Free Market, Open Borders

If you are really a capitalist and you really, really believe in a free market, then you necessarily believe in the free movement of people to pursue the market in whatever way they want.

Insofar as you want controlled borders, you are opposed to free market capitalism.

Amazing how many Trump supporters are socialists.

An Open Letter Abeba Birhane

Your endorsement of "a person is a person through other persons" is a brilliant one-sentence summary of Christian Trinitarian theology. As you know, the word “person” was itself invented by Christians to describe the three Persons of the Trinity. Tertullian adapted it from the Latin word "personae" (Greek prosopon), which referred to the mask worn by actors on the stage, and it has been used in Tertullian's sense ever since.

What few non-Christians realize is that the three Persons of the Godhead are distinguishable ONLY through their relationships (Father begets, Son is begotten, Father and Son breathe forth Spirit, Spirit is the One breathed forth). If any other aspect of God is examined, the Persons of the Trinity cannot be distinguished or identified. This is why God is One, but also Three - as you imply, only the relationships reveal the Three.

Likewise, we are persons only because of our relationship to the original three Persons. God calls us into intimate relationship with Himself, the original three Persons, thus we bear the “image and likeness” of those Persons, we are - by that call - made persons. It is the call to relationship which makes us persons. This is straight Thomistic understanding.

In fact, this understanding explains what many people consider a peculiarity of Christian theology. It is de fide that Jesus is fully God, fully the Second Person of the Trinity, fully human, but NOT a human person at all. Fully human, but NOT a human person: to say that He is a human person is the condemned heresy of Nestorius. Why not a human person? Because He, via the relationships within the Trinity, is already in full, perfect, intimate relationship with two other perfect Persons of the Godhead, He is already fully a (divine, perfect) person.

A human being, by himself, does not possess a nature not capable of this full, perfect, intimate communion, with the divine nature. Human nature has to be perfected, elevated, deified. This is the role of the sacraments. Sacraments impart grace so that the human nature is capable of something outside of itself - perfect communion with perfect Personhood. We are already fully human, but the sacraments make us, as it were, fully persons, every relationship to every other existing person is perfected. Since the Second person of the Trinity already has the perfect communion, the full divine nature capable of this perfect communion, is already perfectly a Person, He has no need for human personhood. Thus, Jesus has a full, complete human nature, but is not a human person at all.

When Descartes insisted on cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore, I am) he thereby denied the role of relationships (and grace) in his own personhood. True, God is pure rationality, but reason leads to conclusion, and the conclusion is Love. Descartes' statement was an emphasis on process, without mention of purpose or end. Thus, all subsequent philosophies built on Descartes' foundation would necessarily get lost in the forest of process. They will all necessarily deny some important aspect of personhood as originally defined and used for millennia in Western culture. In short, they won't be able to properly handle Love.

A person is a person through other persons. Exactly right. That’s the substance and foundation of the word "person" as Tertullian originally intended it. It is the substance and foundation of Christianity.

The Ubuntus have a basic understanding of this, but the Zulus have summarized it best.

Thanks for the essay!

Smallpox, Polio and Wuhan

As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization estimated that 15 million people contracted smallpox and that two million died in that year. In 1967, smallpox killed 2 million people out of a world population of 3.463 billion, for a world-wide death rate of 0.00057753. That was enough to spur a world-wide vaccination effort to successfully wipe that disease from the face of the earth.

The first major polio epidemic in the United States occurred in 1916 and reached its peak in 1952. Of the 57,628 reported cases in 1952, there were 3,145 deaths. The 1952 US Population: 157.6 million. So, in the worst year we ever experienced, the US had a polio death rate of 0.00036. That kind of death rate was enough to spur a world-wide campaign to eliminate polio forever, a campaign which is still ongoing.

Approximately 70% of all polio infections in children are asymptomatic. Another 24% of polio infections in children consist of a minor, nonspecific illness without clinical or laboratory evidence of central nervous system invasion. Nonparalytic aseptic meningitis occurs in 1% to 5% of polio infections in children. Typically, symptoms last 2 to 10 days and are followed by complete recovery. Together, this accounts for more than 99% of cases.

Less than 1% of polio infections in all children result in flaccid paralysis. Of that "less than 1%" population, only 2% to 5% of paralysed children and 15% to 30% of adolescents and adults will die, although up between 25% to 75% will die if there is bulbar involvement. Of the "less than 1%" population, 21% will have bulbar involvement. So, 75% of 21% of less than 1% = 0.1575% worst case fatality rate, although the polio fatality rate could be as good as 0.0525%. That's a 99.85% to 99.95% survival rate for polio.

In the United States, coronavirus has produced a death rate of 43,995 in a population of 330 million (that's as of 4/21/2020. Today, 5/16/2020, it's 87,697. In three weeks, the death count doubled). The first case of the Wu-flu in the US was January 19, 2020, just about three months ago. So, in three months, CCP-virus has produced a death rate of 0.000133. But that’s just three months. To get the full year death rate, multiply by 4.  It is not unreasonable to project an annual death rate from coronavirus of 0.000533 by the end of December.

Now, you may argue that the death rate in the US has been artificially inflated, because officials are including all kinds of deaths into the Covid 19 virus death rate that shouldn’t really be counted against the Chinese virus. But we also know that China definitely lied about the death rate they experienced with Wuhan virus, deliberately under-counting deaths by at least tens of thousands.  Do the two miscounts balance each other out? We don’t know. We can only work with the numbers we are given. Even if there is fudging in the US, I trust the US numbers more than the China numbers, which is why I'm doing US death rates instead of world mortality death rates. . The world death rate would be 177,230 out of 7.8 billion, which yields an annual world mortality rate of 0.00009, which is likely an undercount (as of 5/16/2020, it is 308,899 out of 7.8 billion, annual mortality rate: 0.00016).

Annual mortality rates

• Smallpox (1967)    0.00058
• Polio (1952)           0.00036
• Wu-Virus (US)       0.00053
• Wu-Virus (World)  0.00009 
• US Deaths WW II: 0.00076 (average per year)

So, our current epidemic is killing people faster than polio did in the US in the worst year we ever had for polio, and nearly as fast as the death rate smallpox delivered to the world in 1967.

If you don’t think the precautions being taken are worthwhile, then be logically consistent. You must also insist that too much fuss has been made about smallpox and polio as well.

Update: 7/12/2020
Wu-Virus (US) has had 136,621 deaths as of 7/12/2020, roughly 6 months.
That yields an annual mortality of 273,242 and a mortality of 0.00082
Annual mortality rates

• Smallpox (1967, world)    0.00058
• Polio (1952, US)               0.00036
• Wu-Virus (US)                  0.00082
• Wu-Virus (World)             0.00009 
• US Deaths WW II:           0.00076 (average per year)

Polio, at it's height, only killed about 3,000 people. That's all. A drop in the bucket compared to Wu-flu:

"For the next four decades, swimming pools and movie theaters closed during polio season for fear of this invisible enemy. Parents stopped sending their children to playgrounds or birthday parties for fear they would “catch polio.”

In the outbreak of 1916, health workers in New York City would physically remove children from their homes or playgrounds if they suspected they might be infected. Kids, who seemed to be targeted by the disease, were taken from their families and isolated in sanitariums.

In 1952, the number of polio cases in the U.S. peaked at 57,879, resulting in 3,145 deaths."

Cut-And-Paste response for those who dismiss Covid:

Covid has somewhat worse morbidity/mortality effects than polio.
As long as you consider polio a "mild seasonal virus", then Covid is certainly nothing more than that.

If you don't believe the comparison is accurate, look at the numbers. In 1952, the number of polio cases in the U.S. peaked at 57,879, resulting in 3,145 polio deaths, out of a total US population of 157 million people. Polio morbidity was equally paltry: In 1959, there were 1,200 people using tank respirators in the United States. 1200 people paralyzed, 3145 people killed, out of 157 million. That's it. For THAT we launched a decades-long world-wide vaccination campaign.

