Chateau Lloyd

Ash Wednesday holds a peculiar place on the liturgical calendar.  It is not a holy day of obligation, but most Catholics treat it as one.  Indeed, I can think of several holy days of obligation with far less participation.

What is more, Protestants are increasingly embracing it.  In a time of rising Christian persecution (both at home and abroad), it is a bold way to state one's Christian witness, and I'm sure many Protestants want to "reclaim" it rather than let Catholics have all the fun.

What was different this year was how many government officials openly wore ashes.  I don't recall ever seeing this before.  Ash Wednesday was always a local thing, but social media prominently displayed cabinet officials, celebrities, podcasters, etc. wearing their ashes.  It was so blatant that the secularists were quite upset.

The sudden prevalence of ashes is a necessary reminder that human societies are non-linear.  They can peak, fall and then peak again.  Decline is rarely irreversible, and usually leads to a transformation rather than total destruction.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Catholic Church, which survived the fall of multiple empires, plagues, internal dissent, heresy and much, much more.  In the current age, I think a great many people want something old, traditional and proven rather than yet more innovation.  The notion of having ashes placed on you is wonderfully archaic.

This is why I regard the prevalence of "nones" (people with no particular religious preference) as an opportunity rather than a problem.  Many of them likely were raised in the Church, and drifted away due to the scandals and (to be blunt) general cowardice on the part of the bishops.  It is telling that far more hue and cry is being raised about deporting illegal immigrants than lawfully admitted Catholic clergy.  People notice this sort of thing.

Strong, outspoken leadership can easily reverse this, and attract non-Catholics as well.  

As I've written before, "nice" Christianity is a dead end.  People want to be challenged, and they also want a religion that projects confidence in its beliefs, especially the "hard teachings."

Going out into the world carrying an ashen cross is a sign of faith and confidence, and I think both draw otherwise uncommitted people in.

Some years ago I got a copy of Bulfinch's Mythology, which I think was a gift from my father.  He has a copy, and highly recommended it.

This is one of the standard books that every respectable house had in it, along with a Bible, a dictionary, and some Mark Twain.

The original work was from the 19th Century and help bring Greek and Norse mythology alive in a world where only the elites could study them in the original languages.  It has since been edited and provided with a modern commentary, which makes some corrections, but sadly has the typical scholarly viewpoint that all religions are bunk.

What is more, it takes the point of view that similarities in mythology are proof that things were "borrowed," and one sees this particularly in the notion that the Bible was cribbed together from Egyptian and Babylonian faiths.  

The notion that everyone is trying to describe the same spiritual events from different perspectives is of course unthinkable, because no amount of proof is sufficient to convince the scholarly atheists.

I must give credit to the Lord of Spirits podcast, which opened my eyes to the reality of the spirit world.  I have since deepened that by reading further into Catholic mysticism and of course several accounts of spiritual warfare.

What really stood out to me upon digging back into Bulfinch's Mythology was how he was drawing the lines more than a century ago, and using the premise that the Bible was correct.  Of course, one can go back the St. Augustine to find assertions that the Greco-Roman deities were really fallen angels, so nothing is really new.

At any rate, it's inspiring me to write again, though I'll need to read more first before I have my thoughts fully formed.

Recent revelations regarding American governmental expenditures have highlighted a long-running concerns among religious people, and Catholics in particular: what is the moral price for getting state funding?

It has long been reported in Catholic media that Catholic charities have been willing to violate Church teachings in exchange for government cash, but the stoppage of funding through USAID has highlighted the problem.  The bishops may lament the result layoffs, but the laity want to know how much was skimmed off the top and what exactly was done with the money.

Liberal Catholics refuse to confront the problem directly, instead claiming dubious moral authority based on selective use of the Scriptures.  Setting aside their hypocrisy in using proof texts regarding immigration but forgetting them when it comes to sexual morality and the culture of life, there is simply no excuse for accepting the sinful strings attached the money.

