Something out of the ordinary has been happening in the Hughes chapel at Asbury College in the town of Wilmore in Kentucky USA. Surprisingly it has happened several times in the 20th century at this College. This something God Himself started. As at 1pm Sydney time on 20 Feb 2023 an extraordinary prayer meeting has been going non-stop night and day since some time on Wednesday 8 Feb 2023 Kentucky time.

What happened? At a regular Wednesday College Chapel service a 25 minute talk was given based on Romans 12:9-21. The talk was about our inability to love the way God is calling us to love unless we have experienced His love first. During the talk, the speaker promised that he would stay in the chapel for anyone who needed prayers. The chapel emptied quickly, with a handful of people staying back.

Then God initiated something. He has done this before. Blessed Imelda Lambertini was aged 11 in 1333, and her longing for Jesus was immense. When the Ascension Thursday service ended, everyone else went back to their duties except Imelda, because her longing kept her there. God then worked the miracle she had been longing for, but He wanted everyone else to share in it, since they had all been touched by Imelda’s longing. God caused a fragrance to occur which one by one drew everyone back to the chapel, and the miracle was then completed.

I haven’t heard of any fragrance that brought people back, but the speaker did ask God to give them an itch that they just had to do something about. Filling a chapel back up is a miracle in itself. This beginning had God’s fingerprints on it, and only God’s fingerprints.

Since then reports have emerged of a weighty yet blissful presence of God. What else is being reported is the continuous prayer meeting and the long lines of people waiting their turn to get into the chapel. Thankfully some people have been using their phones to record segments of this extraordinary prayer meeting.

What is extraordinary about it? It is low tech, microphones, a guitar and piano and a strange kind of portable drum, some vocals, no sight screens, no special lighting. Preaching is absent, prophecy is absent, evangelists and teachers are absent. Agendas are absent. The preaching podium is empty. Teams of musicians rotate in shifts of around 2 hours, and they are supporting what is happening, not leading it. God’s spotlight is on the body of Christ.

Naturally the concept of not being needed is unsettling to all those who usually lead.

But what we are seeing is a taste of heaven.

What happens in heaven? God’s love flows out to His people, and their response of love flows back. Most of it happens in music and praise. When God is King and present, you don’t need a preacher, teacher, evangelist or prophet. All these people are needed to help people to God, but when God shows up, everything and everyone defers to Him. In heaven, once in a while, there are testimonies. That’s happening once in a while at Asbury too.

All of the footage from Asbury shows the body of Christ praising and worshipping God in unity. Yes there are people coming and going, and there are always going to be people who haven’t yet entered into the flow of what’s going on. Coming and going is quite normal at lengthy events. Whenever necessary people break off into prayer teams for the needy, or for those needing deliverance. There is no need for an altar call, people go up of their own accord to the base of the platform to pray their hearts out to God, and there is a steady stream of people doing that.
What we are seeing is a trickle of ‘may Your Will be done on earth as in heaven’. Two millennia of Christians have been praying to see that happen.

We are seeing God put a spotlight on ordinary believers; college students, parents, families with very young children, families with school age children, as well as those with greying hair who have longed and prayed to see such days as this. God is putting a spotlight onto ordinary believers who would never in a month of Sundays be considered leaders. This is so wonderful to see. What is happening is fulfilling many prophecies.

Growth is also happening. At least two other College chapels have had the livestream patched through to them to deal with the hungry for God. There was an announcement of some building ‘across the road’ filled with parents travailing in prayer for their children. Within the past 24 hours all those waiting outside the Hughes chapel on the lawn are singing and praying non-stop too. In other university chapels there are reports of ongoing prayer meetings happening.
​
Receive this message-in-action: God cares for ordinary people; God loves ordinary people; God is honouring ordinary people; God loves all of the members of the body of Christ – not just the big names. He is putting a spotlight of love on the body of Christ.
…………………………………………………………………………For the talk that preceded this wonder of God. 37 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGvvGbgUmMU
 
Some video tape from several hours at Asbury condensed into one hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7m3SU0rqTY&t=2961s
 
Edited transcript of the last few minutes of the talk.

A few weeks ago a priest involved in campus ministry proclaimed over social media that something should be done about 85% of church goers never having asked a young adult ‘the vocation question’. Therefore he decided, every time he saw a young chap in the chapel or at Mass he was going to ask them the ‘have you thought about being a priest’ question. A quicker way to empty your campus ministry of male participants is hard to imagine. Let me explain why asking this question of any young man with a pulse is a very bad idea.

Firstly, it is God’s call and His choice alone, who He calls and when He calls them. Our task is to notice when that call has been made, and then to support and encourage it. One hundred busybodies asking ‘Have you thought about being a priest?’ does not equal even a tiddle of a call from God Himself -even if they happen to be priestly busybodies.

As a parent of a young man who has often been the only young man present at church, I know the harm such questions cause. Both ‘the wrong question at the wrong time’ and ‘the right question at the wrong time’ actually make hearing what God is saying harder, not easier. The oceans of unnecessary soul searching they cause is reprehensible.

Consider that the way God deals with a soul that He is calling to a priestly vocation is very similar to a young man wooing a young woman. He is never ever going to ‘pop the question’ until He is very sure the answer is going to be a Yes from the heart of his intended. Usually this wooing is very delicate and very slow and needs privacy. Having someone pre-empt God’s question is like a rookie cop fouling up a very long and sensitive federal investigation. Did you read the stories that came through during lockdown about the lack of visitors at the zoo helping the pandas to achieve successful courtships? It is something to remember when you are trying to foster vocations of all kinds.

Secondly, the only person who has the right to ask the vocation question is someone who has taken the time to know the young person well; to know his or her likes and dislikes; to see how the young person conducts relationships, to assess gifts and talents, and who can consequently answer these questions:

Can they sing? A dear friend, now deceased, was adamant about this being crucially important. It is rather difficult to help lead others in worship if you can’t sing. A priest needs to intone the beginning of many sung liturgical prayers. Will we mention the archbishop who grimaces each time he has to intone the Gloria? Perhaps not. Even a parent needs to be able to sing nursery rhymes and to initiate sing-a-longs on long road trips. Big liturgical occasions need a deacon who can sing the Gospel.

Are they capable of tertiary study? This is particularly pertinent to priestly and religious vocations. Priestly studies go for around 7 years with lots of exams. But even religious are required to do extensive study on the founder of the order, the charisms of the order, the rule, and how to live out poverty, chastity and obedience.

Do they work well in a team? This capacity is essential for a well-functioning parish. It is essential for religious life. It is essential for the husband-wife relationship.

Do they have the capacity to listen? Without this capacity penitents are going to find going to confession very difficult. Without this capacity any kind of pastoral care is going to fail. Without this capacity your spouse will not feel loved. Without this capacity a troubled religious will have trouble confiding in a religious superior.

Do they have the capacity for self-sacrifice? All vocations need this capacity. When a priest gets a hospital call in the middle of the night he needs this capacity. It is the essence of a religious vocation. Parents too have regular opportunities for self-sacrifice in changing nappies, midnight feeds, when youngsters are ill, when budgets are tight.

Do they regularly have an outlet for serving others? Have they become good at it? Have they begun to find joy in it? Serving others is a regular part of priestly, religious and family life. Any inability to serve is going to cause great difficulties.

When they speak, do others listen, and do others follow? A latent capacity for leadership is essential for a priestly vocation. But even a religious often has to rally volunteers for a project, and a parent often has to rally unwilling offspring for chores.

Do they have sufficient people skills? Being able to engage parishioners in small talk after Mass is obvious. But being able to work the room at a social function so that everyone receives attention and no one misses out is less obvious and more important. It is also what distinguishes the great hosts and hostesses from the mediocre ones- at family celebrations, at retreat weekends, and at any event where newcomers may be present.

Can they admit when they have made mistakes? The inability to admit mistakes sours relationships. In times past regular public confession of faults was part of religious life. The ability to say, ‘I stuffed up, I’m sorry’ is also a regular part of a healthy marriage. Consider the case where a lay person has opened up the church for Mass, and set everything up, and is ready to go home on a Saturday morning and the priest says as the person is leaving, ‘there’s an adult getting baptised in 30 minutes time, I need you to stick around for it’. No apology for abusing their goodness. No apology for not communicating the need a few days earlier so that the lay person had a chance to either re-arrange their lives or suggest alternative helpers. Such behaviour may have got the baptism running smoothly, but it has set the private needs of the lay person at zero and has set up resentment in the lay person. Instead of a loyal helper the priest now has a ‘do the bare minimum’ helper. Short term gain, long term loss.