For the first half of the 20th century, swimming pools and movie theaters closed during polio season for fear of this invisible enemy. Parents stopped sending their children to playgrounds or birthday parties for fear they would “catch polio.” In the outbreak of 1916, health workers in New York City would physically remove children from their homes or playgrounds if they suspected they might be infected. Kids, who seemed to be targeted by the disease, were taken from their families and isolated in sanitariums.

Of the 57,879 who were infected in 1952 (the worst year), roughly 21,000 were paralyzed to some degree. Of those whose lungs were paralyzed, most only required an iron lung for one or two weeks. Doctors felt a much larger health threat was tuberculosis, which 34,000 people died from in 1950. Also, the deadly flu epidemic of 1957 killed 62,000. By contrast, 3200 people died during 1952, the worst year of the polio epidemic.

The survival rate for polio was 99.95%. The survival rate for Covid is 99.96%. Covid also produces long-term morbidity in terms of lung, circulatory and brain damage, although the exact extent of this morbidity is still not clear. For better or worse, the Covid scare is essentially the 21st century version of the polio scare.

This UK doctor also likened Kung-Flu to polio:

Covid has a far lower mortality rate than smallpox, or indeed malaria, the subject of another WHO initiative. But its high infectivity, capacity to overwhelm hospital services, and legacy of Long Covid make it a formidable problem comparable to polio.

Pope Francis and the Universal Basic Income

Is the Pope embracing socialism when he calls for a universal basic income? Actually, it is quite the reverse: socialism has always been an atheist’s parody of Christian teaching. The idea that the rich are in debt to the poor is an ancient teaching of the Church with roots in Judaism.

The approach Christians are to use towards the poor is highlighted in the ancient rabbinic example of two men walking through an arid desert. According to the rabbis, if one man has enough water to make it out of the desert, but not enough water for them both, it is not reasonable to expect the first man to share his water. Since a man can only be expected to look out for himself, he is morally permitted to keep the water for himself, even if that guarantees the death of his companion. But notice, this is only true if both are normal men. If both men are scholars, learned in the ways of God and His laws, then the scholar with the water is obligated to share with his companion, even if this means both men will die.

Christianity has always taught that every Christian must act not as a normal man, but as a scholar, a rabbi; every Christian must act as the most learned of men. Because Christians have been given the light of grace through baptism, every baptized man has the fullness of revelation, thus every Christians is required to act as a learned rabbi would, and share his riches, even at risk to himself. Now that we remember this, we can look on the Pope's words with renewed understanding:

I know that you nearly never receive the recognition that you deserve, because you are truly invisible to the system. Market solutions do not reach the peripheries, and State protection is hardly visible there. Nor do you have the resources to substitute for its functioning. … 

...The ills that afflict everyone hit you twice as hard. Many of you live from day to day, without any type of legal guarantee to protect you. Street vendors, recyclers, carnies, small farmers, construction workers, dressmakers, the different kinds of caregivers: you who are informal, working on your own or in the grassroots economy, you have no steady income to get you through this hard time ... and the lockdowns are becoming unbearable. This may be the time to consider a universal basic wage which would acknowledge and dignify the noble, essential tasks you carry out. It would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights.

How does the Pope make the insistence on a universal basic income fit with Paul's exhortation: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thess 3:10)? Well, keep in mind that the Christian understanding of what constitutes work does not match the modern understanding:

[Bernadette of Sourbirous] sat sometimes all night on the side of her bed in constant pain, because to lie down was to suffocate. That she understood this vocation to suffer is borne out by the answer she gave one of her superiors who came into the room one day and asked jokingly: “What are you ding here in bed, lazybones?” [Bernadette] replied: “I am working away at my calling, dear Mother. I am being ill.”

Suffering is work, spiritual work. This suffering has worth. Still, while every Christian is called to bear the cross of suffering, we are not meant to seek out crucifixion. Physical suffering and the various physical poverties are necessary evils, but these are natural evils, and should be avoided when possible. At one time or another, all of the apostles, including Paul, fled cities in which their lives were threatened (Acts 9:25; 2 Cor 11:32-33). In the same way, while the poor suffer, if they can avoid that suffering, then we should help them do so, just as the friends of Paul helped him avoid suffering by lowering him in a basket outside the city walls.

“When someone steals another's clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor.” ~ St. Basil the Great (d. 379 AD)

"People give all sorts of reasons to excuse their lack of charity, their hardheartedness!  Some say, 'hard times.' But if the times are hard for those who have a sufficiency, how much harder are they for the poor? This pretext alone should lead one to give all the more generously."   - St. Theophan the Recluse (d. 1894 AD)

Clothe your brother first, then clothe the altar table. Of what use is it to weigh down Christ’s table with golden cups, when he himself is dying of hunger? First, fill him when he is hungry; then use the means you have left to adorn his table.  ~ St. John Chrysostom (d 407 AD)

Christians have a duty to provide for the poor. In fact, the needs of the poor outweigh even the needs of the liturgy.

Has the Church led by example?

The Pope calls for every nation to provide a basic universal income. But is not Vatican City a nation? Has the Church led by example? Has the Church given her riches to help the poor? And if you say that she has, then what of her artwork? What of her grand cathedrals? If she insists on a universal basic income, then should she not give to the poor first?

Of course, the Church leads by example, and the example is instructive. For example, according to the Economist, the Catholic Church in America alone already spends 170 BILLION dollars a year in charitable work. If American Catholic charitable work were compared to the annual GDP of the world's countries, then the American Catholic Church alone spends more each year on charity than the GDP of 136 of the world's 189 countries. That's more spent on charity by just one branch of the Church than the entire GDP of  countries like Algeria, Qatar, Khazakhstan, Hungary, Angola, Kuwait, Sudan, the Ukraine, Morocco, Ecuador, Cuba, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Kenya, Dominican Republic, Guatamala, Oman, Myanmar, Luxembourg, Panama, Ghana, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Croatia, Belarus, Lebanon, Tanzania and Macao, just to name a few. And that's just the American Catholic Church. So, if just one branch of the Catholic Church already provides more in charity than two-thirds of the world's nations earn in GDP, then how much more does Vatican City, the smallest nation in the world, need to provide before the world is willing to grant that she is "leading by example"?

But what of the vast, hidden wealth of the Vatican? "The Vatican has amassed incalculable treasures ranging from art to buildings to property to gold reserves, commercial concerns and investments(!)..."  All true. Should these reserves be sold and the proceeds given to the poor?

Let us assume you were a lawyer, independently wealthy, but interested in assisting the poor through pro bono legal work. This is a laudable goal, one the Pope would applaud. Now, would you be able to assist the poor if you sold off all your law books, gave up your subscription to Lexus/Nexus, dressed in rags because all of your clothing had been given to the poor, and lived out of a cardboard box on the street, because you sold your house and gave the proceeds to the poor? Would a judge let you in his courtroom? Now that you have surrendered every tool you have to assist the poor with their legal needs, would you, in fact, be able to help the poor at all?

Can a carpenter build houses for the poor if he has no tools to join or cut wood? Can any skilled professional help the poor if he has none of the tools of his profession at hand?

"It would be excessive to take so much out of one's own means to give away to others that with what was left one could not very well keep up the way of life that accords with one's station, and meet contingencies as they arise.... [however] there are three exceptions... Thirdly, when he is in presence of extreme indigence in an individual, or great need on the part of the common weal. For in such cases it would seem praiseworthy to forego the requirements of one's station, in order to provide for a greater need."  ~ St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 AD)

"Whatever is necessary for one's children, one's household, honest gifts, entertainments, hospitality, in view of common contingencies, provision for heirs, future needs, etc. is not superfluous." ~ St. Alphonsus Liguouri (d 1787 AD)

The Church's job is to teach the world who God is. God is Truth, God is Goodness and God is Beauty. All three must be taught. In order to teach the last aspect of Who God is, the Church needs the artwork it has commissioned, built up and protected over the centuries. These are necessary tools to do the work of evangelization. Teaching about God without artwork is like teaching about God without Scripture – it is hard to imagine how it could be done. That's why the Church values its entire collection of art at one (1) Euro. None of this magnificent artwork, this architecture, these cathedrals, have any commercial value because none of it can be sold. All of it is necessary to the work of evangelization, just as law books are necessary for lawyers and hammers, nails and saws are necessary for carpenters.