What used to be the mainstream press is running interference for them, but as the recent election showed, only a minority of people rely on that for information.  The most engaged Catholics - the ones most likely to donate - use independent media and online newsletters, and these organs have been fiercely critical of the Church's leadership.  Put simply, taking taxpayer funds is making a Faustian bargain.  In the first place, it corrupts the moral authority of the Church by compelling violations of doctrine, such as funding birth control, abortion, sodomite pride and legitimizing unlimited migration, including violent criminals.

It also enervates the laity, teaching them that tithing is not necessary because the government is picking up the check.

Again, the usual arguments are being trotted out about 'greater good' and being pragmatic, but the looming shutdown of USAID has indicated that the promised gain sometimes doesn't show up, just the sin.

This has also kicked of a needed debate about Catholic theology regarding the hierarchy of love and the odd modern need to help strangers while neglecting family.  I am not the only one noticing that my parish and diocesan newsletters regularly point to critical shortages for the local food bank while also noting how many foreigners - almost certainly here illegally - are being supported.

As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of human behavior could point out, you get more of what you pay for, so the Catholic Church's charities are creating incentives for lawbreaking that creates significant costs for the faithful.  While some allege some sort of sinister long game, I think it's a combination of misguided sentiment and good old fashioned bureaucratic empire building.

This episode has echoes of the collapse of the Catholic Church in Europe, particularly in Germany, where the cozy Church-state relationship has cratered Mass attendance but provided lucrative careers in charities that for the moment are flush with cash.  In the long term, however, both are doomed to weaken, and this knowledge is probably why the German clergy are so determined to mimic their Protestant neighbors, despite the obvious fact that they are in even worse shape.

At its core, the problem is that much of the Church leadership has lost the plot.  They have forgotten that their mission is to save souls, and feeding the hungry and clothing the poor are but a means to that end.  By becoming complicit in sin, the whole point of the exercise is lost.

Recently, I've been getting some inquiries about why I chose to use the term "Yard Sign Calvinism" to describe the moral framework of woke leftists.   I coined the phrase about three years ago, and used it  describe the kind of people who use yard signs to signal their moral superiority over the rest of us.  These have a variety of catch phrases, but of particular note is the "We believe" secular credo loaded with phrases like "love is love," and "science is real."

The emergence of these yard signs pushed me further into the realization that people are not really motivated by politics - that is to say policy decisions and their real-world impact - but by faith, and though they may claim otherwise, secular materialists absolutely have a religion.

Thus, the key to understanding (and predicting) their behavior was to understand their theology, not through their tangled, illogical and contradictory policy positions.   Using this lens, one sees their moral framework as a Christian heresy rather than a cohesive political/economic program.

If it is a heresy, what are its features?   This post will answer that question.

For one thing, it is all about moral superiority.  Yard Sign Calvinists are just better than you, in every way.  They're so good they have to let the world know.  It's not enough for them to donate heroic amounts of money or volunteer at a soup kitchen, that takes actual effort.  The yard sign does all the work necessary.

Theologically speaking, this very closely resembles the Elect of Calvinist doctrine.  Those who aren't of the Elect, are governed by the doctrine of Utter Depravity, deserving neither mercy, or even respect.  This is why the Elect treat everyone else with such utter disdain.  It also explains why there are two sets of rules - one for them, and one for everyone else.  Thus, one of the Elect harassing someone online for a meme, trying to get them fired, or even driving them to suicide always has a clear conscience.  They may not phrase it that way, but they feel they are doing the Lord's work.  Often they'll claim it is karma.

However, the same tactics used against them are vile, evil, horrific because they are Good People.  Bad things shouldn't happen to Good People, and they get really upset when they do.

This is why I use the term  Yard Sign Calvinists - by their yard signs they are saved.  They also believe in Justification by Rage Alone instead of grace.  They don't really experience grace as Christians do.  For them the use of power is their chief source of pleasure.  That is why this is also a demonic faith, fueled by pride (the signs they display for social status), wrath and envy.

Only a Yard Sign Calvinist would live in a 3,500-square-foot home with two SUVs in the driveway while keeping a "Climate Change Now" sign in the yard.

Now let's look at an actual Calvinist apologetic and see whether there is any alignment with their beliefs.

