“Springing Forward”

“Springing Forward (Morning on the River).” March 2023.

As usual, I crafted this artwork “digitally” at JJStudios (aka my iPad), with some drawing tools (on touchscreen) and some filters, adjustments, application of effects. It probably takes less time than painting (and definitely requires less space and external materials). But it is an “original work of art” that absorbed lots of time, attention, energy, and creativity.

Someday, I might look into offering “prints” of these for sale, if there is interest.

When (and Why) Did “The United Nations” Begin?

Twentieth Century global conflicts set the stage for the world we live in today, and the problems we face.

In the latter part of World War II, the nations around the world (and their soon-to-be-independent colonies) who were united in the fight against Hitler and militant Japan began to refer to their global alliance as “the United Nations.” The leading allies were Great Britain, the (eventually-fully-restored) "Free French," the United States of America, China (under the decidedly anti-Communist Chiang Kai-Shek), and the Soviet Union. The War was so desperate that few considered the implications of the fact that the Soviet Union was still held ideological prisoner by the Bolshevik Communist revolution, which at that time meant that it was also the personal fiefdom of the murderous, genocidal Joseph Stalin (who was presented in affectionate terms as "Uncle Joe" during the war).

It was American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who envisioned this vast and unprecedented alliance continuing after the war and opening itself up to all the nations of the world, as a institution to preserve peace, to moderate disputes, to collaborate in global activities to the benefit of all, and to deliberate about what was necessary for the security of nations and peoples. Thus, The United Nations as we know it today emerged from World War II. 

Nearly 80 years later, it can be said that the U.N. has accomplished some good things, but overall the work of the U.N. has been quite a mixed bag, for many reasons. In particular, there is one structural problem that hobbles the U.N. to this day, and that is the nature and structure of the Security Council. In retrospect, it’s almost incredible to look back at the naive idealism of so many Westerners as the wars with Germany and Japan drew to a close in 1945.

The plan was that the “Big Five” allies in the wars would form the basis of the Security Council that would keep the peace, rein in offending nations, and authorize U.N. sponsored military interventions by member states if necessary. Other nations would also serve limited terms as Security Council members on a rotating basis. But the USA, Britain, France, China, and the Soviet Union would be permanent members, and each would have veto power over any proposal made (even if everyone else on the Security Council favored it). When the U.N. Charter was drawn up in 1945, it appeared to be a peacetime continuation of the unity of the Powers that were working together on three fronts to win “the Good War” against the destructive Germans and Japanese.

In fact, reality was a lot more complicated. Roosevelt’s ill-considered demand for “unconditional surrender” compelled the Allies to conquer completely the offending nations, thus deflating the possibility of working with any internal resistance within Germany or Japan. It may be that there were no viable alternatives in the case of Nazi Germany. It’s still difficult to penetrate the internal politics of Imperial Japan at that strange time, except to say that there were diverse opinions, but these became irrelevant in the face of the prospect of total conquest and foreign occupation. 

Granted, the militarist Japanese were unscrupulous aggressors who perpetrated war crimes, and their decisive and permanent defeat was necessary. How else could it have been accomplished? There was never an opportunity to explore options other than conquering the entire island nation. The project was so daunting that the Allies saw no hope other than to unleash the dogs of war on a scale never before seen in history. But indiscriminate aerial terror bombing of entire civilian populations, even when considered in this desperate context, cannot be justified. And the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki recklessly ushered in the era of nuclear war. 

As I have said before, the USA is a good country. But when its political or military interests are “backed into a corner,” its leaders will turn to “consequentialist” moral reasoning. Doing evil for the sake of a (calculated) “greater good” is a perennial temptation of good people who possess great power. The world-situation we face today, however, suffers from “consequences” that no one could have calculated in 1945.

When the five great powers arranged their strategies to restore and sustain a peaceful world after winning the worst of wars, none of them could claim to be entirely free of guilt and compromise with evil. None of them were perfect. Some of them had more problems than they wished to reveal. But one of them was a snake. 

It is no longer denied that Joseph Stalin was a historical monster who—if not equal to Hitler in every way—was certainly in the same league with him. But during World War II Stalin used a gruff charm-offensive to appeal to the idealism of Roosevelt and the vanity of Churchill, to convince them that he had changed, or at least that they could do business with him. The alliance that defeated Hitler and the Japanese had an irreparable flaw. It enabled the expansion of Stalin’s totalitarian violence and extended its life beyond the dictator himself. 