Are they free of addictions? This is considerably important. Sadly I have seen far too many vocations, especially priestly vocations undone by an addiction from early in their lives coming back to bite them 20 years or so after ordination, and that includes alcohol, and chasing the company of women as well as gambling and the nastier things. Addictions of any kind also wreck family life because it builds up a pattern of hiding and deceit, and for family life to thrive requires trust and honesty and wholesomeness.

Are they reliable? Can you rely on them to show up in sufficient time to do a rostered task? If you ask them to do something, do you have confidence that they will get it done? Do they keep their promises and their commitments? In days gone by this wasn’t such an issue, but with the advent of ‘yes, subject to a better offer’ and ‘yes, unless someone changes my mind in the meantime’ it has really become an issue. To someone who is reliable you can give more weighty tasks than to someone who is less reliable. Having seen the havoc caused by clerics who change their minds about an issue every time a new person speaks to them about that issue, I know that no one wants to experience that. Neither does anyone want the Christmas Mass roster changed several times in the hours prior to the first Christmas Eve Mass. Choosing a course and sticking with it enables others to trust your word and your ministry.

Do they have some resistance to peer pressure? All of us are susceptible to peer pressure and propaganda to some degree. Being somewhat resistant to it enables you to follow God’s will no matter what, and no matter the unpleasant consequences. The late Pope Benedict XVI received respect from all his peers because he could never be drawn into factions and any ‘us vs them’ mentality. Any group of human beings has factions, usually divided between what is considered progress and what is considered keeping to the traditions; or divided between pro-leader and anti-leader. Belonging to factions usually requires some conformity even if the conformity is nonsensical or sinful. Belonging to factions also closes the mind and heart to alternate ideas. Because groups of priests who drink too much exist, and groups of religious who take on the latest spirituality craze exist, being able to resist joining them is important for spiritual health. Even in families, being able to resist ‘keeping up with the Jones family’ really matters. Tight budgets get tighter if everyone else seems to be getting new golf clubs or kitchen renovations.

Are they able to express gratitude for help received? There is a strain of priestly culture which says you don’t have to thank anybody, because if you do thank them, you reduce God’s reward to them. That is erroneous. God cannot be outdone in generosity, and He rewards those who serve Him in lavish ways. Visiting a nursing home is very instructive. The residents who are unresponsive and cranky no one wants to serve or visit. The residents who are responsive and who show gratitude for assistance given, everyone wants to serve and visit them. Anything you reward with thanks, praise or tokens of appreciation will reinforce that behaviour. But it needs to be the right behaviour and not the wrong behaviour. I’ve seen too many rewards given to workaholics who sacrificed sleep, health and family to meet a business requirement. I’ve rarely seen a reward for someone who gets the job done quietly and efficiently and maintains a proper work-life balance. But going overboard with thanks for every little tiny thing is bad too. Appreciation when given must mean something and not nothing. It is the person who gets to the church early to open up for Mass who needs some encouragement and recognition now and then, since most people don’t see it happen. It is the mother doing the daily tasks of nurturing children who needs some encouragement and recognition now and then, and not only on Mothers Day. It is the religious who doesn’t hesitate to answer the door or answer the phone who needs some encouragement and recognition now and then. Having a heart of gratitude to God for all His gifts and blessings needs to spill over in gratitude for those who assist us.

Have they worked through any traumatic experiences to a place of acceptance and forgiveness? Very few people escape a traumatic experience in childhood or adolescence, and some of them are very big traumas eg domestic violence, death of a parent, serious illness, betrayal. Any unresolved grief, lingering resentment, unhealed soul wounds will eventually poison vocations if not dealt with. If a person is unable to say unequivocally that God is an utterly good Father towards themselves, then they will be unable to make that necessary proclamation to others. Until that level of acceptance and forgiveness is reached, they should not progress to the next step in their vocation, be that spouse, religious, deacon or priest. Yes, it can take a very long time to get to that place, but without achieving it they will be unable to give full consent to the next vocational step.

Do they include others in decision making processes? Only asking those who always agree with whatever you say doesn’t count. Unilateral decisions made by those in leadership are almost always bad news. Imagine making a decision about a new receptacle for the weekend collections without consulting your experienced wardens and your risk assessment people? Disaster. Where the new receptable was placed made theft easier and collections were pilfered. Imagine making a decision about a mission preacher without consulting your parish council and your parish influencers. Disaster. The mission preacher had the same accent inflections as the pastor, which were alien to the congregation. Getting to the better decisions requires some consultation with stakeholders and some consultation with those who have the necessary wisdom about the subject matter. It also involves having an attitude of seeking the best solution for the greatest common good, and the humble recognition that often you are indeed fallible and not omniscient. Without inviting input from his wife, how can a husband make the best decisions for their family?

This is the raw material necessary for any potential seminary candidate. Some of it can be learned and increased, some of it can’t. However these are also the potentialities for success as a parent, as a religious, and as a leader in any kind of organisation. Therefore anyone with this necessary raw material will have several organisations competing for his or her potential. Be aware that this kind of fierce competition is happening.

What can be learned and increased needs to become the aim of youth ministry and young adult ministry. That’s what we need to measure and celebrate, not numbers of emerging vocations. An emerging vocation is worth very little if it flames out due to lack of necessary raw material.

Thirdly, it takes time to distinguish between someone responding to the normal Christian vocation to holiness and mission and between someone responding to a higher call than that. Outwardly they often look the same.

A normal Christian vocation to holiness and mission will have a daily prayer life, and regularity about going to the sacrament of penance and attending Mass. All of us are called to love God with all our hearts, minds, souls and spirits. Attendance at adoration is normal. Getting excited about the bible, and papal documents, and saints, and prayer meetings and prayer retreats is normal. Getting enthusiastic about bringing the news of Jesus to others, and about helping those in need, is normal. All of these are needed to live a full Christian life whatever our vocation may be.

So what distinguishes a higher call?

A priestly vocation needs the desire and ability to preach, it also needs desire and ability to lead God’s people in holiness and mission.

Religious and priestly vocations also have a wideness and a focus in love. That’s the desire to love and serve as many as possible because it’s the only way that is big enough to return the overwhelming love that Jesus has shown them. There’s a sense that to focus the outpouring of their love for Jesus only into spouse and children is insufficient.

Higher calls are also distinguished by longer preparation times, seasons of wilderness, and a greater share of trials and ordeals. Have a quick read through how God prepared His biblical heroes especially Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and David and you will begin to comprehend. There’s also that line in scripture, ‘My son, if you aspire to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for an ordeal’. Ecclesiasticus 2:1

Higher calls can be given to lay people too. Consider those called to found ministries and those called to exercise charisms at levels of national and international significance: Writers, Artists, Musicians, Mercy, Evangelists, Healing, Signs and Wonders, Prophecy, Preaching, Teaching.

Any of these higher calls require extraordinary commitment. To be confronted with the possibility of a higher call when you are far from ready to even begin cautiously taking a surreptitious peek at it – is enough to make a young person run as fast as possible in the opposite direction.

That’s why it is so hard for young men to commit to any kind of youth group. They are already scared about how much God may ask of them, especially celibacy. Getting serious about God is dangerous stuff for a young man. Then when a seminarian or newly ordained priest visits the youth group to talk about answering God’s call, they very naturally take fright and go missing.

That’s why we’ve got to start doing things differently. Having a vocations director turn up to speak about priestly vocations when there’s only one young bloke in the youth group must stop. If that young bloke is already at church regularly, he’s already carrying the expectations of the whole congregation – a heavy and unfair load – and now he feels targeted by the talk, and then has to endure the shy and sly glances of everyone else in the room when the vocations director finishes his talk. I’d run, wouldn’t you?

About the only way around this impasse is to have a wide panel of people speaking about vocations. What you want is a holy accountant, a holy nurse, a holy grandmother, a holy police officer, a holy electrician, and a holy religious sharing about God’s call in their lives as well as the priestly representative. Then if a young person does get up sufficient courage to have a quiet word with the priestly representative, everyone else is lining up to know more from the other speakers – and the shy and sly glances are reduced to a minimum. What you want is for everyone to be excited about following God’s call, no matter what it happens to be.

