Lead Us Not into Temptation

 

I hear Pope Francis has changed the words to the Lord’s Prayer in the Italian mass. “Lead us not into temptation” is now, in English translation, “do not abandon us to temptation.”

Francis has spoken of this before. I recall him saying years ago that “lead us not into temptation” is a bad translation. God, after all, would never lead us into temptation.

But it is not a bad translation. The words in the original coine Greek, and in the Latin of the Vulgate, do translate to English as “lead us not,” and cannot be made to mean “do not abandon us.”

And this wording is given us by Jesus himself. Francis is presuming to correct Jesus. If that is permissible, what is forbidden? Is self-will  and our own judgement sovereign in the universe?

I also think Francis is theologically wrong. Although it is a mystery, some of us clearly are led into temptation, in a way others are not. This has to be God’s will, since God is all-powerful. God tempts us. 

He tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He need not have created that particular tree, of forbidden fruits. He need not have given them free will. He need not have allowed the serpent. It was a setup.

Some of us are patently tempted to have homosexual sex; some are not. Some are tempted by alcohol, or gambling; others are not. Say this is from the Devil, and not God; nevertheless, the Book of Job tells us, God gives permission. If he does not tempt us himself, he leads us into temptation. As with Job, he is testing us.

When I was a kid in Catholic school, I understood the prayer well enough. I feared martyrdom, the temptation to renounce the faith in the face of torture and death. Some are put to that test. I did not want that temptation. 

And that, of course, is the temptation Jesus himself faced. 

Please make it easy for me if you can, Lord. Take this cup from my lips, if it is acceptable to your will.

And consider this. If the meaning is “do not abandon us to temptation,” this asserts that, at the moment of temptation, God abandons us. 

This thought is nightmarish. And it implies that, if tempted, one cannot, need not, resist.

Lord of the Flies

 

Back when I was going through high school, Lord of the Flies was a staple of the curriculum. It seems it still is, at least where it has not been replaced by the latest indigenous author. But I think the book is widely misunderstood.

It is commonly contrasted with Catcher in the Rye. The premise is that Catcher sees mankind as intrinsically good, but corrupted by adult society; the view of Rousseau and Marxism. Lord of the Flies sees man as intrinsically evil, but civilized by adult society. Supposedly the traditional “conservative” view.

One can see why educational authorities would therefore like the book, and this interpretation of it. It validates their authority. Even if they are Marxists, they are going to see themselves as the “vanguard of the proletariat.”

Yet neither view is coherent. If man is intrinsically good, how could they become evil when in groups? Where does evil get in? How can individuals not be greedy, yet corporations and governments are? 

Conversely, if man is intrinsically evil, how can people become good simply by joining in groups? Or by getting older, growing up? And as this obviously makes no sense, how does he ever become good?

Lord of the Flies expressly denies that society or government civilizes. There is a nuclear war going on; that is the context for the book. The strife among the abandoned boys only echoes what is happening in the adult world of governments. Ralph’s parents are divorced. Piggy’s mother is unaccounted for. 

The conch, symbol of authority on the island, is also the source of all the troubles. It is almost like the apple in Eden. If disorder and “fun” is deadly, social order in turn, seems inevitably bound in with the quest for power over others. Neither Ralph nor Piggy are immune from this; they both crave superiority and power over others, just as Jack and Roger do. The best organized and disciplined group on the island, the choir, becomes the most troublesome. The boy chosen by adult society for leadership turns out to be the most power-hungry and irresponsible.

And the role of the choir seems also to discount organized religion as a possible source of morality. These are the boys who would have been most thoroughly grounded in the faith.

The one truly good, altruistic character is Simon. Simon is “batty.” Simon sees visions. Simon likes to go off on his own and meditate. Simon can apparently read minds, and has intimations of the future. 

Morality and truth must come to us, then, deus ex machina. Which is to say, from revelation, from grace. Some few among us are prophets, in contact with a spirit world. They occasionally come down from the mountaintop, emerge from the wilderness, to deliver important truths from beyond.

They are likely to be ignored or considered mad.

Where do we find such characters in our present world? 

We know of the prophets in the Bible; and no doubt the Bible is a civilizational source of guidance and morality. 

But also in the works of solitary artists. In books like Lord of the Flies.

This is what civilizes us; this is what brings us what goodness or truth we find in this fallen world. It is literature and culture that dulls the power of the carrion impulses, the Lord of the Flies.