They have a nifty (naturally Dutch-centric) acronym to capture their Five Graces:  TULIP, which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance.  

I'll let them speak for themselves:

Total depravity says that we are not just sick, but we are dead in our sins, in our trespasses, and there’s nothing that we can do in and of ourselves to procure our salvation.

Unconditional election says that before the foundation of the world, before we were born, before there even was a creation, God in his own immutable decree determined who would be saved—that he elected. He chose those who would by faith come to him and this choice was not based on foreseen faith—not just God putting in the tape to see what we would do millennia later—but based on his own good will and purposes he chose us.

Limited Atonement, or sometimes called Particular Redemption, means that the extent of Christ’s work on the cross—insofar as it was a saving work to save sinners—is for the elect. That Christ died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the elect only. So the extent of the atonement is limited in that way.

Irresistible Grace means that God sovereignly, supernaturally, irresistibly by his Spirit, of his own accord and not cooperating with us—so it’s monergistic not synergistic; that is, he’s the only one working, mono—saves us and causes us to be born again and implants within us the faith to believe.

And then finally the P is that God will work out in all of his chosen ones, in all of those who are truly justified, that they will persevere to the end and will ultimately be glorified.

To me, this sounds a lot like how the yard sign virtue-signalers think.  They are the Elect, Good People chose because of who they are.  Maybe not by God, but by the Goddess, or karma, or whatever.  They also believe that everyone else is irredeemable, so they don't even try to convert them.

It's interesting that in the discussion below, the presenters go out of their way to say that Calvinism seems to contradict evangelization because if God picked the winners and losers before time, what good will missionaries do?  They don't really have a strong answer to that, which is interesting, and they admit that a number of Calvinists believe that.

Limited Atonement also rolls into this, because to the extent that they may believe in God, they love it when their enemies suffer from natural disasters.  Hurricanes wrecking the Bible Belt fills them with glee and is proof that the depraved are suffering and getting no grace from God.  (The atheists wing will ask "where is your sky god now?")

Irresistible Grace and Perseverance reinforce the Unconditional Election doctrine by guaranteeing that the Elect will be saved.  They are going to heaven, no matter what they do.  This is why there is such a wide disconnect between their stated goals and the results of their policies and actions.  It doesn't matter whether gun control lowers crime, and if it produces massive violence, well, their intentions were pure, and they're still Elect.  

Indeed, every policy is the Right Thing To Do whether or not it works.

And yes, they can seamlessly transition from calling for civility and respect in one breath to damning everyone they disagree with in the next.  The same people whose signs read "no human is illegal" also want their political opponents thrown in prison for life.  

Even my kids get it, noting that houses with "Hate Has No Home Here" would likely fail the test if a someone wearing a MAGA hat knocked on the door.

This is the part where I make the obvious statement: no, these people are not actual Calvinists.  They are likely entirely ignorant of all of this, but the Puritan belief system is nevertheless deeply embedded in American culture.

Calvinism's greatest strength is the feeling of self-esteem and individual license it offers.  Once you realize you are of the Elect, you can do anything you want.

All religions are prone to individual scandals, but I think it fascinating that the greatest Reform theologian of the 20th Century, Karl Barth, openly kept a mistress in his home for decades.  She was also his secretary, so necessary for his work, which justified his unrepentant adultery.  Also important - none of his colleagues ever called him out on it.  Only decades after his death was the truth revealed.

Barth's actions were the logical end of Calvinism.  One of the catalysts for writing this post was a debate with a Calvinist, and when I remarked that I was but a wretched sinner, he said that those who have true grace no longer sin.  When challenged on this, he said that their actions may resemble sin, but are now sanctified, which sounds a lot like Barth having a mistress but it being no longer sinful because of his grace.

I think the most powerful argument against Calvinism is its fruit.  Or rather, the lack thereof.  The birthplace of Calvinism and one of the most staunchly Calvinist principalities - Switzerland and the Netherland, respectively - have both embraced the modernist culture of death.  The Dutch are some of the most decadent people in Europe, and so loathe their culture and faith that they have invited waves of Muslim migrants into their cities.  The ancient cathedrals - stolen from the Catholic Church - are now mere museums.