The Church runs 5,500 hospitals, 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, with sixty-five percent of them located in underdeveloped and developing countries. To help the poor, the Catholic Church invented the modern hospital, the orphanage and the modern university. If you believe Wikipedia (which does not exactly lean in favor of religious institutions), the Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of education and medical services in the world. The Pope's call to the nations is to imitate what the Vatican has done for centuries. The call is not to give up everything, for if everyone did this, no one at all could be helped. Rather, we are to provide for the poor in a way that preserves our ability to always help the poor. Most especially, we are to give out of our excess. And yes, we do have excess.

Let's try this a different way.

Certainly, every Christian must agree that every human person should have enough to eat, should have adequate shelter and access to clean water, yes? Is it not the case that every Christian would insist that people have a right to adequate food, clean water, shelter, even if that right is often unfulfilled? You see where I'm headed with this, of course.

If you deny that people have such rights to basic sustenance, water, shelter, then you've essentially denied the Faith, the basic teaching that we are all equal and all deserve equal, dignified treatment. So, every Christian must admit that everyone has a right to these basic needs being fulfilled.

Clearly, these basic needs have a dollar value. So, by saying that everyone has a right to basic needs being fulfilled, we have already admitted that everyone should receive a universal basic income - enough cash (or goods-equivalent) so the poor can fulfill their basic needs. For Christians, the argument is not whether people have a right to a basic, universal income, but only how much is required and how it should be delivered. It is about where the lines gets drawn, not whether to supply a basic universal income at all.

And, since the Pope didn't supply a number (nor could he, as the cash-equivalent would differ depending on the exact locale of the person in need), anyone who agrees that people have a right to not starve to death necessarily agrees with the Pope's basic principle: everyone has a right to a universal basic income. The Pope is simply using modern economic language to say what all the saints have said for the last two millennia - everyone has a right to basic food, water, shelter, etc., everyone has a right to equal dignity in treatment.

The Nations Have Already Been Working Towards This

But, as happened with Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, wherein the Pope called for reforms that were already underway, the world has already anticipated the Pope's request and has already been working to fulfill it. After all, we have fewer poor people alive today, even with a population of 7 billion, than we have had at any time in human history, even when the human population was below 1 billion.

At this month's meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davis, Gates cited data that show the proportion of people living in extreme poverty declining from 94 percent in 1820 to only 10 percent today.... Starting with that $1.90-per-day measurement, the level of extreme poverty fell from 42.2 percent of the world's population in 1981 to 8.6 percent in 2018. In 1981, 1.9 billion people lived on less than $1.90 per day; in 2018, the number was around 660 million.

Contrary to the Pope's assertion, market solutions have actually already reached to the peripheries. We know this, because the benefits of the market have already touched every living person in the world. After all, thanks to the contributions of the world's richest countries, no one today needs to worry about dying from smallpox. Nowhere in the world are cattle still dying from rinderpest. Almost no one in the world has to worry about polio. The incidence of Guinea worm has dropped from an estimated 3.5 million in 1986 to 54 in 2019. Even as the world's population increases, the incidence of plague and famine continues to drop around the world.

Is it the case that every poor person has access to the basics necessities? Obviously not. Is it the case that the poor are receiving the income they need in order to access those necessities? Again, obviously not. But, are we assisting the poor, helping them move out of their place of suffering? Yes. Yes, we truly are. More can be done. More will be done. But, it is good to be reminded that we are not yet done.

Once we review the ancient Christian teaching, we can see the papal call for a universal basic income is not just a call for money, but a call for all people to become scholars, to become rabbis, to become even more: to become Christians and live the life of baptismal grace. The Pope's call is simple: embrace and believe in the Gospel.

Saints vs the Plague

Just a century ago, plague was common. Smallpox, malaria, measles, whooping cough, polio, plagues raged, they ravaged, they subsided. Plagues came in waves, years or even decades apart. We all remember learning of the Black Death in 1348, but that was merely the worst wave, the largest tsunami in the constant ebb and flow of the oceans of plagues that surged about an afflicted mankind. Famine punctuated the plague waves, acting in concert with them. Famine weakened the immune systems of those who survived the last plague, plague killed the workers who might have otherwise been able to farm and harvest enough crops to avert the next famine.

Together, famine and plague led to war, as neighboring countries desperately tried to grab enough resources between plagues and famines to survive the next wave of famine and plague. And war led large groups of sick, weak, ill-fed troops to gather tightly together, each spreading their own illness to the others, as the troops and their camp followers tried to wage it. It is often forgotten that World War I was was the very first big war in history in which more were killed by military action than by infectious diseases (and even that is arguable, since the Spanish Flu killed five times more people than World War I did). War brought violent death, but it wrought more death by famine and disease than it ever did by sword or spear.

We are shocked by famines and epidemics because we really don’t have them anymore. But epidemics, famine and war wrought suffering and out of that suffering came saints. We have been so shocked by this latest plague that we have forgotten how the saints handled plague. But we are slowly remembering.

St. Roch (d. 1327) lived through plague years. He was said to have cured plague victims he visited in Italy with his prayers and by marking the sick with the sign of the cross. St. Roch saw in the plague-stricken an image of the Savior stricken with suffering for the sins of us all. However, when he, too, was sickened by the plague, he withdrew to a hut in the forest until he recovered. He did not know germ theory, but he knew enough to respect the illness, and the possibility that he might transmit it to others. When stricken with plague, he isolated himself, lest he injure others.

Damien of Molokai (d. 1889) chose to personally enter a Hawaiian leper colony in order to minister to the victims, but he didn't bring others with him, nor did he endanger others. In fact, when he needed to make confession, he was willing to shout out his sins to the priest on board a coastal ship, so that all the shipboard crew could hear, rather than come aboard and risk infecting others.

Charles Borromeo (d. 1548), like St. Roch, knew nothing about germ theory, yet he ministered to the sick during the 1576 outbreak of bubonic plague in his city, Milan. He was sure the plague was God's wrath poured out on the city, a wrath that only spiritual humility and abasement would end. Even so, while he led processions of the faithful to receive ashes on their foreheads, he also ordered them to stay at least a stick's length apart while in procession. He closed all the churches, but erected crosses in the piazzas so that those under quarantine could join in prayer from their windows. If plague were purely an example of God’s wrath, then why engage in social distancing? Why close the churches? Indeed, why would a stick’s length distance between sinners avert the wrath of God Himself? Yet he enforced precisely this social distancing on, and allowed quarantining of, the Catholics under his care.

Despite these precautions, and the fact that he spent all of his family’s enormous wealth on the care of the sick, the good saint's insistence on gatherings large groups of people together for spiritual ministration were not very effective in "appeasing God's wrath", for Milan lost about one-third of its population, which is about the same as the rest of the European cities struck by plague at that time. That is, if the plague were a physical manifestation of the outpouring of God’s wrath, then his processions to appease that physical wrath were not very effective.

St. Don Bosco (d 1888), on the other hand, lived at a time when germ theory was finally being understood. He organized his students to help during a cholera epidemic, but he ordered them to wear face masks at all times and wash their hands with vinegar after ministering to cholera victims. If they ran out of vinegar, they were to come straight back to the oratory without talking to or in any way interacting with anyone. That is, Don Bosco enforced the same social distancing his forebears had, but he was able to employ a much better form of PPE.

Don Bosco lost none of his boys to cholera. Don Bosco had a lot better luck appeasing God's wrath with his face masks, vinegar bottles and social isolation than our sainted friend Borromeo had with his constant processions. That either means Don Bosco was holier than Borremeo, or that God's wrath is better appeased by correctly using the tools and the reason God gave us. Perhaps God favors the people who understand and respect how to deal with His creation, the viruses and bacteria. Perhaps all of the above.

