, while respecting the freedom he has given us; hence people are responsible.

The decision of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to make public the third part of the secret of Fatima brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil, yet pervaded by the merciful love of God and the watchful care of the Mother of Jesus and of the Church.

The action of God, the Lord of history, and the co-responsibility of man in the drama of his creative freedom, are the two pillars upon which human history is built.

Our Lady, who appeared at Fatima, recalls these forgotten values.

She reminds us that man's future is in God, and that we are active and responsible partners in creating that future.

Tarcisio Bertone, SDB

Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

THE SECRET OF FATIMA

FIRST AND SECOND PART OF THE SECRET

ACCORDING TO THE VERSION PRESENTED BY SISTER LUCIA

IN THE THIRD MEMOIR OF 31 AUGUST 1941 FOR THE BISHOP OF LEIRIA-FATIMA

#VaticanVaCom

[seekfirstme]

The following reflection is courtesy of Don Schwager © 2021. Don's website is located at Dailyscripture.net

Meditation: Do you know and experience the mercy God has for you through the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed for you and for your sins upon the cross? The Lord Jesus took our sins upon himself and nailed them to the cross so that we could receive pardon rather than condemnation, freedom rather than slavery to sin, and healing for the wounds caused by sin, injustice, and evil.

God's mercy knows no limits

God the Father never tires of showing his steadfast love and mercy to those who seek him. Scripture tells us that his mercies never cease. "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness" (The Lamentations of Jeremiah 3:22-23). What can hold us back from receiving God's mercy and pardon? Anger, resentment, an unwillingness to forgive or to ask for pardon can hold us back from the healing power and merciful love that has power to wash away guilt and condemnation, fear and anger, pride and resentment. The Lord Jesus offers us freedom to walk in his way of love and forgiveness, mercy and goodness.

Imitate God the Father's mercy

We are called to be merciful towards one another just as our heavenly Father has been merciful towards each one of us. Do you quickly forgive those who wrong you or cause you grief or pain, or do you allow ill-will and resentment to grow in your heart? Do you pray for those who have lost sight of God's mercy, pardon, truth, and justice?

In the Old Testament we see the example of Daniel, a man of great faith in God's mercy and just ways, who prayed daily, not only for himself, but for his own people, and for his persecutors as well. Daniel was 'shamefaced' before God because he recognized that his own people who had been called and chosen by God as the people of Israel, were now suffering in exile due to their sins and unfaithfulness to the covenant God had made with them (see Daniel 9:4-10). Daniel did not sit in judgment over the failings and sins of his own people, instead he pleaded with God for compassion, pardon, and restoration. Our shame will turn to joy and hope if we confess our sins and ask for God's healing love and mercy..

Do not judge

Why does Jesus tell his followers to "not judge lest they be judged"? Jesus knew the human heart all too well. We judge too quickly or unfairly with mixed motives, impure hearts, and prejudiced minds. The heart must be cleansed first in order to discern right judgment with grace and mercy rather than with ill will and vengeance.

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373 AD), a wise early Christian teacher and writer, comments on Jesus' exhortation to not condemn:

Do not judge, that is, unjustly, so that you may not be judged, with regard to injustice. With the judgment that you judge shall you be judged. This is like the phrase "Forgive, and it will be forgiven you." For once someone has judged in accordance with justice, he should forgive in accordance with grace, so that when he himself is judged in accordance with justice, he may be worthy of forgiveness through grace. Alternatively, it was on account of the judges, those who seek vengeance for themselves, that he said, "Do not condemn." That is, do not seek vengeance for yourselves. Or, do not judge from appearances and opinion and then condemn, but admonish and advise. (COMMENTARY ON TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 6.18B.)

Grace and mercy

What makes true disciples of Jesus Christ different from those who do not know the Lord Jesus and what makes Christianity distinct from any other religion? It is grace - treating others not as they deserve, but as God wishes them to be treated - with forbearance, mercy, and loving-kindness. God shows his goodness to the unjust as well as to the just. His love embraces saint and sinner alike. God always seeks what is best for each one of us and he teaches us to seek the greatest good of others, even those who hate and abuse us. Our love for others, even those who are ungrateful and unkind towards us, must be marked by the same kindness and mercy which God has shown to us. It is easier to show kindness and mercy when we can expect to benefit from doing so. How much harder when we can expect nothing in return. Our prayer for those who do us ill both breaks the power of revenge and releases the power of love to do good in the face of evil.

Overcome evil with mercy and goodness

How can we possibly love those who cause us grief, harm, or ill-will? With God all things are possible. He gives power and grace to those who trust in his love and who seek his wisdom and help. The Lord is ready to work in and through us by his Holy Spirit, both to purify our minds and hearts and to help us do what is right, good, and loving in all circumstances. Paul the Apostle reminds us that "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Romans 5:5) God's love conquers all, even our hurts, injuries, fears, and prejudices. Only the cross of Jesus Christ and his victory over sin can free us from the tyranny of malice, hatred, revenge, and resentment, and give us the courage to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). Such love and grace has power to heal, restore, and transform us into the image of Christ. Do you know the power of Christ's redeeming love and mercy?