The Scottish Presbyterians have likewise collapsed into schism and degeneracy.  Scotland itself is a nihilist wasteland.

Calvinism's zenith was shortly after its foundation, when it could define itself against both the Church and rival denominations, but its evangelization has been chiefly through migration and modern Calvinists struggle to raise their young people in the faith.  I looked at the web page for Calvin University (formerly Calvin College), located an hour west of here, it while it claims to have a 100% Christian faculty, the "about" page has the usual diversity nonsense and brags about minority enrollment. 

This is not particularly good fruit.

Calvinist can hate on me if they like, but I suggest they take the label in stride.  Calvinism is a dying faith, and Yard Sign Calvinism is at least an opportunity to explain the "true" version of their religion.

Almost exactly three years ago, I noted that far from being a source of reconciliation and healing, the Eastern Orthodox churches in Ukraine and Russia were instead adding fuel to the fire.  The entire Eastern Orthodox communion has been riven asunder over the issue, with anathemas for everyone.

I mentioned this in the context of the Lord of Spirits podcast, which was hosted by two Eastern Orthodox priests.  I enjoyed it because Orthodox and Catholic beliefs regarding the spirit world are essentially identical, which is why Eastern Rite Catholics exist.  As it turned, out, the show eventually went full anti-Catholic, which was a shame, but also somewhat inevitable given the mentality of many Eastern Orthodox practitioners. 

It is all well and good to snipe at the Catholic Church and its many failings, but here again we have the classic example of ignoring the log in one's own eye.  The Orthodox Communion is a mess.  First Things has a good overview of where things are today, but it does not do the debacle full justice because it leaves out the reactions of the various other Patriarchies.  The author correctly notes that for various historic reasons, Orthodoxy has divided on national lines, creating a fusion of faith and ethnicity that is a clear obstacle to Christian unity.

Before the conflict, the Ukrainians were part of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which could have been a vehicle for reconciliation.  Instead, there are now two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, and both have split from Moscow, though the one still insists in being in communion with her Slavic brothers.  One church has become three and the various members freely harass, attack and imprison the clergy of the others.

The other problem Eastern Orthodoxy faces is expanding the faith.  There is no systemic way for the communion as a whole to do this, and so we get grab-bags of ethnic churches competing with one another, setting up parishes, organizing provinces without any sort of plan.  The Patriarchate of Moscow not long announced that it was going to set up missions in Africa, which was a blatant infringement on the Patriarch of Alexandria, which has an ancient claim to the continent.

Who will referee this?  Not Constantinople.  The Ecumenical Patriarch might not survive much longer under an increasingly Islamic-focused Turkish government.  The sultans needed the Patriarch to manage the Christian millet, but there are so few Christians left and this is no longer necessary.

All of which is to say that everyone's got problems.  

The big hope for 2025 is an end to the East-West Schism, which could also heal the fissures in Eastern Orthodoxy.  This is why the pope exists - to be a focal point of unity backed by the Magisterium of the Church.

Francis has been quite the autocrat, especially in the last few years, deposing bishops and attacking the sovereign status of the Knights of Malta, and as a result, the next pope may be more interested in making the limits of papal power clear - particularly if it can heal the Great Schism.

The most rapidly growing religious group in the US is the "nones," that is, people who have no formal religious affiliation.  Many identify themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" and I was once one of them.

Crisis Magazine has something of a deep dive on what Nones believe and what they practice.

In many ways, they are the heirs of America's fragmented Protestant heritage, which hold that each person can have their own interpretation of the Bible, and refuses to acknowledge any other religious authority.  It is a very American approach to faith.

I think it is also an outgrowth of the mainstreaming of role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, which pushed the notion that people would be judged not by the good or evil of their actions, but whether they followed the faith of their choice.  Thus, worshippers of Zeus would be judged on their terms, Muslims on theirs, and Christians theirs.

This neatly side-stepped the issue of whether there was one true God and also the consequences of ignoring Him.  If you identify as a neo-pagan or Wiccan, well then that is how your fate after death will be determined.