Remember, processions didn't save Milan from the plague.
Vinegar and face masks DID save Bosco's boys from the plague.

So, take some lessons from the lives of the saints who fought plagues:

• Engage in social distancing, as all the plague saints did. 
• Wash your hands and wear face masks, as Bosco's boys did. 
• Quarantine yourself, as all the saints encouraged plague victims to do. 
• Remember that Bosco's mother stripped the altar of its linens to care for the sick, and 
• St. Charles Borromeo closed the churches during plague years, just as today’s bishops have done. 

Show a healthy understanding and respect for God’s creation, right down to the bacteria and the viruses, as the bishops do. As Eastertide approaches, do not murmur and grumble against your spiritual leaders, as the followers of Korah did against Moses, as the bishops’ detractors do today. For the followers of Korah thought themselves chosen by the Lord, but even in the midst of their holy prayers, God caused the earth to swallow them alive, and those who whined and grumbled against Moses’ leadership were struck down by the plague that followed.


UPDATE - Even TLM priests closed down Masses:
Dear TRADITIO Fathers:
Some people think that Catholic churches were closed too quickly in response to the Chinese Virus pandemic. When the Spanish Flu pandemic struck in 1918, did the Catholic Church close down its churches and Masses in accordance with civil orders to stop the spread of the deadly virus? I have seen a documentary that mentioned that churches were in fact closed then.

THE TRADITIO FATHERS REPLY
Yes, Catholic churches were closed for up to five months during the 1918 Spanish Influenza pandemic. The hierarchy supported the public-health emergency orders, and the few scofflaw priests were apprehended, and their churches barred shut. From October 1918 to February 1919 in the United States, for instance,, essentially no Masses were celebrated around the country.. Catholic pastors said that the closure orders would be followed "to the letter." One priest addressed his congregation as follows:

A situation unprecedented in the history of our state presents itself to you today. By order of the civil authorities, and by the advice of your religious leaders, you will not assemble, as you were wont to assemble on Sundays, in your various Catholic churches to assist at Holy Mass. That you may have some words of uplift and cheer, you are for the first time in your lives deprived of the opportunity of hearing Mass on Sunday, and you will, I trust from this very circumstance, appreciate more thoroughly what Holy Mass is for the Catholics....

The Mass, the unutterable sweetness of the Mass. Nothing human could draw, but the Mass is the God-given sacrifice offered the Creator, it is Holy Thursday come down and Calvary made present today. Mass is God really and truly present on our Catholic altars, a living unbloody victim offered again for the sins of men, offered, too, in thanksgiving for all the wondrous graces that unceasing flow from God’s great mercy throne on high....

Ah, brethren, let us today reflect on the meaning and the history of that great sacrifice at which we may not assist, a sacrifice that links us with the saints and sages of every age from Christ’s time till now, and let us beg God in his mercy to remove from us that sickness that keeps us deprived of the great sacrifice, so that soon we may again with glad, worshipful hearts, meet in our churches and assist in offering to the All High that clean oblation, seen by the prophet Malachy in vision, that sacrifice that is offered in every place from the rising to the set of sun [verse 11 of chapter 1 of the prophet Malachias has traditionally been understood as referring to Christ's sacrifice as perpetuated through Holy Mass.]

Beating a Dead Coronavirus

So, First Things (and a lot of the Catholics who read it) seem to be on a tear about how evil the bishops are for not allowing public participation in Easter celebrations. Again, let us revisit the lives of the saints.

St. Charles Borremeo's beloved Milan was afflicted by the plague. The good saint considered the plague an expression of the wrath of God, so he organized processions (in which all participants were ordered to keep a stick's-length apart, which sounds a lot like social distancing), and he erected crosses in public piazzas so those in quarantine could participate from their windows. Which still sounds like social distancing.

Despite his processions and crosses, Milan suffered the same morbidity from the plague as other areas. His thoughts were pious, but about one-third of Milan still died.

St. Don Bosco, on the other hand, organized his students to help during a cholera epidemic. He didn't consider the cholera plague an expression of the wrath of God, he simply considered it a natural evil, which it was. So, the good saint ordered his young men to wear face masks at all times and wash their hands with vinegar after ministering to cholera victims. If they ran out of vinegar, they were to come STRAIGHT back to the oratory without talking to or in any way interacting with anyone.

That also sounds like social distancing, but with a better understanding of germ theory, and a lot better PPE.

Apparently, St. Bosco was holier than St. Borremeo because Bosco lost none of his boys to cholera. Either that, or God favors the people who understand and respect how to deal with His creation, viruses and bacteria. Perhaps both.

Processions didn't save Milan from the plague.
Vinegar and face masks DID save Bosco's boys from the plague.

Take a lesson from the lives of the saints. 
Engage in social distancing and wash your hands.

Oh! Wait!

That's what the bishops are having us do. It's almost like the Catholic bishops of the world (the Pope included, of course) have more respect for, and understanding of, God's creation than First Things does. 

Don Bosco and the Cholera Epidemic of 1854

During the cholera epidemic in Turin in 1854 in which thousands died, Don Bosco formed his boys into teams to carry the sick to hospital and the dead to mortuaries. He urged his boys to trust in God, wear masks at all times and wash their hands in vinegar.

And if they ran out of vinegar while out helping others, they were on strict orders to come straight back to the oratory, touching no one and interacting with no one.

Moral of the story: Trust in God, but if you run out of vinegar, God isn't going to help you through miraculous means. God gave you vinegar, use what God gave you.

Mind you, this order came from a man who is recorded to have performed miracles during his lifetime.

You and I, we haven't performed any miracles. It is presumptuous for us to assume God will intervene miraculously to save our miserable lives if we choose to act like idiots.

Also, for those upset at the suspension of public Masses: "Bed sheets became so scarce that Don Bosco’s mother, Margaret, stripped the cloths of the altars in church to provide clean sheets for the sick." So, yeah, physical needs can pre-empt spiritual needs, which is why Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, thereby attending to Lazarus' physical needs, but ALSO temporarily suspending Lazarus' entry into the afterlife. Jesus did the same to Tabitha, the little girl He raised from the dead, so that wasn't a one-off occurrence. Physical needs often pre-empt spiritual needs, which is why we can go to the grocery store, but we cannot currently go to Mass.

Damien of Molokai chose to personally enter the leper colony, but he didn't bring others with him, nor did he endanger others. In fact, when he needed to make confession, he was willing to shout out his sins to the priest on board a coastal ship, so that all the shipboard crew could hear, rather than risk infecting others. 

Charles Borromeo did, indeed, minister to the sick during an outbreak of bubonic plague in his city. He felt the plague was an example of God's wrath poured out on the city, a wrath that only spiritual humility and abasement would end. Even so, while he led processions of the faithful to receive ashes on their foreheads, he also ordered them to stay at least a stick's length apart while in procession. He erected crosses in the piazzas so that those under quarantine could join in prayer from their windows. Does that sound like social distancing to you? It does to me.

But, the good saint's insistence on gatherings large groups of people together for spiritual ministration were not very effective in "appeasing God's wrath", for Milan lost about one-third of its population, which is about the same as the rest of Europe. That is, his spiritual processions and spiritual humility were not very effective in abating the plague. Don Bosco had a lot better luck appeasing God's wrath with his face masks and vinegar bottles than our friend Borromeo had. That either means Don Bosco was holier or that God's wrath is better appeased by correctly using the tools and the reason that God gave us.

So, yes, imitate the saints. Wash your hands, practice social distancing, don't interact with others if you haven't got PPE.

Rejoice, Jerusalem!

Many Catholics have been unhappy with various bishops. The bishops have suspended public Masses, restricted access to the Eucharist, made it very difficult to go to confession or get a child publicly baptized. Weddings are suspended, postponed or restricted to groups of less than 10 people. Funerals are likewise restricted, funeral Masses unsung.