Seminary itself is supposed to be a time of discernment. Sadly far too many people think that beginning seminary training means that becoming a priest or a religious is therefore a done deal. As soon as a youngster makes a tentative announcement about entering the seminary, priestly or religious, he or she is considered public property. That kind of pressure makes true discernment far more difficult than it needs to be. Please listen to this next statement very carefully. God has a track record of sending young men to seminary for a few years, and then calling them out again for other ministries. He knows they need the book learning for what He has for them to do. St Mary McKillop’s father had a few years in a seminary. One of the best regional St Vincent de Paul conference leaders had a few years in a seminary. Stop shaming the ones who exit seminary, and instead help them to follow whatever God is calling them to which needed that seminary experience. This is also true for those who enter religious life, learn to live in community and under the rule, and then leave. God isn’t finished with them either.
​
Our focus must turn to helping each young person to develop the traits which will make them successful in whatever God calls them to do, and to helping all of them to listen, discern and respond to what God is calling them to do. Because everything God calls us to do is important. Even responding to a nudge from God that a certain acquaintance needs a phone call is important. Learning to listen, discern and respond to the easy stuff is the best preparation for listening, discerning and responding to the greater stuff.

Recent discussions with friends brought up the life of Caroline Chisholm several times. In her life there is much to inspire, and also much to relate to: expat, wife, military wife, mother, dedicated to works of mercy on behalf of immigrants, woman of faith, convert, courageous lobbyist of governments for social improvements, leader of travels into bush regions, and who spent her latter years with kidney troubles on a limited income – and all in the 19th century. For a time her image was on one side of the Australian $5 note when it was still printed on paper and not on polymer.
​
Such broad brush descriptions of Caroline Chisholm’s life inevitably led to ‘how can I find out more about her’ questions. That’s where Rodney Stinson’s books come in. His first book about her is ‘Unfeigned Love: Historical Accounts of Caroline Chisholm and Her Work’. It was published in 2008. His second book about her is ‘See Judge Act: Caroline Chisholm’s Lay Apostolate’. It was published in 2009.

Mint condition copies of both books are still available by either writing to Yorkcross Pty Ltd, GPO Box 2171, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia or by emailing webmaster@mrschisholm.com
These details were printed in the books.

Should you think the phrase See Judge Act is familiar, that may be because it is the guiding principle of the Young Christian Workers and Young Christian Students movements. A very long time ago my parish youth group was a part of the Young Christian Students movement, but not a very good part because we did a bit too much talking about issues and not enough doing something about issues. I suspect that we were less than successful because we didn’t have worked examples of the See Judge Act method happening in real life to make the process tangible and give us those ‘aha’ moments of understanding. By putting Caroline Chisholm’s social work under the See Judge Act lens those missing worked examples are provided.

The first section of the book is a detailed introduction to this See Judge Act method. Read this part last unless you have had an association with the YCW and YCS movements.

The second section of the book is a very good biographical summary of Caroline Chisholm’s life. It would take about 30 minutes to read that summary aloud to a student or a group, and if done in two sections would suit bedtime story time or home school story time.

The last section of the book, after an explanatory chapter, then contains chapters about specific incidents in Caroline Chisholm’s life and her active response to them. Each chapter contains questions suitable for group discussion.

Because each of those seven chapters is relatively short, with the story part taking 15-20 minutes to read aloud to a group, it is short enough to allowing enough time to fit a 15-20 minute discussion into a 40 minute school lesson or ethics lesson, or even into a youth group meeting, or an adult faith group study into how to live out the parable of the Good Samaritan in daily life.

For example, one chapter tells of the arrival of an immigrant ship, and Caroline’s discovery that an outgoing 15 year old girl was missing. From past experience Caroline has a good idea of who may have enticed the lass away from safety and Caroline undertakes to travel a considerable distance at night over water to convince both the man to let the lass go, and to convince the lass to return with her across the water. The stakes were high. Staying with such a man was the path to becoming a single mother, and without any social security payments in the colony and the huge social shame, most young women on that path ended up either being forced into prostitution to survive or choosing suicide. Returning with Caroline meant the hope of getting employment with a reputable employer and the hope of finding a good husband to marry.

These short chapters would suit home school families looking for unit studies incorporating Australian history, geography, civics, social justice and opportunity for research skills. They should prompt questions about assisted immigration, what Sydney and New South Wales was like in the 1840s, how colonial government worked, what the fashions of the 1840s were like, considerations of the social welfare situation in the 1840s, and hopefully a deep dive into the letters to the editor of the Sydney newspapers of the time via the Trove website of the National Library of Australia.

For its purpose, to encourage and stimulate discussion about the life of Caroline Chisholm, this little book of 50 pages of texts and fully attributed images succeeds.
​
But the detailed incidents in the seven short chapters do leave you wanting to know more about her. So if you are primarily looking for the full story of Caroline Chisholm’s life based on well-researched documentary evidence, Rodney Stinson’s other book Unfeigned Love would be a better choice for you.

This may seem like a very strange topic to bring to your attention, but it does tell a salutary tale about how media has been manipulated. It is of importance to us because media is a pathway to spread the Gospel; and if voices in the media can be muffled, then the God-fearing voices in the media can also be muzzled.

Normally long messages on Twitter either appear as Twitter-threads or as a series of numbered stand-alone tweets. After a person gets to about 30 in a series, and it is generating massive discussion sometimes the Twitter-threads get broken. That’s what happened more than once. Thankfully there were generous people who attempted to put the tweets in chronological order to make them easier to read for those who have little Twitter experience. They had a difficult task.

A bit of background may help. Some weeks after Elon Musk became the owner of Twitter he promised to release information held within the Twitter databases about the events that led to the expulsion of President Trump from Twitter on 8 Jan 2021. To do this Elon selected a few journalists and gave them access to the files at Twitter. However it was a requirement that what they released had to be published on Twitter first before it was published on any other kind of media.

On Saturday 3 Dec 2022, Australian time, the first of the Twitter Files was released via @mtaibbi. It laid the groundwork for what was to follow, and each batch of Twitter Files builds on the previous batch. Bear in mind that if these things were going on at Twitter, they were certainly also going on at other social media sites and in main-stream media as well.

The first one is here, but there is irrelevant stuff between the actual tweets.
Keep going till you get to the very end.

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-elon-musk-releases-files-on-twitters-censorship-of-hunter-biden-laptop-story

This is part of @mtaibbi’s introduction, which is provided as an enticement to learn more:

3. The “Twitter Files” tell an incredible story from inside one of the world’s largest and most influential social media platforms. It is a Frankensteinian tale of a human-built mechanism grown out the control of its designer.
4. Twitter in its conception was a brilliant tool for enabling instant mass communication, making a true real-time global conversation possible for the first time.
5. In an early conception, Twitter more than lived up to its mission statement, giving people “the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.”
6. As time progressed, however, the company was slowly forced to add those barriers. Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters.
7. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly.
8. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.”

Although further information was supposed to be released the next day, nothing happened for several days until @mtaibbi released supplemental information.

You can read it in full here:
https://radiopatriot.net/2022/12/07/second-twitter-file-thread-supplement-to-the-1st-thread/

Here is a mini summary:

“On Tuesday, Twitter Deputy General Counsel (and former FBI General Counsel) Jim Baker was fired. Among the reasons? Vetting the first batch of “Twitter Files” – without knowledge of new management.
The process for producing the “Twitter Files” involved delivery to two journalists (Bari Weiss and me) via a lawyer close to new management. However, after the initial batch, things became complicated.
Over the weekend, while we both dealt with obstacles to new searches, it was @bariweiss who discovered that the person in charge of releasing the files was Jim Baker. He had been something of a Zelig of FBI controversies dating back to 2016, from the Steele Dossier to the Alfa-Server mess.”

Within a day or two the second set of Twitter Files was released. It has the inside scoop on shadow banning. Yes, many suspected this was happening, but to see actual evidence of it was stunning.

https://radiopatriot.net/2022/12/08/twitter-files-part-2/

Here are the introductory tweets for this second set of Twitter Files:

2. Twitter once had a mission “to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.” Along the way, barriers nevertheless were erected.
3. Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) ) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.
4. Or consider the popular right-wing talk show host, Dan Bongino (@dbongino), who at one point was slapped with a “Search Blacklist.”
5. Twitter set the account of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) to “Do Not Amplify.”
6. Twitter denied that it does such things. In 2018, Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said: “We do not shadow ban.” They added: “And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
7. What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning.
8. “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool,” one senior Twitter employee told us.