Where Bad Poetry Comes From

 

Wordsworth

Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I attended a poetry group. Each meeting, we decided on a theme for the next meeting. 

This one week, someone suggested “memories.”

And met with immediate objections.

I would not expect that. Poetry itself, after all, is all about memory. Memory is the medium of poetry, as text is for prose, or the human voice for drama. “It takes its origin,” Wordsworth said, “from emotion recollected in tranquility.”

But the immediate objection was that memories were “triggering.” They could cause “trauma.”

Another participant chimed in that he had no memories, and so could not participate. He had, he said, a form of amnesia called “anaphasia.” This was due, he explained, to a terrible childhood.

Another participant said that she could not discuss Dylan’s lyrics as poetry, because her abusive former husband used to play Dylan’s “Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright,” when threatening to leave her.

This does not add up. The essential concept of psychotherapy has always been that reliving memories of trauma is healing. “Memory” is the essence of the Buddhist practice commonly referred to in English as “mindfulness.” It heals the soul. Poetry is the medicine that heals old wounds. 

I took the trouble to look up “anaphasia,” and find there is no such form of amnesia. I find the term online only in “The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows,” meaning “the fear that your society is breaking apart into factions that have nothing left in common with each other.” He might have misspoken, and meant aphasia, the nearest medical term. But this is “a comprehension and communication (reading, speaking, or writing) disorder resulting from damage or injury to the specific area in the brain.” Nothing to do with memory.

And the Dylan story doesn’t make too much sense either. An abusive partner is not someone threatening to leave. An abusive partner wants control of the other, wants to nail the door shut, to ensure they do not leave. If an abusive partner leaves, the victim should rejoice—especially in memory.

Nor is there anything abusive in the tone of the song: “I ain’t saying you treated me unkind. You could have done better, but I don’t mind.” A rather gentle way to say goodbye to a lover, on the whole.

The next oddment is that anyone afraid of their own memories would take to writing poetry as a hobby in the first place. Poetry is intrinsically involved with memory, as Wordsworth says. And in the case of these poets, their own poems are most often talking about their personal past—memories. 

How does this make sense?

I imagine that recalling memories, although cathartic and healing, may be scary in prospect. 

But methinks these reactions are beyond the reasonable. Methinks they do protest too much. 

Who is most likely to be afraid of their memories?

Not be the abused, but the abuser. In the typical dysfunctional family, everyone else but the abuser is proverbially “walking on eggshells,” avoiding any mention of “the elephant in the room.” Memory is dangerous when one has a bad conscience.

That seems just what we see here. Obviously, these poets are not afraid of what memories they might stir in their poems. They are in full control of that. They are afraid of what others might say. 

They are in desperate need to control their memories, to ensure that the “narrative” does not drift to something they are actually writing to repress. So they write poems as a fabricated narrative of their past.

They are fleeing a guilty conscience.

Good poetry is written to reveal truth, especially hidden truth. Bad poetry is written to conceal it.

What Is Success?

 

A friend in Japan is depressed because he never became a success.

What is success? I remember asking my Chinese students long ago, and none came up with what I considered a good answer.

Making more money than those around you? That hardly seems worth a life. As Steve Jobs put it, “I’m not interested in just dying the richest man in the cemetery.”

Worse than that, studies show that having more money than those whose company you enjoy leads to unhappiness. And this makes obvious sense: they may envy you. Conversely, they may only be flattering you in hopes of largesse. You can never know, and can never feel secure in their company.

Becoming famous? Anyone famous tells you that’s a nightmare. You have no privacy, and other people stop seeing you as a human being. You can’t make friends. You can’t even take a stroll to the corner store.

Having lots of sex? That’s emotionally deadening.

This was the Gospel reading yesterday:

‘And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said:
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
“Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
“Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
“Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.”’

To be clear, being rich is not a sin. Too many want to jump to that conclusion, out of envy. But it is a misfortunate. It is not something you should seek. It will make it more difficult for you to enter heaven. Like a camel passing through a needle’s eye.

This passage also means that we will be rewarded in heaven not just for good deeds, but also for any and all suffering we experience in this life. And our reward will be exponentially greater than the suffering.  God sends us suffering as a special grace; he has an important role for us in heaven.

So a success is someone who is poor, hungry, sad, and generally reviled.

I figure by that measure I’m a great success.