The Catholics who have publicly expressed their unhappiness are doing so out of fear. They fear for their salvation, they fear dying unshriven, unsaved. Why did the bishops do these things? Are all of our bishops insane? Listen to the voices of those in battle. Hear what they have to say:

"Overfilled waiting rooms packed with people who are contagious. Patients waiting six hours to be seen. Others on stretchers waiting 50 to 60 hours for a bed. Doctors desperately trying to get more ventilators. That is what it’s like to be on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic at a public hospital in New York City, Dr. Rikki Lane, an emergency room doctor at the Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, said. 

“Our hospital has never, ever, ever seen anything like this,” said Lane, who has worked for more than 20 years at Elmhurst, a public hospital with 545 beds. 

Lane said the emergency department has been “overwhelmed” for about three weeks and the hospital is in desperate need of help as the coronavirus spreads across the city, which has become a fast-growing epicenter of the virus with more than 21,000 known cases and 281 deaths as of Thursday... 

“The need grows exponentially every single day,” she said. 

In the worst day that Elmhurst has seen so far, the virus claimed 13 lives in one day, which Lane said was "unprecedented." 

"All of this is unheard of," she said."

What was unheard of in our nation’s hospitals, that is what the bishops heard coming. They are not insane, rather, they are marshaling their forces for the final battle. I don’t mean the apocalypse, for this is not the end-times. I mean, they are marshaling their forces for the dying, for those who are on the door of death, for those mere steps away.

The bishops saw Death riding in from afar. These are men anointed by God, men accustomed to the sound of that hoofbeat, men familiar with the touch of Death’s hand. They know the journey to eternity can be made only with Sister Death as a companion, and they know many, many of the faithful are not properly prepared.

So, the bishops foresaw what was coming, and they prepared. They freed their anointed men from their normal duties. Public Masses were cancelled. Confessions, baptisms, weddings, even funerals, were curtailed. The bishops re-ordered their forces to defend the weakest members of the Church Militant. They prepared to send their troops, their priests, to accompany the weary, the frightened, the poor, the unprepared, the ones who would soon cross through the open door, the ones who would soon enter the open grave.

Yes, the bishops cancelled public Masses and public sacraments for the vast majority of us. Their preparations have, indeed, made it difficult for the rest of us to receive the sacraments. But for these who are approaching the ultimate poverty, the poverty that strips away all we have, that strips even our very bodies from our souls, for these very poorest of the poor, the dying, for these the bishops called forth their anointed, for these the bishops and their men assembled.

These men, these anointed, hear our confessions every day. They know our weaknesses better than you or I ever could. The bishops don't want their priests to die. They don't want their fellow bishops to die. They don’t want to die. But it doesn't matter what they want - they have a job to do, and as they do it, they will die.

They know this, but still, they come. Stripped of all other duties, prepared like a boxer, ready for the fight, they now go forth to bless, to comfort and to shrive the dying.  They will meet Death with us, and because of them, we will meet Death standing, humble in ourselves, but proud of the graces we have received from their hands, prepared for the journey, equipped with the Waybread of eternal life.

Yes, you are frightened. Yes, the bishops know your fear. But in your fear, respect those who run towards what you dread. Show them at least respect for that. Yes, the bishops have given the rest of us enormous dispensations, some bishops have even dispensed their flocks from the ancient Lenten Friday fast from meat. But remember: we have, almost all, been dispensed from our duties so the priests can attend to theirs. And if you think the bishops are going easier on their flock than they should, remember, Christ goes easier on us than we deserve.

Be grateful for these mercies.
Be thankful for these men.

Note:

My thanks to MrsJeffKantor, for contributing to this essay, "As iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens man" Proverbs 27:17

Coronavirus, not Apocalypse

"With the Church bowing to government to shut down in the face of over-blown fear of a Chinese Communist created virus, could this be the end?"  This question is popping up in some circles on social media and it needs to be addressed. We can be absolutely certain this is NOT the Apocalypse, nor is it even approaching apocalyptic, precisely because there have been no serious restrictions on the Catholic Church or on Catholic liturgy.

Think about this historically. We are not under anything like the kind of persecution the early Church faced as bishops were led off to be sport for the wild beasts in the amphitheaters. In England, during the Protestant Reformation, Masses actually DID cease as priests were killed. In Japan, during the closing of the country between 1633 and 1853, priests were actively hunted down, tortured and killed, with literally no surviving priests in that country for over two centuries. The hidden Catholics in Japan had only the sacraments of baptism and marriage, nothing else, for that whole period.  The historical examples could be multiplied.

Right now, no one is hunting down and killing priests, there has been absolutely no reduction in the number of Masses being offered, nor has there been any restriction on priests to keep them from celebrating Mass. Not anywhere.

All that has happened is, there is a restriction on YOU being present and participating. That's all. The restriction is not absurd or driven by anger or hatred. It is logical, reasonable, and driven by Christian love for safeguarding each other.

Think about this as a bishop would, as a Catholic should. Coronavirus strikes the elderly and infirm the hardest. At least a plurality of priests, and arguably a majority of priests in many countries, are older. Many priests are not in great health. The bishops are cancelling Masses not just to protect laity from infecting and killing laity, but to keep laity from infecting and killing priests. Our staying home from the liturgy is not just an act of charity towards each other, it is an act of charity and protection towards our priests, the only men who can offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

They offer Mass for you whether you are there or not, but these self-same priests will also be called to the ICU beds of the severely ill and the dying to administer Anointing of the Sick, give the Apostolic Blessing (essentially, a plenary indulgence for the dying), and provide Viaticum. When - not if, but when - they, too, become infected, they won't know it for days, nor will anyone else. This infection is spread by air droplets. So, if Mass is offered publicly, as they distribute the Eucharist at Mass, you certainly may put them within an aerosol of your exhaled coronavirus particles, but they might also do the same to you. Is it right that a priest distribute Eternal Life with his hands, but physical death with each breath? If you, as a parishioner, are excused from Mass when sick, how much more necessary that the priest, who distributes Jesus to the whole congregation, be afforded the same consideration?

The sacrifice of the Mass is being offered as freely right now as it has ever been, and much more freely than it has been at many, many points and places in the history of the world. By cancelling public Masses, the bishops protect both the shepherds and the sheep, they give both sheep and shepherds an opportunity to show charity towards the other. You shelter your priest by avoiding public gatherings that might put his health, as well as the health of others, at risk. Think on that. Do you honestly think the graces of the Mass he continues to privately offer on the world's behalf, on your behalf, will not flow to you?

Catholics cry out for the apocalypse because devout Catholics often want to be martyrs. They are always upset when they can't find anyone to murder them. The coronavirus is not the apocalypse, not by any stretch. We are important enough for Jesus to save us, but what makes us important enough to be part of the final apocalypse? Nothing.

It is Lent. Make a spiritual sacrifice of yourself. Self-isolate. Save the world by saving the health workers, both medical personnel and priests. Shelter your priests by obeying your bishop, who is trying to save you both. Then, perhaps, when we meet our own, personal apocalypse, we might finally be worthy of it.

UPDATE:
St. Louis Archbishop John Glennon (for whom St. Louis' Cardinal Glennon Hospital is named) cancelled all public Masses during the Spanish Flu. As a result, St. Louis had one of the lowest death rates in the country. 

Love in the Time of Coranovirus

A lot of people are complaining about the bishops who are cancelling public Masses, dispensing from Mass, closing down all large congregations out of concern that the chain of coronavirus contagion needs to be broken. Those who disagree with the bishops' decisions argue that the Mass is central to Catholic life, that we cannot live without the Eucharist, that God will certainly protect His own.

The bishops who are suspending the celebration of public Mass are in the right.
Everyone criticizing them are in the wrong.
This is not H1N1 - it's much worse.
This is not about the carriers, it's about the crowds.
But most important, this is about the liturgy, and the work liturgical and sacramental grace is meant to do in us.

CCC 1070: “In the New Testament the word "liturgy" refers not only to the celebration of divine worship but also to the proclamation of the Gospel and to active charity”

It is not charitable to spread illness. If the liturgy does not create in us the sense to protect the vulnerable, then we have not received the graces the liturgy is meant to provide. Rome has closed her churches to protect the vulnerable. The Mass is still celebrated, but not publicly. Do you honestly imagine the graces will not flow to you?