The rest of this series of tweets shows that shadow banning based on political viewpoints and ideology did happen. Unless you know how bad it got, it will be difficult to understand the next series of tweets.

The third set of Twitter Files was about how President Trump, while he was still President, was shadow banned in various ways before and after the 2020 American presidential elections.
Yes, while he was still in the Oval Office.
It is serious stuff. 67 tweets worth.

https://radiopatriot.net/2022/12/09/twitter-files-part-3/

Here is part of the introduction:

5. Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter’s employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech.
6. As soon as they finished banning Trump, Twitter execs started processing new power. They prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses – perhaps even Joe Biden. The “new administration,” says one exec, “will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.”
7. Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the “context surrounding”: actions by Trump and supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.” In the end, they looked at a broad picture. But that approach can cut both ways.
8. The bulk of the internal debate leading to Trump’s ban took place in those three January days. However, the intellectual framework was laid in the months preceding the Capitol riots.

The fourth set of Twitter Files sadly were not numbered, and they might not be all in this link because there was a 2-to-3-hour gap between part 1 and part 2. Look for posts on 11 December from @ShellenbergerMD for the missing tweets. The previous set of Twitter Files took us up to 6 January 2021. This set takes us from there to 7 January 2021.

https://radiopatriot.net/2022/12/10/twitter-files-part-4/

Here is part of the introduction:

“For years, Twitter had resisted calls to ban Trump. “Blocking a world leader from Twitter,” it wrote in 2018, “would hide important info... [and] hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”
But after the events of Jan 6, the internal and external pressure on Twitter CEO @jack (Jack Dorsey) grows. Former First Lady @michelleobama , tech journalist @karaswisher , @ADL, high-tech VC @ChrisSacca, , and many others, publicly call on Twitter to permanently ban Trump.
Dorsey was on vacation in French Polynesia the week of January 4-8, 2021. He phoned into meetings but also delegated much of the handling of the situation to senior execs @yoyoel, Twitter’s Global Head of Trust and Safety, and @vijaya, Head of Legal, Policy, & Trust.
As context, it's important to understand that Twitter’s staff & senior execs were overwhelmingly progressive. In 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, & 99% of Twitter staff's political donations went to Democrats.
On January 7, @Jack emails employees saying Twitter needs to remain consistent in its policies, including the right of users to return to Twitter after a temporary suspension After, Roth reassures an employee that "people who care about this... aren't happy with where we are"”

The fifth set of Twitter Files reveals the internal communications on 8 January 2021 which led to the permanent suspension of President Trump, who was still officially the President of the United States of America until 20 January 2021 when Joe Biden was sworn in.

https://radiopatriot.net/2022/12/12/the-twitter-files-part-5/

Here is an introduction to this set of files, which may or may not be the full set of files:

7. There were dissenters inside Twitter. “Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee on January 7, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.”
8. But voices like that one appear to have been a distinct minority within the company. Across Slack channels, many Twitter employees were upset that Trump hadn’t been banned earlier.
9. After January 6, Twitter employees organized to demand their employer ban Trump. “There is a lot of employee advocacy happening,” said one Twitter employee.
10. “We have to do the right thing and ban this account,” said one staffer. It’s “pretty obvious he’s going to try to thread the needle of incitement without violating the rules,” said another.
11. In the early afternoon of January 8, The Washington Post published an open letter signed by over 300 Twitter employees to CEO Jack Dorsey demanding Trump’s ban. “We must examine Twitter’s complicity in what President-Elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.”
12. But the Twitter staff assigned to evaluate tweets quickly concluded that Trump had *not* violated Twitter’s policies. “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement,” wrote one staffer.
13. “It's pretty clear he's saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) from Wednesday.”
14. Another staffer agreed: “Don’t see the incitement angle here.”

Notice that President Trump was declared innocent of violating the Twitter Terms of Service, yet he was still permanently suspended from Twitter. His account was re-instated by Elon Musk in recent weeks, although it has yet to be used. So the first thing a viewer of @realDonaldTrump’s account will see are these non-inciting tweets.

Many of the tweets that form the Twitter Files are backed up with screenshots of actual internal Twitter communications with some of the names and dates redacted.

What is on this blog-page is only a taster of what is in the full five Twitter Files. Please read and absorb it all. Understand that this kind of social media behaviour has been impacting countries throughout the world, not just America. Reading them certainly made me angry, as they should. But it should spurn us both to prayer and to action. Prayer that such evil is drained away completely and never holds sway again. Action that shares with others what you have discovered; and shares it as far as possible with those who have only ever heard the shadow banned version of events.

For evil to flourish all that is required is for the good to keep silent.
​
May God help us do what we must. Amen.
 

In recent weeks I have been doing a deep drive into local history. Rapidly it went from how did British settlement start in this area?: to what can be discovered about them?: to horror at how the native peoples were treated: to what was the unwritten side of the story?

The British had lived for centuries under an accepted cultural system.

The native peoples had lived for millennia under a completely different accepted cultural system; in fact you could say it was a road untraveled by any other culture.

The British and most other cultures worked on a notion of private property, and understood that this system accepted violence as a cost of civilisation. If you had something, you had to be prepared to defend it; and if you wanted to grow in importance then you had to usurp the property of others either by violence or coercion.

The native peoples came up with a completely different solution.

Instead of regular patterns of group vs group violence they chose mutual benevolence. Admittedly being human, disputes over mating rights did occur. However that is observable behaviour in the animal kingdom. What they chose was mutual survival. Part of this was choosing hospitality towards strangers to diffuse any possible violent intent.

Even now it is a difficult concept for Western minds to grasp.

The native people used what they needed from the land, and then moved on to a new location. They never depleted an area of resources. Tribes consisted of a number of family groups. Estimates for this location have a minimum number of 10 family groups, but there could have been 15 family groups, or even 20 family groups as part of one tribe. Survival depended on being part of a family group.

At certain times during the year and at agreed locations the whole tribe would gather together to conduct necessary tribal business including dispute resolution. When children neared the age of becoming an eligible mating partner, the men took the boys for initiation rites and the women took the girls for initiation rites. There were complicated rules to prevent relationships between close blood lines.

Picture an area of some 240 km2 and that would be a tribal area or country. Within it the various family groups are moving independently. Place names within country either describe geographical features, or the specific flora and fauna of a sub area, or the tribal purpose of the area. Therefore the next family group to pass where your family group has had a sojourn is most likely to be another family group within the tribe. Making sure your family group didn’t deplete the resources of a sub-area meant that the next family group to stay in that sub-area would have enough to survive.

You could think of this locality as a submerged mountain range. Which means getting anywhere other than along the waterline is going to be up hill and down dale, over rocks and timbered terrain with an occasional cave or hard rock surface. Therefore it made a lot of sense to leave tools made of natural materials where the next family group could find and use them than to carry them from place to place. In hospitality to each other on hard rock surfaces simple images of the safe game to hunt were painstakingly carved, or sometimes simple images conveying other messages to the initiated.

The other thing about this locality was the threat of flood, bushfire and drought. Anything built would either get washed away or burned away, so it truly was pointless to build anything permanent. But what was possible was working with the seasons and the locations of flora and fauna to obtain the best outcomes for everyone.

Here’s an example: In most places the tree line came down to the waterline. But there were areas that were flat, having been built up by natural sand deposits from the beach. These places were covered with native grasses due to specific cultivation. At the right time of year when the wind was in the necessary direction this flat land would be set on fire in such a way that the fire went towards the beach and burnt itself out for lack of fuel. The fire did two things: it dissuaded trees from growing and the fresh shoots of grasses after the fire would attract game animals. What this meant was that when the tribe gathered annually in that location to be together there was a plentiful food supply.

If someone was guilty of grave misdemeanor there was effective punishment. The miscreant was obliged to become the ‘first taster’ of the family group. Until a new miscreant emerged, the current miscreant became the go-to person to test whether a food stuff was poisonous or not, and if a food stuff was sufficiently ripe or not. The rest of the group would wait a day or two to see what happened to the first taster before sampling the food stuff themselves. As both a deterrent strategy and as a way of safeguarding the group from toxins it is quite brilliant.