Alas, the world doesn't quite work that way, and while you may not be interested in the devil, the devil is very much interested and you.  There are many accounts in the exorcism community of how New Age or neopagans ended up opening doors that were better left closed.

There is also the fact that such beliefs rarely provide a sturdy foundation for success in this world, let alone the next.   While there are indeed plenty of observant Christians who are also screw-ups, the fact is that there are vanishingly few Nones that seem to be happy and/or stable.  I know several that have found material prosperity, but they remain mired in a worldview that keeps them perpetually aggrieved and/or distracted.  

They also tend to divorce a lot.

I think a big part of this is the hubris of someone deciding that all of the other traditions are flawed or incorrect, and that they can achieve something just as good or better based on their own wits and insight.  What actually happens is that they entrench their sins as virtues.

This also leads to Yard Sign Calvinism, performative virtue-signaling where intentions matter more than results.

The only positive element of this is that by acknowledging the possibility of a spirit world, the Nones have a decent chance of finding their way back to the true faith.  

I think it is essential that Catholics especially use a soft touch with these folks, inviting them rather than hectoring them, as Protestants often do.  Above all things, though, there must also be a willingness to speak clearly.  "Nice" Christianity is a dead end.

At this point, most of the Episcopal Church seems to be engaged in some sort of virtue-signaling performance art.  God is at best a tertiary concern, something to be invoked for moral authority, but never a primary concern.

How else to explain the bizarre case of an Anglican Priest withholding the Eucharist until his social justice demands are met?

There are lots of ways to look at this nonsense, but the core problem is that the cleric has a very flawed understanding of salvation and the sacraments.  In orthodox Christianity, there is no collective guilt.  One cannot punish Peter for the sins of Paul.  The whole point of Reconciliation is to receive a personal absolution, and the Eucharist is likewise administered on an individual basis.

To pretend otherwise is to eliminate any motivation for personal holiness, and destroy the hope of salvation.  

Yet this is where we are, because the progressive politics exist to condemn rather than convert.

A couple of years ago I wrote about the national forgiveness deficit, and this is a great example of how it has infiltrated Christianity.  The punishment is increasingly more important than the salvation.

Because that is really what faith is supposed to be about.  This deranged cleric probably thinks he's being very saintly in some way, forcing the world to confront evil, but he's just preening about keeping people from God.  Instead of being an intercessor he's become and interceptor, blocking Communion until his personal demands are met.  His flock's salvation is being held for ransom, and it speaks volumes that his pathetic leadership can't managed to come to a decision after almost three years.

This is Dead-End Christianity, a faith that leads to nowhere.  No conversion, no salvation, just preening and appealing to the Spirit of the Age.  It cannot go away fast enough.

I'm old enough to view the outcomes of political elections as highly overblown.  Most of my adult life has been spent hearing how each election is the last off-ramp from tyranny, a point of no return for democracy or freedom or whatnot.

In the case of the past year, it has already been proven correct.  A great spiritual cleansing has taken place and people of goodwill have felt the lifting of a great burden, precisely in the manner described in our Advent readings.  The majority of Americans had been conditioned to believe that they were a tiny minority, and the Arc of History was going to see them crushed to powder.

That was proven false, and as the days passed, it has been interesting to see the preference cascade as defectors flee the ranks of the woke, either out of relief or fear of retaliation.

A year ago I wrote that 2023 was about "tidying up," finishing things off from the previous years.  I think 2024 finally saw forward progress in multiple ways, and the coming year promises even more positive changes.  In retrospect, I was perhaps unduly pessimistic in my take on politics, but my final thought was spot on: putting more trust in God and his mercy has paid rich rewards.

The last few months in particular has seen renewed friendships, healed relationships and the prospects for personal growth open up.  There is still much to be done, but I approach the new year with a confidence that has been sorely lacking of late.

The spiritual victory delivered in November continues to produce visible effects in the material world.  The latest example has been an outpouring of Christmas greetings in my area.  Whereas people once chose the safe, vague "Happy Holidays," now those who offer it get a rousing "Merry Christmas," in return, which they enthusiastically repeat.