"Lord Jesus, your love brings freedom, pardon, and joy. Transform my heart with your love that nothing may make me lose my temper, ruffle my peace, take away my joy, or make me bitter towards anyone."

The following reflection is from One Bread, One Body courtesy of Presentation Ministries © 2021.

THE GREAT SYMPHONY OF FORGIVENESS

“Forgive and you will be forgiven.” —Luke 6:37, RNAB

When Jesus was dying on the cross, He prayed: “Father, forgive them” (Lk 23:34). When St. Stephen, the first martyr, was being stoned to death, “he fell to his knees and cried out in a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them’ ” (Acts 7:60). After St. Patrick was kidnapped and enslaved, he forgave his enemies.  Martyrs forgive those who murder them. Every day millions of people receive the miracle of forgiving others. Let us join in Christ’s great symphony of forgiveness which has been sounding throughout the world for almost two-thousand years.

Thank God for your enemies. If you accept God’s grace to forgive them, your enemies will be your way to holiness and eternal happiness. Love your enemies (Lk 6:35), for the Lord is using them to help you. Pray for your enemies, for they too will stand before the judgment seat of God. Forgive your enemies, for in doing so we imitate Jesus in a most special way.

Forgiveness is the key to love, holiness, healing, victory, and peace. Accept the miracle of forgiveness and be among the saints forever.

Prayer:  Father, through the intercession of Mary, the Mother of Forgiveness, may I forgive as Jesus forgives and be forgiven as I forgive (Mt 6:12).

Promise:  “Remember not against us the iniquities of the past; may Your compassion quickly come to us, for we are brought very low.” —Ps 79:8

Praise:  Margaret prays for her ex-husband.

Reference:  (For related teachings, order, view or download our leaflets, Unforgiveness is the Cause, Fourteen Questions on Forgiveness, and Novena of Mary, the Mother of Forgiveness or order, listen to, or download our CD 41-1, CD 106A-1, CD 106A-3, CD 106B-1 and CD 104-1 or DVD 41, DVD 106A, DVD 106B and DVD 104 on our website.)

Rescript:  "In accord with the Code of Canon Law, I hereby grant the Nihil Obstat for One Bread, One Body covering the period from February 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021. Most Reverend Joseph R. Binzer, Auxiliary Bishop, Vicar General, Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio March 31, 2020"

The Nihil Obstat ("Permission to Publish") is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the contents, opinions, or statements

[maykrisms]

❮ I possess an archive of every Sailor Moon episode. ❯ It's saved with all of his other archived visual medias.

❮ ..But I have not properly watched any of it. I could run it as a background process, but something tells me my main focus should be on the show itself. ❯

[tuannyriver]

I’ve just returned from the Conference on the History of Women Religious (CHWR) at Saint Mary’s College just across the road from University of Notre Dame. Here are some highlights from each of the four days. 

DAY 1. There were three panels during the first session, and I attended the panel on the history of nuns and racial justice. It included a sing-song story about the late Sr. Thea Bowman at the USCCB; a moving personal account by a Sister of St. Joseph of Rochester NY (left photo) on living in Selma during 1959-1968; and an account on Sr. Margaret Ellen Traxler and others in the NCCIJ. To my delight, the last presentation mentioned fifteen Franciscan nuns from Assisi Heights, where I worked during my senior year in high school, who participated in the Cabrini Project in Chicago.

Early Americanist Ann Little (Colorado State) gave the evening’s keynote, mostly on her recent biography of Esther Wheelwright. She was New England-born; captured by the Wabanaki Indians at 7 and became Catholic among them; and joined the Ursulines in Canada and eventually became mother superior. The story is fascinating, and I’d like to read the book sometimes in the next year.A theme that caught my eyes has to do with the nun’s habit(s). Prof. Little pointed out a comparison between the Ursuline habit and the Wabanaki female hood regarding weather, among other things. Another reason for the thickness of the Ursuline habit was restriction of hearing and seeing for the purpose of interior prayer and introspection. Another presenter mentioned that Martin Luther King wrote to Catholic bishops and religious orders to invite priests and nuns to march in Selma and elsewhere. He really wanted them to wear the collars and religious habits. Until this conference, I hadn’t seen photos of civil rights marches from this period showing nuns. One photo showed a nun in full habit participating in the Meredith March Against Fear in June 1966. Imagine putting on something like that to walk outdoors under the high heat and humidity of a Mississippian summer.