What we often fail to appreciate is that this way of life was so successful that it didn’t need to change. It had remained a successful way of life through long stretches of drought and through long stretches of rain, through hail, storm and bushfire. It was a way of life sufficiently adaptable that paradigm change wasn’t necessary.

What this culture did do was to closely observe the natural environment. They studied the plants, the animals, the weather patterns and the landscape patterns. It wasn’t for interest, it was for survival. If you studied the life cycle and the migration patterns and eating patterns of the kangaroo then the hunt would be more successful. Not only did they study, but they used what they had learned in dancing in imitation of kangaroo and emu and through that medium passed knowledge to the younger members.

Stories were passed down from generation to generation which contained not only knowledge of the local animals but also moral lessons. On the surface they were simple and entertaining stories, but they had multiple layers of meaning. The deeper layers of meaning were only taught when a member was considered ready to learn them. This is not dissimilar to memory by association techniques.

These patterns of listening and observing the created world, and the stillness necessary for successful observation meant that this ancient culture was also in tune with the spiritual realms. Most tribes would be in tune with the good, the true and the beautiful, but some tribes would align with the darker elements in the spirit world. Not everything in the dreamtime is safe. Human beings wherever they reside are capable of both cruelty and gentleness; they thrive under good leadership and they suffer under poor leadership.

When the explorers arrived in 1770 with their western eyes they saw a natural landscape bereft of built structures; no stone structures like the Aztecs, no tents like the native Americans, no huts like the Polynesians. What they didn’t have eyes to see was a respectfully and minimally cultivated native landscape with everything needed for the survival of an ancient culture.
The description of the land as terra nullius was incorrect and wrong, yet convenient for a small island nation with dense population and many persons convicted of crime to punish. It was the first injustice upon which other injustices were perpetrated.

If not for help the native peoples gave to these strange idiots who were beginning to starve due to lack of local knowledge, the fledgling colony would not have survived. This pattern of help was repeated as explorations and new settlements began. When a convict absconded into the woods, or when someone got lost or shipwrecked, native tribes enabled them to survive.

Due to terra nullius the governor of the colony felt free to award large areas of land firstly to non-convicts, and later to convicts who had either proved themselves useful or who had served their time. No consideration was given to the what the native tribes had used these tracts of land for. The more important the ancient land use, the more likely native retaliation would be, and ancient weapons - lethal though they could be - were no match for guns.

The native population only had naturally occurring sugars in their diet from honey and berry-like fruit. Therefore the introduction of complex sugars and especially alcohol had severe effects including addiction and diabetes. Neither were they immune to the diseases that the settlers brought with them. Due to this many lives were lost prematurely.

When settlers began looking further afield than the Sydney colony there were two motives; one to find farm land with which to feed the colony and the other to exploit any other resources they found to the best of their ability. Hence the deforestation of cedar trees in the Brisbane Water area, and the commercial harvesting of seafood, particularly crayfish. No consideration was given to the impact of these exploitive activities upon the stable ecosystems and the well-trodden hunting and gathering routes of the native tribes. Local resistance was met with violence, written complaints to colonial authority, and with imprisonment and deportation. Some natives were tried for snatching the equivalent of a cigar out of a local colonial bigwig’s hands, and sentenced to deportation to Tasmania. It was commuted to two years’ hard labour in iron chains quarrying rock on a rocky outcrop island near Newcastle.

The net effect over several decades of occupation was the genocide of some native tribes and the decimation of other tribes. Since the early settlers had a very high male to female ratio of inhabitants many of the local tribeswomen were impregnated against their will and the resulting children suffered from not fully belonging to either culture. Such practices broke down the kinship bonds designed to transmit culture from one generation to the next.

The losses sustained by the native tribes are incalculable.

Sadly it has taken almost 235 years for us to begin to understand those immense losses.

This cannot have been God’s original plan.

Only the evil one is known for robbing, killing and destroying.
The losses of the early decades were followed up by the White Australia policy, and the systematic destruction of families by taking the children of native tribes to be raised in anglo-celtic families, and continued with other government policies which ultimately harmed more than helped.

So what could have been God’s original plan, and what’s behind this implacable hatred of the evil one for the native peoples of this land?

God’s plan must have been that we should learn the best from each other in order to build a completely new society based on respect for God, respect for creation, the cherishing of family life and the mutually beneficial sharing and conserving of resources.

Why the evil one’s hatred? Because this ancient culture was remarkably resilient against temptation to sin. Because it had so much good to teach and bequeath to humanity. Consider that greed, the root of all evil, did not have a foothold in this culture. Sloth is deadly in a survival culture, so it didn’t have much of a foothold either. That’s why the vehement desire for it to be snuffed out, disfigured and destroyed as quickly as possible.

Yet despite that hatred, despite the areas of genocide, the threads of that ancient culture are being slowly put back together with each artefact return, with each rediscovery of the wisdom in ancient practices and in ancient stories, and with each discovery of the gentle imprints upon the land by the ancient cultures. The deposit of good is beginning to be treasured as it should have been from the beginning.

What can we do to co-operate with God’s Plan?
​
We can ask God’s pardon and mercy upon all the sins and crimes perpetrated against the native peoples of this land.
We can ask God’s blessing upon the descendants of the native peoples of this land.
We can ask God to recompence the native peoples for all the losses and injustice they have suffered.
We can ask for God’s perfect will to be accomplished in this land.
We can work on eradicating greed and sloth from our own lives.

Over the past few months, the articles in the Catholic Weekly from Dr Philippa Martyr have had me writing either rebuttals or questioning the assumptions upon which the assertions in her articles were made. Even though they didn’t make it to publication here, they have caused me to reflect deeply.

In particular, could this part of her response be true?
"Perhaps I should have also said in my limited 750 words that the laity also need to learn to be less trigger-happy. What you're describing are not major challenges to faith and morals, like having all the laity 'co-consecrate' or things of that sort. They're minor liturgical hiccups that irritate you personally."

You need to know that I was speaking of the breaking of the one cross per altar rule and the replacement of the homily with a few brief words prior to the penitential rite. On the surface level maybe they do look like minutiae.

Lay co-consecration is serious because it is a strong ideological statement about the priesthood of all believers, and a denial of what pertains only to the ordained priesthood.

Yet a brief stroll through the Scriptures shows that God takes unlawful acts very seriously.

In Leviticus 10:1-2 we have two of Aaron’s sons taking a short cut by using ordinary fire for their incense censers instead of fire from the perpetual flame on the altar. God caused the unlawful fire consumed them immediately.

In Numbers 16 we have a lay rebellion, Korah who was descended from Levi but not from Aaron, said to Moses and Aaron, ‘You take too much on yourselves! The whole community and all its members are consecrated, and the Lord God lives among them. Why set yourselves higher than the community of the Lord God?’ What was God’s response? When all the rebels were gathered together in one place, the earth split open and swallowed them all.

And lest we think this was just a caution for Old Testament times, read 1 Cor 11:28-32: ‘Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world.’

We might then ask, well why hasn’t God done something dramatic about it? The answer might be in 1 Samuel chapters 2 and 3. Here we have the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, who were scoundrels at the altar of God. It continued for some time. Eli did warn them that sinning against God was truly serious. Then God sent an adult prophet to prophesy judgment on Eli for permitting it to happen, as well as on the two culprits. Later God spoke through the boy Samuel and warned Eli again. When Samuel had grown up, then God’s judgement came swiftly onto the whole family of Eli.

So if God hasn’t acted yet, then He has been sending warnings to both bishop and priest, and when the cup of iniquity is full, God will then act in swift judgement.

But in the meantime, there is a punishment from God that St John of Avila writes about eloquently in ‘Audi, Filia’, it is the utter misfortune of being left by God in your own errors. Because if you are in error, and you don’t know that you are in error, how can you possibly get out of that error? Ponder that until the full horror of that finds a place in your heart.

It is truly a mercy from God when He shines a light into our hearts, let’s us perceive what is wrong, and invites us to change in order to grow closer to Him.