Nevertheless, even before the Potsdam Conference, Churchill’s common sense began to awaken as he started to realize that Stalin intended to keep every inch of European territory that the Red Army liberated from the Nazis. After Roosevelt’s death, Truman was less taken with “Uncle Joe,” but he was still learning the ropes when Potsdam met outside defeated Berlin, and the powers agreed on the division of their “zones of occupation” and the timelines for yielding to popular governments freely, fairly, and (of course!) “democratically” elected. Stalin was experienced in the art of rigging elections and/or ensuring that any opposition “disappeared” before having a chance to actually oppose his hand-picked people.

The war in Asia, however, continued. Stalin promised his allies that he would “help them” defeat Japan as soon as the U.S.S.R.-Japanese non-aggression pact expired on August 9. The “help” was already on the move, with Marshall Zukov and 1.5 million Red Army soldiers crossing Asia on the Trans-Siberian railroad, headed for the Manchurian border. Stalin instructed them to “liberate” as much territory as possible. We’ll never know how the atomic bombing might have played out, had it not been for the Soviet Union’s Asian plan. As it was, Hiroshima was reduced to radioactive ashes on August 6th. The Japanese were warned that there would be another attack if they did not surrender unconditionally. 

Strangely, the Japanese Imperial council did meet to consider surrendering to the Americans. However, the meeting took place not immediately after Hiroshima, but in the early morning hours of August 9, 1945. What caused this meeting was news that caught Japan completely off guard: at 12:01 AM on August 9, a million and a half Soviet troops poured over the border of Japanese-occupied Manchuria. Japanese forces were almost entirely engaged with preparing for an American invasion. Suddenly, the hated Soviet Communists were invading with a huge force from behind, facing virtually no opposition. Later that morning, while they deliberated, they received news of the second atomic bombing of Nagasaki. The rapidly advancing Red Army was, no doubt, also informed.

As Stalin’s invasion swept into Korea, the Americans scrambled to draw new lines for occupation of the Pacific theater. The 38th parallel jumped out from a hastily procured National Geographic map as dividing the Korean Peninsula, and the Americans got Stalin to agree to it as a demarcation line. This border would eventually cause another war, and is substantially still in place today. It is one of the most highly guarded places on earth, still dividing North Korea from South Korea.

The August 1945 Soviet invasion of Japanese-controlled East Asia lasted only a week, but it was an immense success. They established Kim il-Sung and his communist partisans in North Korea (where the Kim “dynasty” remains in power to this day). And although the Soviets had little interest in occupying northeastern China for long, their conquest there provided expanded space and much needed captured weapons for the Chinese Communists, who renewed and eventually won the civil war against Chiang Kaishek’s nationalists. The hoped-for Chinese ally in the United Nations was replaced by the paranoid, unhinged dystopia of Mao Zedong.

By March of 1946, it was already clear to Winston Churchill that the peacetime United Nations were not really united (and that the great alliance of “united nations” that won the war had perhaps never really been united either). On March 5, he made a famous speech at Fulton University in Missouri, where he spoke frankly about the dangerous new circumstances of post-war Europe and the treachery of Stalin: 

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.”

The Security Council of the United Nations was also divided, with the Soviet Union as one of its five permanent members and capable of vetoing any proposal that did not serve Soviet interests. Instead of the security that everyone hoped would be the fruit of what had seemed like a great collaboration of nations in the common task of defeating Hitler’s brutal tyranny, the post-war world discovered that—for many nations—the result was only the exchange of one totalitarian state for another. The Cold War was already setting in, as the onetime allies now stood in opposition to one another. There was little that the newly founded U.N. could do to fix this crack in the foundation of its edifice.

Of course, Stalin and his successors ultimately “lost” the Cold War. Would this lead to a renewal of the United Nations and its ideals?