DAY 2. I went to all four sessions, starting with a morning panel on three archives in NYC area. The archives of the Sisters of Charity of New York might draw much interest from researchers because of its holdings on St. Vincent’s Hospital, but the Maryknoll Mission Archives is probably most applicable to my research. I also cross my fingers that there are relevant materials in the many deposits to the Archives of the Archdiocese of New York, which, incidentally, illustrates the old joke that even the Holy Spirit doesn’t know how many orders of Catholic nuns there are in the world. Until its archivist’s presentation, for example, I hadn’t heard of the Sisters of Divine Compassion or the Sisters of Our Lady of Christian Charity. I did know about the Hawthorne Dominicans, having first seen their ads in Catholic publications during the early 1990s. I didn’t know, however, that their founder was the daughter of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Similar to UMV earlier this month, I stayed in a student dorm and, from suite mate Farrell O’Gorman, an English faculty at Belmont Abbey College, learned quite a few things about Mother Mary Alphonsa, as Rose Hawthorne was eventually known, from my Unsurprisingly, the New Yorkers at the conference knew plenty about her and her branch of Dominicans.

My NYC-accented morning was balanced out by a panel on the Sisters and Daughters of Charity moving to the West during the nineteenth century: to St. Louis, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. For the first time in my conference-going life, I heard two presentations consisted entirely of excerpts from letters, annals, memoirs, and diaries. (One presenter has been a Daughter of Charity since 1958 and gave her presentation from a wheelchair.) These presentations added up to a remarkable portrayal of endurance. The nuns’ travels to the American West might not be as melodramatic as Xuanzang’s journey to the west, but they sure were no picnic. They smelled, for example, the awful air of coal when passing through West Virginia, and they saw horrifying scenes of chained slaves in Missouri. There were sicknesses and even a few deaths along the way. The challenges continued well after they arrived to Santa Fe or San Francisco. But the difficulties also revealed opportunities. As someone in the audience put it during the Q&A, in the East Coast, Catholic nuns built institutions–orphanages, hospitals, schools–parallel to the already existing structure. In the West, however, they built the structure itself.

The last panel that I attended also considered antebellum nuns, albeit with a French rather than New York accent. Jacqueline Willy Romero, whose article was recently published in the same issue of American Catholic Studies as mine, told a fascinating story of conflict between a French-born Sulpician bishop of Bardstown, Kentucky, and a nun of the Sisters of Charity, which he’d founded and stood as their superior general. Gabrielle Guillerm, a doctoral student of Robert Orsi at Northwestern, talked about different types of memory about French missionary nuns in nineteenth-century America. Even though I’d known that France led all Europeans in missionary endeavors, I was still mildly stunned to learn that in 1878, three-quarters of Catholic missionaries, men and women, were French. To paraphrase Kathy Cummings during her commentary, the French roots of American Catholicism were deep and long. It is most appropriate, then, that the site of this conference was founded by French nuns.

DAY 3. I missed the afternoon sessions due to being online for a committee meeting in Malibu. And in the morning I gave my presentation on Vietnamese women religious. It was supposed to be about their exile to the U.S. in 1975, but I ended up speaking more about their lives in colonial Indochina and in South Vietnam.  There was more about NYC at my panel, this time on the Dominican Sisters, from native son Jim Carroll who spoke with a distinct New York accent. The other panelists, a husband-and-wife team, spoke about the four American women missionaries that were murdered in El Salvador. To this familiar story, I learned quite a bit about their background from this presentation as well as the banquet’s plenary talk by Eileen Markey (Lehman College), author of a book about Sr. Maura Clarke, one of the missionaries (top). Similar to Day 1, the plenary was interrupted by tornado siren that forced all attendants to the basement. The interruption was fortunately much shorter this time, and there was also a nice display wing that kept some of us helpfully distracted (bottom).

The most fascinating presentations came from the first session. There were a paper on indigenous Mexican nuns by an American doctoral student at Rutgers and another on discalced Carmelites in the Netherland by an Irish-Dutch historian. The second paper, in particular, explained an ideology of self-renunciation, reparation, and meritorious and “sacrificial suffering” in Carmelite cloistered and contemplative life. The Q&A was also notable for a question and answer about Edith Stein. The papers are parts of larger works-in-progress, both of which I look forward to read when they are completed.

DAY 4. The last day ended with lunch, so there were only two sessions in the morning, each with two panels. I went to the back-to-back panels on CARA’s ongoing research about (a) culture and ethnicity on religious life in recent decades; and (b) international religious institutes in the U.S. since 1965. There were many charts and graphs shown by the presenters, plus a lot of feedback from panelists and audience on questions and approaches regarding these subjects. There was also quite a bit about Vietnamese American Catholics due mostly to the effort of Sr. Thu Do, a member of the Lovers of the Holy Cross in Hanoi. She’s been a principal investigator of these projects, and I met her briefly last year when she visited my parish during a tour of surveys. I chatted with her several times at this conference and I look forward to read the final findings and analyses.

In the afternoon, I went to the archives at Notre Dame and learned that the holdings are still kept on the sixth floor but the research room is now on the first floor. I was on the sixth floor only once when living in South Bend, and it shall remain so. The new place is spacious with many tables for researchers in the large room. I was taken to the small room with only four tables. There were already three people busy at work, and two of them were CHWR attendants like myself. I returned the next morning and found a third conference-goer, one of the Dominican Sisters, also examining some materials. Life of the mind.