Look, I get it. Mass is important. The Eucharist is the center of the existence of the universe. And it's not like I have never taken a risk to attend Mass. Several years ago, when we attended traditionalist Latin Mass, there was a threat on the life of the pastor. The individual in question promised to come in during the middle of Sunday morning Mass and shoot the pastor dead. The pastor dispensed all the traddies from attending Mass that Sunday, and not a single trad protested that the priest was being a wimp. Not a single one. This, despite the fact that the targeted priest did not tell them to simply attend a Novus Ordo Mass at any of the dozen nearby churches, but rather dispensed them from attending any Mass anywhere at all.

On the Sunday in question, I took my family, my wife and all four children, all of them under the age of 10 at the time, to the Mass where the gunman had promised to show up. That was the Mass we always attended. I didn't go out of my way to enter harm's way, and I didn't go out of my way to avoid it. We went to Mass as we did every Sunday. And when we got there, what did we see?

The church was almost empty. We were the only family with children there. A small smattering of men had sprinkled themselves through the church, a security guard with a pistol stood at the door, and ... that was it. I was chuckling to myself all during Mass about the wonderful bravery of trad parishioners and how clearly they showed what they were willing to sacrifice for their priest and their Latin Mass.

Obviously, the gunman never showed up (as I figured he wouldn't).

Now, you might say that I deliberately put my family in harm's way, and how is this different than coronavirus? The difference is, I put MY family at risk, not someone else's, not people I don't even know. The difference is, the risk of that blowhard showing up was a hell of a lot lower than the risk  that large congregations will transmit a virus and kill old people I never met.

The difference is, you can stare down a gunman, change his mind, assist in his salvation, while a virus is a barely animate chain of RNA that has no soul to save.

The Three Elements to Success

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Many people complain about being held down by various prejudices. No one is held down by prejudice. In reality, there are only three skills  necessary to advance in any endeavor. If you have those three skills, you will advance. If you do not, you will not.

1) Competence in the task at hand.
2) The ability to create in others the impression of your competence in the task,
3) The ability to maintain in others the impression of your competence in the task.

To advance, all three must be accomplished. There are no other criteria.

Notice, the first piece is the only piece that doesn't necessarily require social skills. But, notice also that the first piece, by itself, is not sufficient to advance your career. If you are competent, but unable to either create or maintain in others an impression of competence, you will not advance. Many people are technically competent in an area, but do not possess, or are not interested in acquiring, the social skills necessary to excel in the other two tasks. Insofar as they do not, they will not advance.

Now, if you are not competent, but you are good at creating the impression of competence, you will achieve temporary success. But, if you cannot maintain that impression of competence, you won't advance far. Indeed, people who are only good at the second piece have a very specific name: they are confidence men, con men. They aren't actually competent, nor can they maintain the impression of competence for very long, but they are excellent at creating the impression of competence.

Of course, some would reply, it is possible to advance without having any apparent skills at all. Politicians such as Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Barack Obama are frequently brought forth as examples. But, this is only a misunderstanding of what the job of politics requires. Any job that is built entirely around social skills, as politics is, combines the first principle with the last two.

Just as it is a Napoleonic actor's job to create the impression that the actor is truly Napoleon, so it is the politician's job to create the impression that s/he is competent in some area. That is, the only skill set required is the skill to create and maintain a specific impression in the minds of the hearer. The job requires competence in maintaining the impression: that is the competency they bring to the table. THAT is the task at hand.  Politics is theater. Many jobs in many companies and/or roles do not require a skill set above that of any competent actor. We may grouse that X got and keeps his job because s/he is the company president's child, and that is certainly often true, but that child keeps the job because the job requirements are being met: the job was created for, and is maintained for, the company president's son.

Similarly, the children of famous politician's get and keep high-paying jobs because - no matter what the job title may say - their job is to maintain a good relationship with someone in power, bring in clients based on the parents' influence, etc. As long as that competence holds, they will stay employed, and at a much higher salary than you or I. We can't create or maintain the impression that we are close to someone who wields levers of power. They can.

So, when you hear a woman throwing a femper tantrum (feminist whining about how they aren't advancing in their career because The Man is holding them down), what you are really listening to is the whine of someone incompetent in at least one of those three skills. The same is true when you hear the cry of "Nepotism!", "Racism!", "Sexism!", "The company doesn't appreciate me!" or anything similar. It is the cry of someone who lacks skill in one of the three areas above.

Trump Shores Up the Female Vote

So, why did Trump speak at the pro-life march? First, he should be given kudos for doing it, even if his motivation was ... ahem... purely political. He is the first president to have done so, and that is a milestone. But let's look at the numbers which undoubtedly helped him decide this was a good move to make.

First, consider the importance of the female vote:

(As of Dec 2019) Trump – who took 41% of the women's vote to Clinton's 54% in 2016 – would lose female voters by bigger margins to Biden (who would get 51% of female voters, to Trump's 36%), Warren (who has 53% female support to Trump's 38%) and Sanders (who would capture 54% of women voters, compared to 36% who would vote for Trump in a general election matchup). Buttigieg would win women voters by a 47-36% margin against Trump, while Bloomberg would draw 48% of the female vote to Trump's 35%, according to the survey.

Those changes might seem relatively small, experts note, but they pose a big warning sign for a president who lost the popular vote in 2016 and won the electoral college by small margins in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. "It doesn't take a lot in this election," Walsh says....

In 2018, when Democrats flipped control of the House of Representatives and picked up many state legislative seats, female voter turnout was 3.2% higher than that of men.... The numbers means that Trump has not really made inroads with female voters in his three years in office, analysts say, troubling for an incumbent.  

In matchups with every one of those five Democrats in the Fox poll, Trump's gender gap stays the same or widens, the polls shows, reflecting the increasing gender polarization between the two parties. 

Women vote Democratic more than men – 2018, for example, was the first time in exit polling history that Democrats took control of the House of Representatives without winning a majority of male voters.

We know Trump has an increasingly difficult time attracting women, and that this difficulty could easily bring him to defeat in 2020. He didn't win by majority vote in 2016. He can't afford to lose any voters in 2020. His gap with women is increasing.

According to Catalist, a progressive data company, college-educated white women swung Democratic by 10 points from 2016 to 2018, and non-college-educated white women swung Democratic by seven points. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that both groups of white women favored a generic Democrat over Trump by margins of 33 and six points, respectively. The pool of women willing to embrace the Republican brand is shrinking.

Second, remember that women - especially Republican women - are more pro-life than men, even Republican men.

Politically, abortion has been a stronger voting issue for Republicans than for Democrats. Abortion ranks as the second-most-important issue for Republicans in deciding their vote for president, behind immigration. But for Democrats, it is fifth — behind health care, America's role in the world, climate change and personal financial well-being... 

54% of men identified as "pro-choice," compared with 60% of women. For women of the different parties, 77% of Democratic women identified as "pro-choice," while 68% of Republican women identified as "pro-life." (A lower percentage of Republican men, 59%, considered themselves "pro-life."). 62% of Republican women said they oppose laws that allow abortion at any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest. They are the only group to voice majority opposition to that.... 

Republican women are also the only group to say overwhelmingly that life begins at conception. About three-quarters said so, compared with less than half of Republican men and a third of Democratic women.

It's a reminder that Republican women, in many ways, are the backbone of the movement opposing abortion rights.  

As a pro-life candidate, there is no way he will win most Democrat women. 74% of Democrat women support murdering children, only 25% identify as pro-life. If he has to run as a pro-life candidate - which, as a Republican, he does - then his only hope is to double down on the voter most likely to turn out in the general election: the Republican woman. Without that voter, he will not regain the White House. As NPR notes, "If nothing else, it represents the power of the Republican female vote."

Maybe Trump really is pro-life. Given that he famously signed off on giving Planned Parenthood a half billion dollars in federal tax funding each year, that's hard to credit. But he certainly wants to be re-elected, so he is going to act pro-life, regardless of what he personally believes.