By the time the Soviet Union fell in 1991, political leaders had become accustomed to setting aside the urgent necessity for a true and secure peace in a world where many nations hoarded vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. Instead they turned once again to the logic of power and domination, hoping to build a “new world order” of international consumerism—the globalization of rampant ambition, cupidity, and the continual stimulation of novel, artificial, insatiable urges for unnecessary products that were sold, bought, used, and thrown away. In their rage of desires, humans continued to pillage the earth, its resources, and its delicate ecosystem that had been entrusted to human stewardship. The even-more-delicate and intimate realm of the human ecosystem—where human life itself is given and received—was invaded from every direction, in search of technological control, potential for profit, and false “freedom” that reduced new human persons to commodities to be produced on demand and/or thrown away as inconvenient. Starting with the “original home” of the human person, homes everywhere were torn apart. Love grew cold. People knew not where they belonged, or if anyone cared for them. Many hearts were plunged into profound loneliness.

Money became the new ruling power (well, not new, really…but on massive scale never seen before). Rich nations looked for new ways to enrich themselves and poor nations scrambled for pieces of this seemingly ever-expanding pie. Global affairs had become habituated to the ways of power politics. At the same time, new ideologies were brewing and old dreams of legendary powers were waking up. The years after the fall of the Soviet Union did not bring forth anything close to a world of “united nations.” A great deal of good has been accomplished, but much may be spoiled or wasted if we continue to choose conflict over collaboration. People long for unity today, but to all appearances the world in which they live remains divided and broken.

We must move beyond the inadequate dreams and aspirations and myths of the second half of the twentieth century. We are far from “the end of history.” We have scarcely begun to grapple with the real challenges of this new epoch—this unmoored, immensely powerful, strange, fascinating, and dangerous globally interconnected world that we will hand on to our children and grandchildren. They ask us for bread. Can we at least give them something better than stones?

Celebrating Eileen Janaro’s Birthday🙂❤️

On Sunday, March 5, we celebrated my beloved wife Eileen Janaro’s birthday. “How old is she now?”—you ask? Well, she just turned [⚠️❌😳 Cough! Cough! Cough! ahem, hurrrmph, ack! 😳🫢🤫 ❌⚠️⚠️🙃] years old… 

I would never tell, haha. (Can you see the silly emojis on the device you’re using to read this?) All I’ll say is that she is younger than me!😉

I’m so glad her birthday fell on a Sunday this year. Eileen’s birthday is almost always during Lent (it fell on Ash Wednesday in 2014, but it also fell on Mardi Gras in 2019). Lenten weekdays put a bit of a damper on the celebration, with the result that it usually gets “moved” to the nearest Sunday anyway. In 2023, however, this shift was unnecessary.

Our observance of the Lord’s Day has taken on new characteristics in the past couple of years. We go to Mass with Josefina, our 16-year-old and the last of the kids who still lives “under our parental care” (Teresa, in university, still resides at the house, but she keeps her own hours and lifestyle, and usually goes to Mass at college). Often we meet John Paul, Emily, and Maria at the church, and sit with them… at least until Maria gets fussy and needs to be taken to the back. Ah, the “fun” of babies in church. How well we remember Masses in the “cry room” with Maria’s father, not so long ago, it seems…

On Sunday afternoons, we have an informal, no-pressure, come-if-you-can “family gathering.” Uncle Walter has been coming over on Sunday afternoons for many years, ever since the days when all five kids could fit in a large box. Now it’s a chance for all the adult children who live nearby to come visit, with some staying for dinner. Lucia and Mike live in New Jersey, but sometimes we call or “FaceTime” with them. So it’s almost like having a little “party” on Sunday. Generally the party starts when the younger “Janaro Family” arrives in early afternoon, after Maria’s nap, and it raps up around 7pm, Maria’s bedtime. Clearly the Main Attraction on Sunday afternoons is Her Majesty Maria the granddaughter and niece. She has been learning so much lately. At 20 months old, she’s moving beyond the “baby” stage and on to full fledged toddlerhood.

Maria makes our hearts feel young in new ways. We also enjoy our kids’ company, and are grateful that we can still see them frequently. Circumstances change all the time, of course, so we don’t take these days “for granted” but rather “with gratitude.”

Last Sunday was especially special, as Eileen received lots of love from the people who are dearest to her. Her son cooked the dinner (which was really delicious—he didn’t learn cooking from me). And Agnese baked one of her famous birthday cakes. I gave Eileen a necklace and a couple of Van Gogh printed scarves (which I knew she would love).