At every venue, every interaction, this is the norm rather than the exception.  It is almost a code word for defiant, resurgent faith.

Chateau Lloyd remained busy up until Christmas Day, when things calmed down and we spent much of the time eating, napping, and getting ready to eat, and then napping after we were done.  Truly a feast day for the ages.

The Children's Mass on Christmas Eve was packed as usual, and the student choir was excellent.  The mood could only be described as joyous.  

This is as it should be, and the bad memories of 2020 are quickly fading in the face of boisterous children with no memory of it, only the natural energy of youth.

In other news, the tide has turned decisively against my contention that Die Hard is not a Christmas movie.  Oh well.  I will stand my ground.

The restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral is a marvelous thing.  How encouraging to see world leaders visiting a sacred Christian space and treating it with such respect?

This goes beyond political pleasantries or diplomatic protocols - the cathedral is itself beautiful.  I have never seen it, but I recall being moved to tears by the beauty of the Dom in Trier.

When I was younger, I partly bought into the Protestant argument that golden chalices and detailed artwork were a form of idolatry, and that money spent on architecture was better used to feed the poor.  

Then I grew up.  I realized that faith is a not a zero-sum game, and that money spent on religious art actually can increase giving the poor because it touches the heart, and moves people to acts of charity.

These thoughts returned to me some months ago, when I attended a friend's funeral at a rural Baptist church. The building was purely utilitarian, the fit and finish were right in line with any other institution.  Other than the cross on the far wall, the main space could have been confused for a hotel conference room, which even had a projection screen.  The entire laying was sterile, reminiscent of a public school auditorium.  There was nothing to elevate, or inspire.  The service itself was something of a variety show, with the pastor sitting like Johnny Carson off to one side as the acts performed.

Returning to my parish, I gratefully took in the various images and icons, the Stations of the Cross carvings, chapel and various grottos for private devotions.  I should add that as far as Catholic church buildings go, my parish is actually pretty modern, having been built in 1957 in a college town, so it has many mid-century flourishes and the seating forms a semi-circle, rather than the traditional cruciform aisles.

Still, when the there are slow moments, I am comforted by those images, which help keep my mind on task.  I also think of the artisans responsible for the work, and the satisfaction they no doubt derive from glorifying God.

That's the larger point - if we view religious art as decadent and wasteful, we will have only secular art, which is far more vulgar and typically points to sin.  Is it not better to have talented painters evoke salvation history or should they go for the make their money in pornography?

One of the greatest negative outcomes of Vatican II was the destruction of so much religious art.  Our cathedral is currently undertaking a massive restoration project to undo the damage wrought on it by the reformers.  Vivid murals were simply painted over and the building was given a white, sterile appearance.  Nothing to elevate or inspire.  It looked Protestant.  I can understand why people would have left the Church upon seeing that - and I can also see how people might consider conversion when beholding the meticulous devotion and financial investment in sacred beauty.

This power was celebrated by G.K. Chesterton and Evelyn Waugh, who already seeing the destructive hand a modernism calling for new "efficiencies."

I'm sure they would loathe what passes for Protestant religious art, which is either abstract or kitchy and saccharine and self-indulgent.  I'm thinking specifically of soft-focus portraits of Christ, making him look more like a 1970s hippie musician than the Savior.  I suppose it's an outgrowth of the "personal savior" motif and as such He's more of a boyfriend or pal than the Son of Man.

Of course, a recurring Protestant criticism of religious art is that its somehow idolatry, which is patently absurd.  No one is offering sacrifice to the images, or attempting to trap a deity within a sacred statue.  Icons are what they appear to be - images that help center our thought on God.   What better way to contemplate the sacred mysteries than by gazing on an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

That's another element - much of the art has historic value, and when we look at it, we see how our forefathers perceived God and salvation history.  This in turn points us to seeking the wisdom of the Church Fathers and the writings and acts of the saints.  Archeology confirms that sacred art has always been used in both Judaism and Christianity.  That modern variants of the two have turned their backs on it only underlines how out of the orthodox traditions they have become.