To escape the consequences of error – if God has withdrawn from you -, someone would have to take pity upon you; and plead with God assiduously for your conversion. All of us should be afraid of this punishment; and pray with King David ‘Do not deprive me of Your holy spirit’ Psalm 50(51)11 and ‘God, examine me and know my heart, probe me and know my thoughts; make sure I do not follow pernicious ways, and guide me in the way that is everlasting’ Psalm 138(139):23-24.

So let’s now go through the breaking of the one cross per altar rule and the replacement of the homily with a few brief words prior to the penitential rite and determine whether they are minor liturgical hiccups or not.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.) has a lot to say about the relationship between the cross/crucifix and the altar. See Appendix A below.

Here we pause for a little and consider that if such precise instructions have been laid out by the Church Universal, then ipso facto these instructions have to be far from trivial.

G.I.R.M 308. 'There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.'

In some churches this is done by having a crucifix suspended above the altar, and the processional cross placed on a side wall out of general sight when the entrance procession is over.

When there is a suspended crucifix, then having an additional small portable upright crucifix on the altar to aid the devotion of the priest is not licit. Possibly it would be licit in such cases to have a small crucifix laying flat on the altar – but it wouldn’t be a good thing. It is the crucifix either on or near the altar that denotes that this particular table-like structure is indeed an altar. There is a one-to-one correspondence of crucifix to altar, and this is underlined in the rubrics for the entrance procession when, if there is incense, only the cross and altar are incensed.

This lack of a devotional crucifix on the altar for the priest underscores that in the Mass we are publicly worshipping God, and that the Church – presumably after much argy-bargy in centuries past – came down on the side of clear visible signs for the people of God, and not on the personal preferences of the priest.

Can you now see that an important liturgical principle is at stake here? Liturgy is a public solemn act of worship of God by the Head (Jesus) and members (us) of the Body of Christ. In it is no room for private devotional preferences.

Pope Francis in Desiderio Desideravi 48 says this: 'The rite is in itself a norm, and the norm is never an end in itself, but it is always at the service of a higher reality that it means to protect.'

All of us are custodial servants of this profound gift of Liturgy. It is God’s work, we are but participants by His grace.

Whenever we start thinking of ourselves as masters of the liturgy, with the ability to change parts of it at will according to personal preference, instead of thinking of ourselves as grateful servants, then we have got it very wrong.

Here we come to the missing homily, and this is generally a weekday issue and not a Sunday issue. Yes G.I.R.M. 66b says this, itself a quotation from ‘Inter Oecumenici’:
‘There is to be a homily on Sundays and holy days of obligation at all Masses that are celebrated with the participation of a congregation; it may not be omitted without a serious reason. It is recommended on other days, especially on the weekdays of Advent, Lent, and the Easter Season, as well as on other festive days and occasions when the people come to church in greater numbers.’

And G.I.R.M. 43b
'They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.'

What is happening locally? First one, and when he left us, now a second priest, has started giving brief remarks prior to the penitential rite, while we are still standing, and then no homily at all, on weekdays. We normally range between 20 and 50 persons for weekday Masses, with greater numbers on Wednesdays and Fridays.

What does that mean in practice? We are standing to listen to commentary on readings which have yet to be read to us, and by the time they are read to us, we have either forgotten the commentary or are scratching our heads to connect the commentary with the readings, unless we have hearing aids and thus have only experienced gibberish. It can become a good guessing game of ‘which readings do the commentary relate to’ – but that isn’t breaking open the Word of God, is it?

There is good reason why the Church places the homily after the readings.

But it goes deeper than that on at least two levels.

The first level of these came home to me when I was visiting an elderly gentleman parishioner in the local hospital. He had been in and out of hospital for the previous few weeks. He was completely alert, albeit a bit uncomfortable, so I was surprised when he kindly and firmly said ‘What I need now is Jesus, only Jesus’. To my even greater surprise he died a few hours later. But what he said has stayed with me, and has resonated with me for over 25 years.

What our frail elderly who show up at Mass every morning need beyond anything else is Jesus, only Jesus. They need their hearts to be refreshed by the wonder of who Jesus is in every homily. Mind you, so do the rest of us as well.

Evangelii Gaudium 135b: ‘The homily is the touchstone for judging a pastor’s closeness and ability to communicate to his people. We know that the faithful attach great importance to it, and that both they and their ordained ministers suffer because of homilies: the laity from having to listen to them and the clergy from having to preach them! It is sad that this is the case. The homily can actually be an intense and happy experience of the Spirit, a consoling encounter with God’s Word, a constant source of renewal and growth.’

Evangelii Gaudium 137: ‘It is worth remembering that “the liturgical proclamation of the Word of God, especially in the eucharistic assembly, is not so much a time for meditation and catechesis as a dialogue between God and His people, a dialogue in which the great deeds of salvation are proclaimed and the demands of the covenant are continually restated”. The homily has special importance due to its eucharistic context: it surpasses all forms of catechesis as the supreme moment in the dialogue between God and His people which lead up to sacramental communion. The homily takes up once more the dialogue which the Lord has already established with His people. The preacher must know the heart of his community, in order to realize where its desire for God is alive and ardent, as well as where that dialogue, once loving, has been thwarted and is now barren.’

The second level is that breaking open the Word of God is the way our hearts are touched and changed; and unless they are touched and changed our reception of Jesus in Holy Communion remains unchanged too.

Romans 10:13b-15a,17 says it all: ‘For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But they will not ask His help unless they believe in Him, and they will not believe in Him unless they have heard of Him, and they will not hear of Him unless they get a preacher, and they will never have a preacher unless one is sent. So faith comes from what is preached, and what is preached comes from the word of Christ.’

Homilies don’t have to be long, they can be extremely brief if only they go some way towards connecting our hearts to Jesus, and opening them in gratitude to the Father. Being in a receptive posture helps too, that is why sitting is important. Remember that standing for those who are frail or unwell or in joint pain is an ordeal.

What isn’t acceptable is a pastor who no longer has an assistant priest being perfunctory about the Mass in order to get on with all his other duties, thereby reducing any homily to an introductory commentary and saving time by returning to the altar (instead of to the presidential chair to sit), thus reducing the time after communion to a minimum, and giving out the concluding prayers from the altar.

Shouldn’t something else get sacrificed instead of preparation to preach the Word of God? Peter and the Apostles thought it of such importance that they appointed deacons to take care of food distribution and other matters. Acts 6:1-6.

If there is anything else in his life for which it is considered necessary to consistently take short cuts in the Mass, then something is seriously wrong. Once in a while, as long as good reason is proffered, is quite a different matter.

It smacks of being master of liturgy instead of being a grateful servant of the liturgy, cutting the liturgy according to personal preference and availability for other things. In some ways this is more dangerous than our lay co-consecration friend. Why? Because the majority of priests and people will sense and abhor the wrongness of lay co-consecration. And because those priests who don’t consider preaching a homily to be an honoured privilege will think it a great idea – and copy him! And because those who don’t mind the shortest Mass possible, will also think it a great idea.

Nothing any of us can do each day can shine even a candle to the magnitude of what the Lord God does in the Mass each day.

Am I being mean? Is this a minor liturgical hiccup? Poor father, he is looking after this whole big parish on his own, who knows how many sick calls, meetings and funerals are on his plate, and all the other calls upon his time and energy. But then I look at the 94 year old who is there rain, hail or shine; and I look at those who have chronically ill husbands at home; and I look at those who come in with a walker; or with the combination of walking stick and Parkinson’s; or who have got there despite failing lungs and failing kidneys; and I suspect that looking upon this combined hunger for Him, Jesus would set Himself to teach them at some length adapted to their capacity, Mark 6:34b.

When it comes to Liturgy nothing that seems to be minutiae actually is minutiae, nor a minor liturgical hiccup only due to personal irritation. More is always at stake than what appears to be on the surface.

Appendix A
GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

49. When they reach the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the ministers reverence the altar with a profound bow.
As an expression of veneration, moreover, the priest and deacon then kiss the altar itself; as the occasion suggests, the priest also incenses the cross and the altar.

75. The bread and wine are placed on the altar by the priest to the accompaniment of the prescribed formulas. The priest may incense the gifts placed upon the altar and then incense the cross and the altar itself, so as to signify the Church’s offering and prayer rising like incense in the sight of God. Next, the priest, because of his sacred ministry, and the people, by reason of their baptismal dignity, may be incensed by the deacon or another minister.