Besides meeting a number of archivists and academics for the first time, the conference afforded a chance to see several people I haven’t seen in years, including John McGreevy and Mary Henold. Headed by Tom Rzeznik, the programming committee did a fine job putting together the schedule. Kathy Cummings and the Cushwa Center ensured a smooth run of the conference on the face of occasionally inclement weather.  The campus of Saint Mary’s College is quite beautiful and, in contrast to the bustling of visitors and construction at Notre Dame, quite serene. 

  The 11th triennial conference on the history of women religious I've just returned from the Conference on the History of Women Religious (CHWR) at Saint Mary's College just across the road from University of Notre Dame.

[woodworkingpastor]

No longer an admirer Matthew 4:1-11 January 27, 2019

Call to Worship

God is our help, so why should we be afraid?  God keeps us safe, there is nothing to dread! This is good news for all of us.

Sheltered in God's gracious heart of mercy and love, we raise shouts of joy: thanks be to God!

Hymn:  How firm a foundation 

Affirmation of Faith: The Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

No longer an admirer -- Matthew 4:1-11

Matthew’s Gospel quickly focuses on a choice between being an admirer of Jesus or a follower of Jesus.  John the Baptist’s sermon in chapter three got us thinking about the various things that have a claim on our allegiance.  Having declared his own allegiance in baptism, Jesus is now trust into an encounter where his commitment to that allegiance will be tested.  There are three things that we need to be clear about in the account of Jesus’ testing in the wilderness:

The first is that Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is never in question. Jesus’ identity was established in the prior passage. Jesus is baptized, and immediately following this the Spirit descends on him and God speaks from heaven offering definitive testimony of his identity.  “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Jesus has made his declaration of allegiance; he will follow the will of his Father in Heaven, and God declares his identity for others to hear.

The second concerns the word “if” which figures prominently into the dialogue with the devil: twice Jesus is asked, “If you are the Son of God…”  We might—in passing—think that this question is intended to make Jesus doubt his identity as the Son of God.  But the Greek word translated “if” here could easily be translated “since.”  “Since you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread—it’s not any problem for you; go ahead.” Jesus isn’t being asked if he can do these things.  The ability to turn stone in to bread or be saved from a long jump off the temple or to have authority over all the nations of the world is never in question. All of these things could become reality if Jesus wanted them to be that.

But will he?  This is the question. These temptations are of his allegiance—how will Jesus live out this identity as the Son of God?   In the face of these temptations, and the very real issues that require both choice and action, and the human suffering which absolutely tugs at our hearts and almost compels us to be involved in some way, how will Jesus proceed?

This brings us to the third point—the temptation of the bread.  Some interpreters think that the temptation is to turn many stones into bread and then feed the people around Jerusalem.  Thinking this way might remind us of the time God fed the Israelites with manna in the desert, something that Jesus would later do in the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000.  In a culture where most people worked today for the ability to eat tomorrow, someone who could promise regular bread would quickly be made king.  It’s a large-scale offer that is comparable with the other two temptations.

It’s a compelling explanation of this temptation, but I’m persuaded that the temptation is for Jesus to feed himself.  Matthew tells us that Jesus was led into the wilderness; God has a purpose in this experience, and the suffering of fasting alone in the wilderness was part of it.  The temptation to ease that suffering through the short-cut of turning stones to bread was real.

At the risk of trivializing the text, we might say that when the devil confronted Jesus, Jesus was “hangry.” As the Snickers commercials cleverly illustrate, we’re not ourselves when we’re “hangry.”

And that’s the issue—would Jesus be himself—the Son of God, in whom God is well pleased?  The temptations are not designed to make Jesus doubt that he is the Son of God; they are designed to discredit him as the Son of God.  They are temptations of allegiance, not identity.

It’s the temptation we face, too.  We often stumble not because we have stopped believing in God but that we have shifted our allegiance to other gods. We look at our very real circumstances and decide that another way—some way other than loving God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and our neighbor as ourselves—looks more practical.

Tests of our allegiance often comes cloaked as impatience and our desire to seize control of a situation and act now.

A TV commercial pulls at our heart strings with pictures of abused animals or starving children, and we are encouraged to “act now.”

We see a social media post that offends us, and we are compelled to repost or share or respond or argue or “put the truth out there.”

The issue isn’t that situations like these aren’t serious; it’s that sometimes in our impatience we might think we’re doing something akin to turning stones in to bread, when we are really doing nothing more than throwing stones.  It might fix the problem, but at costs we might not be around to see.

Jesus lived in a time where there were many people separated from God living broken lives. And yet God saw fit for him to set aside first 40 days of his three years of public ministry for this time of temptation. 40 days out of approximately 1,100—3.6% of the time Jesus spent ministering to others was spent in this season of prayer, fasting, and temptation. There was so much to do—Jesus would leave the wilderness, and the first four things he would do were preach, call disciples, heal the sick, and deliver the Sermon on the Mount.  Yet all of it could wait while Jesus prayed.