We’re not supposed to just sit around feeling sorry, though. Otherwise, what’s the point of being born? Jesus goes on, in the other version of the Beatitudes, in Matthew:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

So true success, beyond avoiding sin and cultivating virtue, is letting your light shine. 

Not just doing good deeds. "Good works" cannot be read here in this way. Jesus goes on immediately to say, 

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

But bringing light is bringing truth and beauty to those around you. To your wife, to your kids, to your friends, and beyond that to your community and the world, as your talents allow.

And artists know one monumental secret: beauty comes from suffering. 

God sends us suffering that we may transform it into beauty and truth. He has chosen us, as he chose the Jews.

The Ordo Amoris

 

There is a firestorm raging in the Catholic church on Trump’s policy of deporting illegal aliens. J.D. Vance cited the principle of ordo amoris: that one owes one’s greatest love to family, then community, then country, then mankind. This is indeed, as many conservative commentators have confirmed, traditional Catholic doctrine, supported by Augustine, Aquinas, several recent former popes, and even Pope Francis himself, in his past writings. Vance argued that modern leftism has turned this on its head, elevating the alien, demeaning the family, and condemning the USA. Pope Francis himself then chimed in, insisting Vance and Trump are wrong, that we must love all equally. An American bishop has proposed excommunicating any Catholic who follows Trump’s orders in deporting aliens.

I am personally torn here. Who is right? Before listening to J.D. Vance, I would have taken Francis’s view. However, I am disturbed by the fact that Francis is contradicting himself and prior popes. This suggests that for him, politics is trumping doctrine—and ethics.

We owe greatest love to family? But then, who is our family? See what Jesus says in the Gospel:

And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, that person is My brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46–50)

We owe greater love to those of our own community? But then the Good Samaritan, from a different community, is declared by Jesus to be the true neighbour, and not the Hebrew priest or scribe.

True love, caritas, is a love extended to all. Love restricted to family, or to nation, is too often only shared egotism. Once could cite Hitler’s Germany.

And yet, in defense of Trump and Vance’s position… anyone who has lived in or even visited a Third World country must realize that it is impossible to treat everyone equally. Give of your substance to all who are in need, and you would give away everything you have while doing almost no measurable good to anyone. Seven billion pennies. The poor you shall have always with you.

And, of course, your own children would starve. Does that sound right?

The principle must be this: you help whomever God sends to you, whomever you encounter on your life path, who is deserving, who does the will of God. The Samaritan is your neighbour, because he is good. “Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven.” This is also the lesson of Dives and Lazarus: Lazarus is a good man, and he is on the rich man’s doorstep, within his sight. 

This will usually mean a duty to help deserving members of your family, then your community, then your nation. But not because they are family members or physical neighbours. Because these are the ones God has presented to you for help. This also means you must support a deserving stranger before an immoral member of your family or your community.

How does this translate to government immigration policy? A government has their own population most immediately on their doorstep, literally already present. This means they must be favoured over foreigners, all else being equal. Moreover, the government owes a greater loyalty to the law abiding than to people of known bad moral character, i.e., those who enter the country illegally.

So whether or not he has the reasoning right, Vance is right on policy, and Francis is wrong. Illegal aliens are owed human dignity, but not entry.

It is harder to say how this applies to applicants for legal immigration. Those of good character should be preferred, but other than excluding known criminals, this is hard to establish. And a wealthy nation must restrict immigration in some way; otherwise you have the problem of giving away everything while benefitting no one. So the sensible thing is to choose immigrants for the most benefit brought to those already present. Which is how most nations operate. What skills are in short supply? Who is young and healthy and likely to add by their efforts to the general wealth?

Francis messed up. He is first and foremost a politician.

Happy Valentine's Day from Canada

 

Mark Carney

The mood everywhere on the left seems to verge on hysteria. Or perhaps this is “narcissistic rage.”

People are claiming that Trump’s tariffs and proposed unification are “an existential threat to Canada.” Those who welcome annexation are supposedly against Canada. Some point out that these are often the same people who supported the Freedom convoy, and claimed to be defending Candain culture against mass immigration. But they were traitors all along!

If the proposal to unite with the US is an existential threat to Canada, New Brunswick must have ceased to exist in 1867; British Columbia died in 1871. And all those blackguards we call Fathers of Confederation were traitors.

To the contrary: unification when possible with a larger body is the essence of Canada, beginning with union with the now dissolved British Empire. It is why Canada has always been a joiner when it comes to international bodies of all kinds.