Eileen and I have lived many years together and celebrated many birthdays. Now, in our 27th year of marriage, when I say, “I love you” to her, I’m expressing a love that encompasses so much common life, so many common experiences. Many moments have been hard, very hard, having to go through things we never could have imagined. But we have also had beautiful times, crazy times, fun times. It has all been good, because it is a path that leads to the Good and is suffused with the beginnings of the fulfillment we seek, for which we have been made, for which we live in hope.

We pray together every day, and Jesus keeps a hold of our lives and journeys together with us. Even through so many changes in life, through illness and limitations, through our differences in personality and temperament (which, really, help us to grow), through suffering losses of our precious elders, through times that seem overwhelming and paralyzing, Jesus stays with us. He never abandons us.

I love you, Eileen Janaro.❤️ Happy Birthday/BirthWEEK!💝

Scenes From Winter 2023

After a few words about art, here is some art! This is “digital art” that I have been working on at JJStudios  lately. These have been seen elsewhere on social media already, but I thought it would be good to display them on the Blog before Spring gets here in two-and-a-half weeks.

We still haven’t had a decent snowfall this year… but March is full of surprises!

What is Artistic Creativity?

Artistic creativity has always served “culture,” in both the higher and broader senses. It has formed human environments and shaped the atmosphere of human social interaction, without necessarily plunging deeply into the resonating core of human experience that is evidently common to all of us. Not all art has the fine balance, the perhaps enigmatic but ultimately perceivable and indeed luminous concretization of the most profoundly universal dimensions of beauty, which emerges in the artwork from one historical and cultural context but “speaks” to people of every time and place, to their basic humanity. These are the true “classics.” But art can’t succeed at all unless it attains something on some level—however humble—in the realm of beauty. What we call “fine art”—in the categorical sense of the term—is work that has as its primary and directive purpose the expression of beauty, as perceived by the creative intuition of the artist that shapes the work. The fine arts—whether they be painting, sculpture, music, or the crafting of other media—are undertaken, ultimately, for the expression and human contemplation of beauty. 

There is a certain sense in which the artist creates first of all for his or herself, to achieve and then to contemplate the realization of his or her own creative intuition. This is what common language is trying to get at when it speaks of the "inspiration" of the artist, and it accounts for certain characteristics of some creative people, such as their need for solitude, their restlessness, their "dry spells," their intensity, their perfectionism, their continual reconfiguration of the same theme in many works, and—often—their overwhelming experience of frustration when others misunderstand or distort the significance of their work. 

It's worth noting also that many artists have a natural disinterestedness in whether or not their work is "popular" (ego often enters subsequently, especially in the wake of success, but it complicates their creativity). Creativity is a way of being, of knowing, of loving, and of shining or resonating that fundamental ecstasy that every being possesses and communicates originally through the sheer wonder-fulness of its existing. "Beauty" (like "Truth" and "Goodness") is a "transcendental," a property that every being possesses in its own way, insofar as it is. We speak of the "greater" and the "lesser" regarding the whole realm of beings, so it stands to reason that there are also "greater" and "lesser" manifestations of beauty. But beauty (like being itself) is also predicated by analogy, and is therefore proper (in its own unrepeatable distinctiveness) to every particular existent. As Thérèse of Lisieux recognized so well, a garden has many different kinds of flowers, and the great roses have their beauty but the “little flowers” have their beauty too. The “levels" of beauty represent a harmonious pluralism, not a competition where one thing is exalted while another is held in contempt. The universe of being is a universe of beauty.

Correspondingly, every person is in some sense an artist. Every person is creative, just as every person is intelligent and free. Some, however, have more intensive dispositions and talents that lead them to take up artistic expression as their life's work, their "vocation."

…to be continued…

A Toddler Sized Glass For Maria

Last Sunday dinner at Papa’s and Nana’s. Maria is drinking out of a regular little glass.☺️

The Terrible Struggle For Ukraine: A “World War”?

It has been a year since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It was meant to be a quick and easy conquest of a place that—according to Vladimir Putin and his clique—doesn’t have a right to exist as an independent nation. It was carried out in flagrant disregard of international law and in violation of Ukrainian border guarantees that Russia itself had agreed to in prior treaties. Not that this was really new, since Russia had already violated Ukraine's sovereignty in 2014 by seizing Crimea and was embedded with supposed "independence fighters" in the Donbas region since that time.