What do we miss when our allegiance gets off-track because we are impatient? This week I spoke with Mary Ward. Her son, Adam, was the videographer who was killed in the WDBJ shooting.  We were scheduling a time for her to meet with our Peace and Justice group, and in the course of the conversation we noted that as mass shootings—especially school shootings—become more common, they almost start to fade into the background noise. Do we notice anymore, or is this just some new normal that we’ve adapted to, and what does it say about our souls that it takes a higher and higher body count to capture our attention?  

Never mind the politics of this—there’s certainly a time and a place for that part of the conversation.  After Mary and I talked, I started thinking about this in my own life, and how maybe these things make me just grumpy enough to be useless: not touched in my soul enough to actually do anything, but also not so angry that I just fly off to lash out at anything and everything.

In light of these things, the fact that we often have time to do anything and everything but pray is commentary on our allegiance. Along with our impatience, our prayerlessness tests our allegiance.

Spiritual leaders have recognized this for centuries.  One of these was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit Order. One of his significant contributions to Christian spiritual life is the prayer exercise known as the “Examination of Conscience.”  Ignatius knew that we are all too often subjected to “disordered passions.” Sin has messed us up on the inside and it causes us to want the wrong things. Ignatius’ cure is for Christians to spend some time each day carefully considering how our lives conform to things like the 10 Commandments; how we are doing when we consider the “Seven deadly sins” (pride, anger, avarice, gluttony, lust, envy, sloth) and their corresponding virtues (humility, patience, generosity, temperance, chastity, neighborly love, and diligence).

Ignatius trusted both the Holy Spirit and those who sought the Spirit’s guidance to identify the “disordered passions” in our lives. Having identified areas of growth, Ignatius’ method invites us to consider specific growth areas each day.  What is the issue that troubles us? At lunch time, examine your morning.  At bedtime, examine your day.  Take notice of the places you struggled and the places you are getting stronger.  Give thanks to God for the ability to overcome temptations.

Jesus’ temptations and the cementing of his own identity as God’s son becomes an invitation for us to enter the story.  It is our chance to hear the invitation to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” and respond; to deal with our own impatience to seize other ways of acting in the face of very real situations.  In writing on these verses, Stanley Hauerwas says we can become “a people who believe that Jesus’ refusal to accept the devil’s terms for the world’s salvation [make] it possible for [us] to offer an alternative to a world that believes we do not have time to be just.”

Which will it be—an admirer or a follower?

[romancatholicreflections]

8th January >> Daily Reflection on Today's Mass Readings for Roman Catholics on the Solemnity of the Epiphany Of Our Lord.