Why are Latin Mass Priests So Theologically Unsound?

So, a friend of mine sent me this homily given by a Latin Mass priest this past Christmas. It is, in a word, unsound. This is the kind of theological mess Catholic traditionalists constantly accuse Novus Ordo priests of delivering. 

Let's take a look (my comments are in red):

Christmas Day, Mass at Dawn 

Dear friends in Christ, on this Christmas morning we celebrate the birth of Our Lord, or rather births!  3 "births", if you like. They are reflected in the three different Masses for Christmas - Midnight, Mass at Dawn, means during the day, each with its own propers, each with its own emphasis.  First, as God, Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity (the logos or Word of God) is "born", begotten, generated, and yet always existed.  He was externally begotten of the Father, without a mother!  At Christmas we celebrate this "birth" of the 2nd Person of the Trinity from all eternity!

[The Son of God becomes "Jesus Christ" on March 25 (Feast of the Annunciation), not December 25. The name "Jesus Christ" is a title. Just as I have always been and will always be Steve, but I took on the title "husband" and, later, the title "father", so the Son of God took on the title "Jesus Christ" at a specific point in time - the Incarnation in Mary's womb. That title, "Jesus Christ", THAT has a beginning. The Son of God Himself has no beginning and no end, but the title definitely has a beginning, and it begins on March 25, not December 25. The priest apparently doesn't understand the ENORMOUS difference between being begotten/generated and being born. It is incredibly wrong to use the two terms "begotten" and "born" as if they were interchangeable.

"He was externally begotten of the Father... " Yeah, that may be a simple typo, because the phrase "externally begotten" is never used in reference to the Son. Perhaps that should be "eternally begotten"??]

2nd, we celebrate Christ's birth into our world, the world of space and time - the birth of the baby Jesus - God incarnate! God became man, "for us men and for our salvation".  As St. Irenaeus of Lyons says, "How could we be saved unless it were God who effected our salvation?  In His immeasurable love for us, He became what we are, in order to make us what He is.  How can man go to God, if God has not come to man? 

And so, we rightly celebrate Our Lord's birth into this world at Christmas.  As a man, He was born in time, of a mother, but without a Father! 

[Nope. Absolutely wrong. Frighteningly wrong. Protestant-style wrong. We can say that Jesus was born of a virgin, but we CANNOT say He was born without a father. The latter statement is wildly erroneous. It is de fide that St. Joseph was a true father in every sense except the biological.

As St. Thomas Aquinas points out "According to Augustine (De Consensu Evangelistarum ii), Joseph is called the father of Christ just as ‘he is called the husband of Mary, without fleshly mingling, by the mere bond of marriage: being thereby united to him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family. Consequently that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union is no reason that Joseph should not be called his father, because he would be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife’” (ST III:28:1 ad 1)."

Pope John Paul II: "Scripture recognizes that Jesus is not born of Joseph’s seed, since in his concern about the origin of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph is told that it is of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, he is not deprived of his fatherly authority from the moment that he is told to name the child. Finally, even the Virgin Mary, well aware that she has not conceived Christ as a result of conjugal relations with Joseph, still calls him Christ’s father.’"

“The Son of Mary is also Joseph’s Son by virtue of the marriage bond that unites them: ‘By reason of their faithful marriage both of them deserve to be called Christ’s parents, not only his mother, but also his father, who was a parent in the same way that he was the mother’s spouse: in mind, not in the flesh.’ In this marriage none of the requisites of marriage were lacking: ‘In Christ’s parents all the goods of marriage were realized—offspring, fidelity, the sacrament: the offspring being the Lord Jesus himself; fidelity, since there was no adultery: the sacrament, since there was no divorce.’

“It is to Joseph, then, that the messenger turns, entrusting to him the responsibilities of an earthly father with regard to Mary’s Son” (Guardian of the Redeemer 3; cf. Augustine, Sermo 51, 10, 16: PL 38, 342; De nuptiis et concupiscentia I, 11, 12–13: PL 44, 421)."

In that sentence, this priest essentially denied the existence of the Holy Family.]

And thirdly, we celebrate the spiritual "birth" of all of us who believe in Him, receive Baptism and become members of His mystical body the Church. 

[Well, not at Christmas we don't, at least, not liturgically. We celebrate our baptismal birth in Christ at Easter Vigil, not on Christmas. It is at Easter Vigil that all the faithful receive a plenary indulgence when they repeat their baptismal vows. There is no similar plenary indulgence at Christmas, or any other day of the year, save the anniversary of one's own baptism. Lex orandi, lex credendi. 

Now, you could argue that the Baptism of Christ ends the Christmas season, is part of the Christmas season, and therefore the Christmas season celebrates baptism. Ok, that's a fair argument. But it is in the Baptism of Christ that we celebrate our baptism, not the birth of Christ, i.e., Christmas Day. 

Indeed, it would be a better argument to say that our baptism is celebrated on January 1, the Feast of the Circumcision, since that is the first drop of Christ's blood to be spilled for our salvation, and January 1 is - not coincidentally - also the Feast of Mary, Mother of God. 

Notice the Feast of Mary, Mother of God is NOT celebrated on December 25 (Christmas) or March 25 (Annunciation), but on January 1, Feast of the Circumcision. Mary becomes Mother of God on March 25th, but she becomes Mother of the Church on the first day Christ sheds His blood and thus forms the Church. January 1, THAT is the day when the mystical body of the Church is conceived, as it were. It is at the Crucifixion that Christ gives birth to the sacraments via the water and blood that flow from His side, and it is at Pentecost that the Body of Christ, the Church, is made visible.] 

There are only two Persons who can call Christ- "My only begotten son".  The Eternal Father, and the Blessed Virgin Mary! 

It's just amazing, and not easy to get your head around, but think about it, Mary is both the Mother and the daughter of her son because her Son is God!  At Christmas, Mary (a mere creature) gave birth to her Creator! 

The Divine child in the manger on Christmas morning is also God. He is the Father of His own mother! 

[Yeah, that's not entirely correct either. The priest is confusing God the Father with God the Son. The two  Persons are not the same. While all three Persons participate in every divine action (so in that narrow sense, the priest is not wrong), in each divine action one of the Persons predominates. The Father is Creator, the Son is Redeemer and the Spirit is Sanctifier. Now, sure, the whole of creation is created for, through and by Jesus Christ, but that doesn't make the Son the Creator. Sure, we refer to the Holy Spirit as "Creator Blest", but that is in reference to the new creation the Spirit makes of us in the sacraments and the breath of life He gives us at conception.

"CCC 14 It develops these in the three chapters on our baptismal faith in the one God: the almighty Father, the Creator; his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior; and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, in the Holy Church..." 
There are many more passages like this one. You would search the CCC in vain trying to find the phrase "God the Son, Creator" ] 

In today's epistle, St. Paul's letter to Titus, we read, "Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost; whom He hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ Our Savior."  Our Lord became man so that one day we might partake of the Heavenly banquet - we receive a tremendous gift from God.  What gift?  The best Christmas present ever!  This gift is His Son, Jesus, who restored the order of grace, allowing us to partake once again of the Divine Nature.  Again, as St. Irenaeus says, "He became what we are in order to make us what He is."  Or, as St. Augustine says, "God became man so that man might become "god"- small "g"!  To share in His Divine Nature, in other words.  What an incomparable gift - the gift of grace! 

I've mentioned 3 "births", I could add a 4th - a daily Bethlehem in our midst, if you like.  And that is the tremendous mystery of the Mass, when daily Jesus Christ comes down or becomes present on the altar.  The miracle of transubstantiation.   

I remember a few years ago at Christmas, it was the Midnight Mass, not here, when a creep, very probably a Satanist, tried to steal a consecrated host - he took it out of his mouth and was seen by a vigilant parishioner - you notice the Satanists never try to steal communion from Anglican or Lutheran services?  The Satanist know that in the Protestant communion, they only receive bread!  It's not Jesus Christ they receive.  But it is in the Catholic Mass. 