117. The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession.

122. On reaching the altar, the priest and ministers make a profound bow.
The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place. In addition, the candlesticks are placed on the altar or near it. It is a praiseworthy practice that the Book of the Gospels be placed upon the altar.

123. The priest goes up to the altar and venerates it with a kiss. Then, as the occasion suggests, he incenses the cross and the altar, walking around the latter.
​
308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

This Gospel text from St Luke Chapter 14, verse 1, then verses 7 to 14 is used on the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C. Frequently when it comes up in the liturgical cycle preachers speak about humility. But it isn’t primarily about humility at all, it is however about relationship to Jesus.

In context, the previous passage from St Luke for 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C, was describing those who are the friends of God, and reminding us of the trials and tribulations they went through to get their seat at the banquet of heaven.

Luke Chapter 14 opens with Jesus accepting a dinner invitation at the home of an influential Pharisee. However, the missing verses 2 to 6 tell us that this dinner was far from a meeting of hearts and minds assisted by good food and drink. It begins with a man with dropsy being presented to Jesus, and since this dinner fell on a Sabbath, controversy was expected. Hence it feels like a well thought out trap, and that Jesus is more their entertainer than their guest.

Jesus, of course, heals the man. But before and after the healing He asks the assembled group of scribes and Pharisees a different question as an entry way for discussion about the Law and the Sabbath, and about normal emergency situations where the Sabbath Law gets bent (e.g. a son falls into a well).

Jesus gets met with stony silence. None of them wish to engage with Him on this issue, and Jesus must have been deeply disappointed because it should have been quite a fascinating discussion with so many learned minds in the same place. He would have been grieved too, because these men more than most knew that a rabbinical question was the starting place for learning, and this refusal indicates that there was nothing they wanted to learn from Jesus, and that their hearts were quite closed to Him.

Not deterred, as a good guest Jesus gives them something else as a discussion starter, in the form of a parable. Now a parable is a bit like a riddle, except that it uses everyday situations and includes an unexpected twist, and from that twist people could begin to fathom the purpose and meaning of the parable. The thing is, we often think of this part of scripture as pure teaching, and not a parable at all.

Perhaps, you, like me, have always envisioned a long straight banqueting table with at least 20 chairs or more, when this Gospel gets read out. But the Greek is very clear that at this dinner they were all reclining in the ancient manner. If so, please do yourself a favour, and go and read this blog post about the dining customs of Ancient Rome, and in particular how the couches were arranged in a Triclinium, and where the hosts reclined, where the higher valued guests reclined, and where the lower valued guests reclined.

The best positions had both proximity to the host, and the best uninterrupted views. The worst positions had less proximity to the host, and the worst views, and needed head swiveling when anything important took place eg. new food arriving, new guests arriving, entertainers arriving and performing.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/reclining-and-dining-and-drinking-in-ancient-rome/

The Romans based their practices on the Greeks, and the Greeks based their practices on the more ancient cultures of Egypt, Persia and Israel. Due to the Hellenistic era in Israel (see Maccabees), and due to the Roman occupation at the time of Jesus, everyone was familiar with this dining arrangement – and it is highly likely that the dinner Jesus went to was arranged upon similar lines.

In this parable Jesus sets two scenarios before His dining companions.

In the first scenario, a more distinguished guest arrives.
In the second scenario, Jesus suggests that the best place to aim for is the lowest place.

Most of you have had a share in arranging wedding receptions or other sit-down dinner events. Quite a lot of time is taken in working out the best seating arrangements for the guests to try and maximize everyone’s enjoyment of the occasion. Anyone at enmity with each other you wanted seated far apart from each other. Often you even work out place cards, or at least make sure all the family knows where you want each guest to sit.

The only time this apple cart gets overturned is when an uninvited guest shows up, or when someone who didn’t think he could make it suddenly finds that he can.

With the Jewish emphasis on hospitality, and the necessity of finding lodgings on a journey of several days, having an uninvited guest, or a guest added at the last minute, was far from uncommon.

In fact, this parable could easily be called the parable of the uninvited guest, or the parable of the extra guest.

The context in which Jesus placed this parable was the jockeying for the best reclining positions that went on as they entered the dining area, and this jockeying had probably even begun as each one arrived and had a guess at where he fitted on the pecking order of influence.

For them this dinner was more about enhancing or maintaining their power and influence than anything else. At such dinners among influential scribes and Pharisees lots of insider deals were done, or sensitive information shared.

Can you get the image of a group of men playing a game of one-up-man-ship among themselves to decide who is the most important person to take the best dining position near the host? Can you see that such a masculine gaggle completely ignores whatever the host may want? Can you perceive the underlying assumption that the host plays these games too, and that for them this group of men such behaviour is quite normal?

Now look back at the parable of Jesus, in the first part the host says, ‘Give up your place to this man’. It’s rather brusque, isn’t it? And it is more likely said to an acquaintance or to an unknown, than to a friend.

In the second part of the parable of Jesus, the host says, ‘My friend, move up higher’.

Therefore, it is friendship with the host that determines your table place far more than any power and influence you may wield.

To some extent, the advice of Jesus is practical, since if you are an uninvited guest or a latecomer, then it is pragmatic to take the lowest place, and not earn everyone else’s wrath for dislodging them from where they were. Far better for the host to initiate that rearrangement. The advice of Jesus also contains a revelation; because if you take His advice, you will learn whether how close you think your relationship with the host is matches how close the host thinks your relationship is – especially if your host leaves you in that lowest place.

When we think of the heavenly banquet to come, and Who the divine host will be, perhaps we will now put a lot more effort into our relationship with God, and a lot less effort in comparing ourselves to others.

Jesus also leaves us clues about how to improve our relationship with God.

Remember that He said, ‘Which of you, if his son falls into a well, or his ox, will not pull him out on a Sabbath day without any hesitation?’

What did Jesus do? He healed the man with dropsy without hesitation. This man, despised by the dinner group, was considered as important as a son or an ox to Jesus.

Let that sink in.

Consider that the vast number of recipients of the miracles of Jesus were poor, or crippled, or lame, or blind…. Consider how many miracles were worked for scribes and Pharisees.

Who was the one excluded from the dinner? The man healed of dropsy.

Who would Jesus have included, if He were the host for this dinner beyond all the others? The man healed of dropsy.

What else did Jesus tell us? ‘When you have a party, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind’.

He is inviting us to get to know the people who are special to Him, and the ones He highly values. Doing good towards whom Jesus accounts as His friends is the path of wisdom. Even on earth, if you help a friend that I care about, my heart is going to be extra kindly disposed towards you, yes?

Is any of this about humility?
Is all of this about friendship with Jesus?
​
May the Lord Jesus grant us the grace to act upon this. Amen.

Earlier this week I watched the [S]election Code movie online. It took about an hour to watch. I highly recommend that you take the time to view it for yourself – and to consider sharing it with others:

https://selectioncode.com/

If you saw 2000 Mules, this one will have around 10 times the impact upon you.
If you didn’t, 2000 Mules was about how geo-tracking and CCTV proved that election fraud was taking place at voting drop boxes in the USA. It too is worth viewing:

https://2000mules.com/

Why? You might ask. Because unless we begin to comprehend just how deep the swamp goes, we won’t be able to comprehend the depths from which God is saving us, and we won’t appreciate fully the unlikely warriors He has been raising up for this purpose.

​On the one hand it is truly sobering; on the other hand there is hope. Hope, that by many people of goodwill co-operating with God’s help, that these evils will be eradicated, and never permitted to happen ever again.

Thankfully I live in a place where paper ballots are obligatory, and all ballots are tabulated by hand, under multiple scrutineers, and re-counted whenever necessary.

But this movie rings alarm bells for any place where there are electronic voting systems and electronic vote counting systems.

It should also ring alarm bells for any electoral official who has a social media account.
​
May God in His great mercy cause the eradication of all corruptible electoral systems from the face of the earth, never to return. Amen.

The Gospel for this Sunday, the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C comes from the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 13, and has Jesus advising those listening to Him to struggle to enter by the narrow door into the kingdom of heaven.

This reflection has been written homily-style.

Luke 13:22-30
Lord, will only a few be saved?
That’s a good question, isn’t it?
And one we all want, and need, an answer to.
Even Jesus thought it was a good question,
because He answered it with a message that we struggle to decode,
so we may as well call it a parable.
In essence the answer Jesus gave was,
‘It’s up to you, how much do you want to enter the kingdom of heaven?’
Perhaps this seems strange to us,
because we are so accustomed to thinking,
‘Doesn’t everyone get to heaven?’
Let’s look at the criteria for getting in,
and the examples Jesus gave of those who were already in.