Commentaries on Isaiah 60:1-6; Ephesians 3:2-3a.5-6; Matthew 2:1-12 WE CELEBRATE TODAY the second of four great manifestations of God in our midst. The word ‘epiphany’ comes from Greek and it means a ‘showing’ or ‘manifestation’. We call today’s feast the Epiphany of our Lord but the term could equally well be applied to the other two. The first of these four manifestations we already celebrated on December 25, when God revealed, manifested himself to us in the form of a helpless, newly-born infant. He is presented as born homeless and in poverty and surrounded by the poor and outcasts (that is what the shepherds represented). This manifestation fits in very well with the theme of Luke’s Gospel and it is he who tells this story. In today’s feast, we see the same recently born baby in similar circumstances but the material and social surroundings are hardly touched on. The emphasis here, as we shall see, is different. Here are strangers, foreigners, total outsiders coming to give royal homage to this tiny child. This will be the theme of Matthew’s Gospel. “Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations.” The third manifestation we will celebrate next Sunday and it closes the Christmas celebration of the Incarnation. Jesus, now an adult of 30 years or so, is seen standing in a river together with a multitude of penitents. He is solemnly endorsed by the voice of God as the Son of God. “This is my dear Son, in whom I am well pleased.” This event is recorded by all the evangelists. The fourth ‘revelation’ is found only in John’s gospel. It is not part of the Christmas liturgy but we read it on the Second Sunday of the Year in the Year C, immediately after the Christmas season. This revelation occurs during a wedding banquet (symbolising the Kingdom of love, justice and peace which is to be established through Jesus). Water (symbolising the Old Covenant) is changed into new wine (symbolising the New Covenant to be signed and sealed on the cross of Calvary). Mary (representing the Church, God’s people) is seen as the intermediary through whose request this is brought about. It is the first of seven ‘signs’ by which Jesus reveals his true identity in John’s gospel. Story or history? Coming back to today’s feast, we may ask is the story of the “wise men” a factual report or is it just that – a story? Primarily, it is a story. A report is concerned with hard facts – the temperature dropped to 10 degrees last night or there were 10 millimetres of rain yesterday. But a story, especially a biblical story, is concerned much more with meaning. In reading any Scripture story, including Gospel stories, we should not be asking, “Did it really happen like that?” Instead, we should be asking, “What does it mean? What is it saying to us?” The truth of the story is in its meaning and not in the related facts. Epiphany Certainly in this story the facts are extremely vague and not at all sufficient for a newspaper or TV news report. The standard questions a newspaper reporter is expected to be able to answer are: Who? What? Why? When? Where? How? In this story it is difficult to give satisfactory answers to these questions. Although Jesus is still an infant and still in Bethlehem, we do not know how long after his birth, this incident is supposed to have taken place. We are not told because it does not matter; it is not relevant to the meaning of the story. (Compared to Mark, Matthew is normally notoriously short on details.) Magi Who were these “wise men” and where did they come from? In the Greek text they are called magoi (magoi) which is usually rendered in English as “Magi”. Magi were a group or caste of scholars who were associated with the interpretation of dreams, Zoroastrianism, astrology and magic (hence the name ‘Magi’). In later Christian tradition they were called kings (“We three kings of Orient are…”) under the influence of Psalm 72:10 (“May the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts!”), Isaiah 49:7 (“Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves”) and Isaiah 60:10 (“Their kings shall minister to you”). We are not told what their names were or how many of them there were. Tradition settled on three, presumably because there were three kinds of gifts. And they were also given names – Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior. Caspar was represented as black and thus they were understood to represent the whole non-Jewish, Gentile world which came to Christ. We are told, too, that they came “from the east”. This could be Persia, East Syria or Arabia – or indeed any distant place. The Asian theologian, Fr Aloysius Pieris, points out the significance for Asians that it was wise men from the East and not the local wise men who recognised the light that led to Jesus*. A star in the east There is talk of following a star. Was there indeed at this time a comet or supernova or some significant conjunction of planets which would be particularly meaningful to these men? Even so, how does one follow a star? Have you ever tried? How do you know when a star is “over the place” you are looking for? You could travel several hundred miles and the star could still be “over” you. Probably, we are wasting our time looking for some significant stellar happening. The star is rather to be seen as a symbol: a light representing Jesus as the Light of the whole world. There really is not much point in trying to pinpoint facts here. We are dealing here with meaning and the meaning is very clear from the general context of Matthew’s Gospel. God, in the person of Jesus, is reaching out to the whole world. More than that, the religious leaders of his own people – the chief priests and experts in the scriptures, although clearly aware of where the Messiah would be born, made no effort whatever to investigate. Yet Bethlehem was “just down the road”, so to speak, from Jerusalem. King Herod, an ambitious and ruthless man (that is a fact of history), was prepared to go but only to wipe out even the remotest threat to his own position. These pagan foreigners, on the other hand, went to great lengths to find the “King of the Jews” and “do him homage”. As part of that homage they offered their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. The gifts seem inspired by Isaiah 60:6 quoted in today’s First Reading, “They shall bring gold and frankincense”. In later tradition, the gold came to symbolise the kingship of Christ, the incense his divine nature, and the myrrh his redemptive suffering and death. They also came to signify virtue, prayer and suffering. No outsiders All in all, today’s feast is telling us that for God there are no foreigners, no outsiders. From his point of view, all are equally his beloved children. We all, whatever external physical or cultural differences there may be between us, belong to one single family which has one Father, “our” Father. It means that every one of us is a brother and sister to everyone else. There is no room for discrimination of any kind based on nationality, race, religion, class or occupation. There cannot be a single exception to this position. The facts of today’s story may be vague but the message is loud and clear. We thank God today that there is no “Chosen People” whether they be Jews or Christians (or even Catholics). Let us try to understand more deeply God’s closeness to us which is also a reason for us to be close to each other. There are no outsiders. All are called – be it the Mother of Jesus, the rich and the poor, the privileged and the lonely, the healthy and the sick, the saints and the sinners. Yet, we can become outsiders. We do that every time we make someone else an outsider, whether we do that individually, as a family, a community, or an ethnic grouping. To make even a single other person an outsider, that is, to deny them the love and respect which belongs equally to all, is to make an outsider of oneself. It is to join the ranks of the Pharisees, the chief priests and every other practitioner of bigotry. Where are the stars? Finally, we might ask ourselves, What are the stars in my life? The wise men saw the star and followed it. The people in Jerusalem did not. How and to what is God calling me at this time? Where does he want me to find him, to serve and follow him? Some have their priorities already fixed and so have stopped or have never even started to look for the real priorities, the God-sent stars in their lives. That is like first making a right turn at a crossroads and then wondering where you should be going. Saint Ignatius Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises speaks of people who get married first and then ask, “What does God want me to do? This very day, let us stop in our tracks. Obviously, at this stage there are many things which, for better or worse, we cannot change, some decisions, right or wrong, which cannot now be undone. But it is not too late to look for our star and begin following it from where we are now. The wise men did not know where the star would lead them. They just followed it until it brought them to Bethlehem – and to Jesus. They never, I am sure, regretted their decision. If we can only have the courage and the trust to follow their example, I doubt if we will have regrets either. If we have not already done so, today is the day to make that start.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Our Universal Mother - Part 80