And next to that, according to Laurier, the essence of Canada is freedom: “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.” If, therefore, Canadians preserve freedom in union with neighbours—or even increase their freedom—this is the perfect expression of the Canadian identity.

If one’s “Canadianness” consists only in not being American, this is not a nationality. It is merely a prejudice. In all the normal senses of the word, Canadian culture is American culture. Same language, same religion, same ethnicity, same political ideology, same history. If you reject American culture, you are rejecting Canadian culture. You are the one who is unpatriotic.

If Trump is an existential threat to Canada, moreover, then a man is an existential threat to a woman if he asks her to marry him. Were we not hysterical, we would at least be gracious, and appreciate the offer.

Instead, our embarrassing leadership, including Mark Carney, respond with threats and insults. These seem calculated to harm, first and foremost, Canada. They cannot seriously harm Trump or the US. At best, they are hysteria. At worst, they are treason.

Trump's Grand Strategy

 

A map of the contiguous 55 states.

Trump’s foreign policy moves—wanting to annex Greenland, wanting to annex Canada, wanting the Panama Canal returned, wanting to take Gaza—might seem random outbursts, back of the envelope ideas. But they all make sense on one strategic principle.

Trump is preparing for war with China or perhaps a China-Russia coalition. He is not inclined to be caught flat-footed, as Britain was in 1939.

This is just as well, since China seems to be preparing for war, and Russia has already started.

Trump needs Greenland as a source of rare earth minerals, necessary for chip production. China has the other great cache of rare earth, and the US as well as the rest of the world is currently reliant on them. Doom in case of war.

Denmark is just not big or strong enough to protect Greenland and its sea lanes if China or Russia struck first. Perhaps the US could take it back, but that’s a much more difficult proposition than defending it well in the first place. And taking it back is not enough. Mines must be developed and a supply chain set up in advance of conflict. Otherwise American will not be able to make the weapons needed to take it back.

The same applies to Canada’s North. It too is rich in minerals, including strategic oil and uranium. Like Denmark, Canada is not strong enough to defend this vast territory. And on top of oil and minerals, the Northwest Passage may soon become more navigable—if not due to global warming, due to improved icebreaking technology. This could then become a critical supply route for both the US East Coast and Europe—a shorter route than the Panama Canal. But a route vulnerable to Russia nearby.

Supply routes become critical in time of war. Britain defeated Germany in both past wars largely due to blockade; while Germany’s best hope was cutting off the North Atlantic convoy with their U-boats. Britain always pursued a similar strategy of owning the choke points for trade: Gibraltar, Suez, Singapore, Quebec, Aden, the Cape of Good Hope. America cannot rely any longer, as it once could, on a strong Britain to keep trade routes open.

And so too the importance of the Panama Canal. The US needs to hold that choke point, and keep it away from China. Panama cannot defend it. It connects the American East and West coasts.

And now look at Gaza. Note how close it is to the Suez Canal. A US military base in Gaza is at least in easy striking distance—across good flat tank terrain, let alone in bomber range. The US does not need Suez for its trade—but Europe does. Thus Trump should want to control it, both to protect Europe and, if necessary, to keep Europe in line.

This is also why Trump has just declared 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. These are strategic materials, needed for tanks, artillery, airplanes, ships, shells. America cannot import their steel from China, fostering that industry, while their own withers. And it is better not to rely on vulnerable and not entirely reliable Canada either—unless Canada joins the union, with the US armed forces to build and maintain strong defenses.

Canada not entirely reliable? No; Justin Trudeau has demonstrated that to the Americans. Canada can elect governments with Chinese and totalitarian sympathies; and Americans remember Cuba. Canada has proven vulnerable to Chinese and Indian espionage and influence over its electoral process. Canda is letting in a lot of immigrants who may not be democratic or pro-Western in their allegiances.

I used to be a firm believer in free trade. But its advantages are gone in case of war. America’s great advantage has always been its massive industrial production and self-sufficiency, protected behind oceans from sudden attack. It could always win a long war. Trump must restore that massive industrial production and security of resources to make America safe again. 

Once we see the strategy, we can perhaps predict Trump’s future moves. One can expect him to act quickly and decisively to bring chip production onshore from Taiwan and Indonesia. Expect big tariffs here. I would not be surprised if he offered Denmark statehood, during Greenland negotiations, in order to control the entrance to the Baltic Sea.

Other ideas are welcome in the comments.