The first criteria is that it will take some considerable effort on our part.
The second criteria is that it will be through a narrow door, which indicates that it has to be traversed on foot since it isn’t wide enough for a horse or a car, and it will fit only one person at a time.
The third criteria is that we have to be recognisably kin to the master of the house, God the Father.
We need to look, dress, sound, and act, like members of the kingdom of heaven.
I’m sure you have had the experience of saying about someone, ‘they’ve got a strange accent,
there’s something European in it,
and yet there’s something North American in it as well.
I wonder where on earth they come from?’
We can’t have an accent tinged by the world; or be ‘half of the kingdom’ and ‘half of the world’.
Getting rid of the vestiges of the world from our lives is going to take effort, isn’t it?

Jesus gives us a few more tips.
The first tip is that we don’t know when God the Father is going to decide to bolt the door,
so we shouldn’t delay any of our efforts.
The second tip is that staying at the acquaintance level of relationship with Jesus is not enough.
It is very easy to eat and drink a meal with someone,
and yet not become committed to them.
It is very easy to listen to good teaching,
and yet not commit to putting it in to practice.
Where can we easily eat and drink with Jesus,
and listen to His teaching?
We are doing that right now, here at Mass.
But are we taking these opportunities of being with Jesus,
and letting these encounters with Jesus change us?

So, who has already arrived?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets.
Did any of these people have easy lives? No, far from it.
Did God put them all through a testing process before adjudging them His friends? Yes, He did.
Some had heart-wrenching decisions, some had long years waiting for God’s promises to be fulfilled, many were scorned and laughed at, many were persecuted, many had great sorrows.
All of them prayed, remained faithful through trials, and were obedient to all God’s requests.
None of them were perfect, far from it;
but whenever they fell, they got up and began again.

There it is, what Jesus Himself says is necessary to be saved.
How much do you want to enter the kingdom of heaven?
Are you ready and willing to begin the struggle, with the help of the Holy Spirit?
May God in His mercy help us all.

......................................................................................
There's a downloadable printer-friendly version below,
​single A4 page.

In recent times I have been pondering how difficult it is to tell the true from the counterfeit; and the charism from the charisma. The truth is, that I’ve been duped many times into believing that exterior-good clothed interior-good. Even though I don’t have all the answers, maybe my musings will help you weigh up your own experiences.

We know that we aren’t alone in this quest because St Paul has gone before us, referring to counterfeit apostles who were taking fees, unlike St Paul who was either supporting himself or receiving donations from other church communities: 2 Cor 11:13-15

‘These people are counterfeit apostles, they are dishonest workmen disguised as apostles of Christ. There is nothing unexpected about that; if satan himself goes disguised as an angel of light, there is no need to be surprised when his servants, too, disguise themselves as the servants of righteousness. They will come to the end that they deserve.’

St John also has a similar warning for us: 1 John 4:1-2

‘It is not every spirit, my dear people, that you can trust; test them, to see if they come from God; there are many false prophets, now, in the world. You can tell the spirits that come from God by this: every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh is from God;’

Perhaps it is worthwhile to note that it is at the high levels that this discernment is necessary, not at the mundane levels. It stands to reason that you only bother to counterfeit the high stakes stuff.

On the charism side, Fr Jim Esler s.m., now deceased, moral theologian, had the real thing. When he taught, the impulse was strong to receive that teaching on one’s knees, as was the urge to honour him as thoroughly as possible, because he walked with God, and he left you in awe of God’s mercy and wisdom.

An experience of hearing Fr Raniero Cantalamessa live in Kibble Park evoked similar interior responses.

Then there is the charism of suffering which radiates Jesus, which St John Paul II imparted to us, and which a layman I knew had something similar. There’s an inner radiance in holy people like this, and a weightiness that evokes awe.

Encounters like this, with true examples of holiness, we treasure and never forget.

On the charisma side, being in the presence of Bob Hawke and Blanche was a clear example. They weren’t doing anything but standing still, but still attention was drawn to them as to a magnet.

Maybe we learn more from the ones it took us a while to wake up to.

In this category goes a high-ranking American prelate who came to a Sydney based, but national event. Well-spoken, with gleaming white hair, neat, energetic, and with some excellent initiatives happening in his archdiocese. It certainly looked like he walked the walk, and talked the talk, and yet the homily he gave had none of the heart impact or vista-opening impact expected. You might say there was no Holy Spirit wham behind the glam.

With him goes Scott Morrison, elected as prime minister of Australia on a winning smile, folksy charm, and the hope that God really was no.1 in his life. But as information about bullying tactics and WEF internship grew, so did our disillusionment.
In a similar bucket was Barrack Obama as U.S. president. He looked so suave, cool, and nonchalantly in control. Yet bit by bit the amount of anti-life legislation passed under his administration caused a complete re-think.

Then there was the cleric, unusually gifted with music, and with the kind of gentle dramatic flair that could bring an auditorium of people into prayerful unison. Seemingly completely transparent and trustworthy, and yet now serving time for multiple offences against minors.

To which must be added the cleric with outstanding oratorial and intellectual gifts, preaching the truth brilliantly but not seeing a harvest of converted souls because the hearers either detected a lack of love or weren’t inspired by the content to give God a greater place in their hearts.

Many years it took for the truth to come to the fore for some of these.

Why am I currently mulling this over?

It’s like this: I went down an online rabbit hole recently and read about someone being totally impressed with the livestreamed replay of a pastor’s final session at a major church conference. Apparently there were manifestations of the Holy Spirit to an unusually high degree at this event. Before I commit myself to 2 hours’ viewing, I thought, I’d better get some background on this highly-rated pastor. I didn’t like what I found. Uppermost in those red flags were a lifestyle which included a private jet, and the beginnings of a blog-post - which due to a web page loop I couldn’t click through to the full-length version of - but was more or less saying that patient acceptance of sufferings wasn’t part of what Jesus meant when He said, ‘Take up your cross and follow Me’. Yet this pastor had a mega version of a mega church.

….And I ended up with a lot of questions:
How many of these manifestations of the Holy Spirit were true and how many were counterfeit?
How is it that God can seemingly work so powerfully through a red-flagged person?
How many of those who experienced manifestations of the Holy Spirit will produce a harvest of good?
How big is the risk that we seek manifestations and spectacular works of God, and that we neglect to seek God Himself for Himself?

Since I have seen true manifestations of the Holy Spirit, I know they are real.

On the other hand, if the evil one can counterfeit an angel of light, he can counterfeit anything lesser. Sobering, isn’t it?

I’m also reasonably sure that if what He wants to do in a person’s life is urgent, then God isn’t too fussy about the level of holiness of the means, as long as the means gets the person’s heart to open sufficiently for Him to act.

What else is certain is Romans 11:29: ‘God never takes back His gifts or revokes His choice.’

Which means that true charisms can be operating in someone, albeit at a lower and more mangled level if their lives aren’t corresponding to the degree of holiness necessary to match the charism.

This is rather amazing, because a friend of mine who operated in the word of knowledge charism said that the more her soul had been cleansed by repentance and confession, the more easily this charism flowed.

So what’s the bottom line?

Firstly, that we need to take seriously the need to pray for discernment; and I daresay to pray daily.

Secondly, that whenever we come across someone who appears to be operating in a charism of a higher order than average, that we then have a duty to pray for this person.
Here’s why: If they are already good, prayers will both defend them and help them to become even more effective in God’s service. If they are not so good, and yet they are having this level of impact, imagine how immeasurably greater that impact would be if they grew in goodness. Since often we don’t know if they are at the level of goodness which God desires for them, it makes sense to not bother too much about ascertaining this situation, and to bother instead about praying for them.

Will I watch that conference session video? Probably not.
I’d prefer to spend the limited time I have on content with a better track record of holy sources. But I can’t say never, because at some point in the future God may indicate that He wants me to watch it.
​
You see, I keep circling back to the notion that if that final night conference session was of the ‘God stepped in’ order of magnitude, then people would be talking about it all over the place; they’d have an inner compulsion to share it far and wide, and as far as I can tell that hasn’t happened.