Sermon on the Presentation of the Mother of God

Sermon on The Presentation of the Mother of God From An Early Father of The Church - Feast Day December 8th (The Immaculate Conception)

Based on the Divine Office-Douay-Rheims Version

Volume 1 - Pages 1663 - 1667 (1962 edition)

Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1: 26-28

by: Saint Germain, Bishop

Hail, Mary, full of grace, holier than the Saints, higher than the heavens, more glorious than the Cherubim, more honorable than the Seraphim, to be reverenced above every creature. Hail, O dove, bringing us the olive-branch of peace and announcing our deliverer from the spiritual flood, our port of salvation-dove whose wings are of silver and whose feathers of gold shine in the bright rays of the most holy and life-giving Spirit. Hail, most pleasing spiritual paradise of God, planted to the East on this day by the right hand of the most merciful and almighty God. And for Him bringing forth that fragrant lily, that unfading rose who heals those who drank the pestilence and soul-killing bitterness of death from the West. Paradise wherein grows that life-giving tree of the knowledge of truth, the tree that gives immortality to those who taste its fruit.

Holy and immaculate building, most pure palace of God the supreme King, adorned with the magnificence of the divine King, receiving all men with hospitality and refreshing them with mystical delights. Palace wherein is that spiritual bride-chamber, not made by the hands of man and bright with many-colored beauty, in which the Word wedded our flesh to Himself, choosing to call back the wandering human race, so that those who had been banished by their own will might be reconciled with the Father.

Fruitful and shady mountain of God, whereon was fed the spiritual Lamb who bore our sins and our weaknesses: mountain from which came down that stone, cut by no man's hands, that crushed the altars of idols and was made the cornerstone, a wonderful thing to our eyes. Holy throne of God, divine treasury, house of glory, most beautiful adornment, chosen and sacred vessel and mercy-seat for the whole world, heaven declaring the glory of God.

Urn wrought of purest gold, containing the most pleasing food of our souls, the manna that is Christ. O Virgin, most pure and most worthy of all praise and reverence, temple-treasury dedicated to God, of a state excelling that of all creatures, unbroken earth, untilled field, flowering vine, fountain of flowing waters. Virgin who brought forth a Son and Mother who knew no man, hidden treasure of innocence and holiness. By your prayers to the Lord God, Maker of all things and your Son conceived by no earthly father-- your prayers so acceptable and empowered with a mother's authority-- direct all those who govern the life of the Church and lead us to the harbor of peace.

Clothe priests with the splendid garments of justice and with the exultation of tested, unstained and sincere faith. Direct to peace and prosperity the authority of right-thinking leaders who cherish you above all their splendor of gold and purple, above their pearls and precious stones, as the crown and encirclement and unfailing ornament of their reign.

Subject to them all those nations of ill-faith who blaspheme you and the God who was born of you. Strengthen the people so that, governed by good rulers, they may persevere according to the precepts of God in obedience and respect for law. And this your city, which has you for tower and foundation, crown her with victory, guard the dwelling of God with your encircling protection and preserve always the beauty of the temple. Free those who praise you from all trouble and anguish of spirit.

Bring redemption to captives, show yourself the solace of those wandering from home and destitute of all protection. Reach out your hand to help the whole world, so that in joy and exultation we may observe your solemn feast days in all splendor, together with this one which we are celebrating today, in Christ Jesus, King of the universe and our true God, to whom be glory and power, together with the Father, all-holy principle of life, and the co-eternal, con-substantial Spirit, reigning now and for ever and ever.

[howardstudent]

Musings on the Advancement of Black Women

English 054/African American Literature 1

18 November 2020

The current mainstream discussion on the failure to appreciate and protect black women dates back to the 1800s. Black feminist authors have discussed the suffering of black women and potential solutions for centuries. Zora Neale Hurston’s “Sweat” explores the plight of a black woman who is failed by everyone around her.  Anna Julia Cooper, an early feminist author, discussed how the elevation of the black woman would benefit the whole race, and examined religion and the Feudal System as core elements to addressing this inequity in “Womanhood: A Vital Element in the Regeneration and Progress of a Race”. Hurston’s work exposes that black women aren’t cared about and protected, and Cooper’s work advises the audience how to bring about the advancement of black women and what it would mean for society. Black women are, and always have been, the most disrespected group in America, but these women provided commentary on the social mobility of black women and how to improve it.