2,000 years ago, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity became man.  He took on a human nature and became the God/man Jesus Christ. And He is still on earth - in the Holy Eucharist.  Every Catholic Church is a mini - Bethlehem, because Christ is truly present there, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.  He is "born" upon our altars! 

[That really doesn't make sense. Transubstantiation is not like birth, not at all. Birth is a physical movement from one location to another. Transubstatiation is not a physical movement at all, it is a change in Aristotelian substance. So, you can say in transubstantiation the Son of God is conceived on our altars... that would make a certain level of sense, because conception transforms simple physical entities into an immortal body-soul unity that will be separated for only a short time at death, but re-established at the Last Judgement and Resurrection. That change, made by God at conception, is a change in Aristotelian substance, transforming simple physical things into human persons. Thus, conception IS a change in substance, and in that sense, it is somewhat like transubstantiation. 

But birth does not involve a change in substance, it is just movement from one physical location (in the womb) to another (outside the womb). By comparing "change in substance" to a simple "physical movement," the priest's comparison actually undermines the very meaning of the word "transubstantiation."] 

At the 1st Christmas 2,000 years ago, the Son of God came in the flesh.  The Holy Eucharist is the 'miracle' which continues that presence.  We still have Christ near us - we have Emmanuel - God with us! 

Christ became a man to save us, He becomes our spirit food to strengthen us, and both are done out of love for us! 

What should our response be?
Gratitude! 

Let us be grateful to God for sending His Son, eternally begotten; born into our world, to save us. 

Let us thank Him for the sacrament of Baptism whereby we can be brought from the state of enmity to state of friendship with God - for allowing us to become sons and daughters, in fact heirs of His Kingdom. 

And finally, let us be grateful for the gift of Christ Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist. 

O Sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur - O holy banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace, and there is given to us a pledge of future "glory". 

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti
Christmas Day Homily by Traditional Latin Mass Priest

Conclusion:
The priest who gave this homily is not well-formed in his theology. He could have given a much better homily if he had actually taught correct theology instead of this.... stew. This mixes all kinds of theological errors together and pours them into the laity's ears. This good priest needs to have his homilies thoroughly vetted. He shouldn't be saying stuff like this from the ambo during Mass, especially not at a Christmas Mass, where this may be the first Mass/homily some of the members of the assembly have heard in months and/or years.

Celibacy on the Amazon

Apparently, Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah have co-authored a book advocating for priestly celibacy. Whether it is intended to or not, the timing of the book's publication appears to weigh in on deliberations of the Amazon Synod, which recommended a relaxation of the discipline of priestly celibacy for certain South American pastoral situations.

Many in the self-appointed Catholic "traditionalist" world have applauded this work as an important contribution. This reaction shows a stunning lack of knowledge on the part of Catholic "traditionalists" concerning Catholic Faith. Neither of these men are the Pope, thus their opinions, whether they contradict or affirm the Pope Francis' eventual decision, are completely irrelevant. Insofar as they confirm Pope's opinion, they violate the dignity of the papacy, who is first among bishops. It is the Pope's role to teach, the bishops' role to collegially (not publicly) advise the Pope and disseminate the teachings.

The Pope speaks first. These men have not the right to usurp the papal function, even if they are right. And, of course, if they are wrong, then, by the gravity of the stations they hold, they give scandal and promote disunity in the Church.

The Amazon Synod has no teaching authority, nor does any other synod, nor does any group of bishops not in formal council. The Amazon Synod was a group of South American bishops and their representatives, called together by the Pope, whose job it was to advise the Pope on their pastoral and catechetical difficulties in the region. The Pope himself spent his entire life in that same region, working with those same problems. It was a group of local experts advising a local expert on what they felt was the best way to handle a set of situations they face.

Cardinal Sarah has no experience in the Amazon region. Pope Emeritus Benedict may have had skilled and knowledgeable advisors to consult with while he was Pope, but he no longer has access to that level of information, nor has he had for years. So, we are meant to compare the opinions of two men whose knowledge is, respectively, little and none, to the opinions of men who are well-versed in the subject area. This is a clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity (CCC 1883), the idea that those closest to a situation should make the necessary decisions concerning that situation. 

You may claim Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus are simply trying to awaken the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful, CCC 91-93)  which is also a valid expression of the Magisterium. In fact, the sensus fidelium is a perfectly valid, if often forgotten, infallible expression of the Ordinary Magisterium. But the sensus fidelium is not astro-turf. It bubbles up organically from the faithful themselves, it does not need ordained men to stir the pot.

Insofar as this may be a public attempt to sway the Pope's decision, it is completely outrageous and a serious breach of discipline. The Pope speaks first. Instead of allowing the Pope to speak first, these two have arrogated to themselves the right to try to influence the faithful, possibly in contradiction to the Pope. Unless they have certain knowledge of how the Pope will rule, they have no business speaking now. And if they had such certain knowledge, then why did they frame their book as an appeal to the Pope? That line of deduction cannot hold. This book should not have been published at this time, or even at all. These conversations should be had in private with the Pope as advisors, not in public.

You may claim that St. Paul publicly remonstrated St. Peter on the matter of eating with Gentiles. True, he did. But St. Peter had not given a formal teaching on how that particular discipline was to be lived. He simply gave a lived example, with no indication that he was going to give a public decision on the matter.

Sarah and Benedict are publicly "teaching" when they KNOW the Pope is soon going to give a public decision. It is no different than the Judaizers publicly teaching that all must be circumcised, even though they knew Pope Peter was going to rule on the matter, but had not yet done so.

Two quote a few commentators:

Why is a discipline suitable in Belarus, the Melkite Churches and Ukraine (and sanctioned by the Council in trullo a theological and pastoral threat in Africa and South America?

And again:

Sarah asserts that "ordaining married men would be a pastoral catastrophe, lead to ecclesiological (sic) confusion, and obscure our understanding of the priesthood." But he also claims "the Evangelical Protestants are sometimes more faithful to Christ than we are.” If  marriage has not been a "catastrophe" for the ability of Evangelical Protestants to be faithful, or to evangelize in undeveloped countries, what's the basis for Sarah's argument?

The ordination of married men in the Anglican Ordinariate was already permitted by Pope St. John Paul II before Benedict took office. Insofar as this book interferes in Pope Francis' decision, or contradicts it, this book at best questions papal authority and, at worst, may well serve to bolster a schismatic movement in the Church which Catholic "traditionalists" have already begun. It is a completely irresponsible move. These men are using the gravity of their respective offices to make more difficult a decision that is proper to papal authority.

Idolatry of a discipline is stupid. In Christian charity, we can only assume this is a sign of approaching dementia on Benedict's part.

UPDATE:
You know, there is one other possibility. It's possible that Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah ran the publication of this book past Pope Francis, and received his permission to go ahead with publication. Pope Francis is famous for encouraging a broad, full conversation on topics. He may well be interested in seeing of Benedict and Sarah can astro-turf the Church. As indicated above, the very fact that this book is in print at this time rather strongly indicates that Pope Francis is seriously considering dispensing with clerical celibacy in certain Amazonian regions.  It seems unlikely that the faithful, apart from the rather fringe "traditionalists" are going to get upset about such a dispensation.

Don't get me wrong. The discipline of priestly celibacy has borne enormous fruits through the millennia, and it is a wonderful discipline. It would be a shame to see it go. But, ultimately, disciplines change. The Church abides.

UPDATE 2:
Well, it looks like Fr. Fessio, former pupil of Pope Benedict and CEO of Ignatius Press, conspired with Cardinal Sarah to mis-represent Pope Benedict as co-author of the book. Hilarious.

If I had to guess, I would bet Fr. Fessio is having trouble meeting payroll, so he decided to "publish" another Benedict book, as he has exclusive rights to Benedict's work, and those royalties are reliable income streams. Cardinal Sarah went along with it because it increases his stature as well. Win-win, or so they thought. There is no way Fessio didn't know the authorship status of that book before he published.