“Sweat”, written by Zora Neale Hurston, was originally published in 1926. It is a short story that follows Delia Jones, a Floridian washerwoman, as she goes attempts to go about her business but her cheating, abusive husband intrudes at every turn (Hurston).  The narrative provides an insightful critique of how individual and group entities fail black women. Sykes, Delia’s husband, is the initial perpetrator. He attempts to provoke arguments with Delia over the most insignificant transgressions, like Delia trying to prepare for work on a Sunday (Hurston). Sykes also aims to incite fear, he plays off of Delia’s phobia of snakes and begins by pranking her with a whip, these pranks eventually escalate to him bringing a snake home in a box, and in the spirit of twisted irony, that snake ends up causing his demise (Hurston). Symbolically, this black man, Sykes, is the oppressor of a black woman. There is something to be said about how if black men cannot even avoid disrespecting and abusing black women, how could better be expected from other racial groups. Additionally, it is repeatedly pointed out that Delia paid off their home on her own and that Sykes does not work. Black women are often tasked with being providers for everyone and are taught to prioritize the needs of others above their own. Hurston makes it clear that everyone in town knows that Sykes is mistreating Delia but no one steps in. First, “the village men on Joe Clarke's porch” are observed nonchalantly discussing the blatant disrespect Sykes treats Delia with (Hurston 1034). In one of Hurston’s later works, it is revealed that Joe Clarke, aforementioned store owner, is also the town mayor. This represents the way that the justice system fails black women, with no action being taken to protect Delia even with ample evidence of Sykes’ wrongdoings. It is later revealed that Delia has gone as far as to switch churches to evade her husband, but neither her previous church nor her current church does anything to aid Delia in getting away from Sykes (Hurston 1037). Another point of contention is Sykes’ other woman, Bertha, who is fully aware that Sykes has a wife and does not do or say a single thing about it. Bertha could ask that Sykes leave his wife, could ask that they keep their affair under wraps, or could have even taken a stance and rejected Sykes upon finding out about Delia. This touches on an internal struggle of the black community and how black women lack the unity to stand up for one another. To recapitulate, Delia was failed by her own husband, every member of her town, the legal system, her church, and even by a fellow black woman.

In Anna Julia Cooper’s “Womanhood: A Vital Element in the Regeneration and Progress of a Race”, she specifically cites Christianity and the Feudal System as platforms for the advancement of black women. Feudalism moved people away from barbarianism, which Cooper argues advanced society allowing for more intellectual discussions to take place. However, her primary focus in this speech is on Christianity, and it is important to note that she is somewhat critical of the church as an entity but views the morals of Christianity to be a saving principle for black women. She begins the speech by debunking other religions, citing Islam and oriental faiths to be at worst, oppressive, and a best, a hinderance on the progression of society. When she speaks on Christianity, she is foremost referring to the Gospel (Cooper 621). She notes the kindness and respect Jesus approaches all women with. “Behold thy Son” He says to Mary, his mother, as he is being crucified (Reardon). He entrusts the leadership of his disciples to Mary in his final moments (Reardon). Mary was a venerable woman but Jesus approached even the lowest women in society, such as prostitutes, with the same spirit of respect (Pruitt). She emphasizes how improving the social status of black women will benefit all and she explains this firstly in examining societies that value their women. She discusses chivalry and how that aspect of the Feudal System did encourage men to respect their female counterparts, but she also noted that this behavior may derive from the perceived benefit of getting to consort with a given woman for participating in chivalry. In these societies where women are valued, a great amount of societal progress is observed. Following that thought process though, women are caretakers and raise the next generation which is why it is important to treasure them, and that is how the entire race benefits.

Anna Julia Cooper was quite critical of the church as an individual body. She explains how there is growing division as black people split into different denominations. She also discussed how white church leaders are placed on a pedestal by members of the black community, above their own black pastors. On the note of leadership, Cooper is disappointed in how few female leaders there are in black churches and she references that as playing into the damage the church can cause. This begins to reveal how the church can fail a black woman, like Delia Jones. The faith, the morals, the guiding principles of Christianity support the appreciation of black women, but it is how those principles are interpreted and applied that damages black women. It is also interesting to evaluate “Sweat” as it relates to the creation story. In Genesis, the snake represents Satan and the downfall of humanity, but in “Sweat” the snake saves Delia from her devil, Sykes. This reversal of the trope expresses a need to shift perspectives and reevaluate the church as a leading entity of the black community. The church does not need to be devalued, but its role in the protection of black women should be criticized and improved upon.

Even though it has been over 50 years since these women passed, their commentary is still relevant. Not much has changed, black women are still at the bottom of the social hierarchy. It seems that their warnings have not been heeded and the cycle is destined to continue if critical analysis on black feminist works, and black leading entities are not performed.

Works Cited

Cooper, Anna Julia. “Womanhood a Vital Element in the Regeneration and Progress of a Race.” The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, edited by Henry L. Gates and Valerie A. Smith, 3rd ed., vol. 1, W.W. Norton & Company, 2014, pp. 619–633.

Hurston, Zora Neale. “Sweat.” The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, edited by Henry Louis Gates and Valerie A. Smith, 3rd ed., vol. 1, Norton, 2014, pp. 1032–1040.

Pruitt, Sarah. “How Early Church Leaders Downplayed Mary Magdalene's Influence by Calling Her a Whore.” History.com, 15 Mar. 2019, www.history.com/news/mary-magdalene-jesus-wife-prostitute-saint.

Reardon, Patrick Henry. “Mary at the Cross.” Christian History | Learn the History of Christianity & the Church, Christian History, 1 July 2004, www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-83/mary-at-cross.html.