Russia expected that what they called their "special military operation" would overthrow the government in Kyiv within a few days. What the Russians did not expect (and, indeed, it surprised the whole world) was that the people of Ukraine were implacably determined to defend themselves and their country. Their opposition soon exposed the flaws and lack of discipline in Russia's armed forces, and established Ukraine as a credible opponent that might be able to hold its ground and even drive the Russians back. Western nations continue to give billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine in a war that is ongoing, with Russia bogged down trying to hold territorial gains in Eastern Ukraine.

The Kremlin strategy, above all, is founded upon utter contempt for Ukraine's existence as a nation and the Ukrainian claim to be a distinctive people. The Russian armed forces have not hesitated to rain down destruction upon the whole of Ukraine, using drones to bomb civil infrastructure, destroy electric and water supplies, and kill indiscriminately Ukrainian civilians in their homes, schools, and hospitals. The war has caused the greatest European refugee crisis in generations. Eight million Ukrainians have fled the country (that's one-fifth of their entire population) and are refugees in other European nations. Many more have been internally displaced.

Ukraine's armed forces continue—with fierce determination and overwhelming popular support—to defend their country and seek to restore their borders. The rich Western countries continue to cheer for Ukraine with an uncanny unanimity and limitless “pop-culture enthusiasm.” The West has also used its most powerful asset—money—to send Ukraine weapons of various kinds, deliberating and delaying on different systems and details for various reasons.

The war is being reported and analyzed by news media in great detail. What is impossible, however, is to predict the trajectory of its escalation, who may yet become involved, and how (and when) it might finally come to an end. There remains in the West something like a desperate hope that this terrible war can be "contained" as a "local conflict," fought and won by Ukraine using Western “help”—which means spending tons of money to provide Ukrainians with state-of-the-art weapons, training, and whatever other kinds of assistance money can buy and high-profile political visits can generate. According to the “rules of war” none of this “help” makes Western nations co-belligerents in Ukraine’s war against Russia’s barbaric and criminal aggression. It is hoped that preserving this non-belligerent status will prevent the war from escalating beyond a certain point that is geopolitically manageable.

Some may argue that the “rules of war” have become more awkward to apply in the 21st century, when unimaginably advanced technologies play such a huge role in the actual fighting. The Kremlin accuses the West of fighting a “proxy-war” against Russia in Ukraine (while still refusing to say—indeed making it a crime for Russians to say—that they are even “fighting a war;” their military with all its savagery in Ukraine is merely carrying out a “special military operation”). 

Nevertheless, as far as Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putin is concerned, this is already a “world war.” On this (and only this) point, there is some intelligence to his position. The Ukrainians are undoubtedly courageous, but they need the West’s advanced military hardware to defend themselves against the Russian military’s hardware that is being used to attack them. For Western nations to openly send military personnel to march (“boots-on-the-ground”) along with the Ukrainian army would be regarded as an act of war. Yet, somehow, giving Ukraine mobile surface-to-air missile launchers, teaching them how to use them against Russian targets, and supplying ammunition is not an “act of war.” Hmm, that’s how it works? Even though these kind of weapons appear to help the Ukrainians much more than sending troops? One can be excused for finding this distinction a bit beguiling. But for the moment, at least, it is given an all-around de-facto recognition, as it serves all the players in this dangerous game. 

For Ukrainians this is a real life-or-death struggle for their country. They also know it is a struggle that has global consequences. If Russia can invade their country—contrary to international guarantees that Russia itself agreed to respect—and seize territory on the basis of flimsy pretexts that lack coherent evidence and have never been subjected to international arbitration, what is to stop other nations from doing the same when they want to grab territory?

Instead of making his case in a manner that could be discussed…somewhere…like the Security Council (which would be better than nothing), Putin sets forth a mixture of selectively skewed Russo-centric history, obtuse pan-Slavic mysticism, and the most obviously chaotic elements of Western society in its present crisis, and declares Russia the last hope of civilization which is under siege from the evil and manipulative West. Russia is the real victim. Russia also has a right to annex Eastern Ukrainian territory and a duty to subjugate all of Ukraine under the umbrella of Greater Russia—to save it from the corruption of Europe and the West. Or the talk switches to geopolitical spheres of influence, multipolarity, excessive Western expansion via NATO, etc. etc. etc. 

Putin pulls on various levers, depending on his audience, in order to rationalize Russia’s aggression by claiming that Russia is really defending itself. “Flipping” the conflict in this way allows him to present to his own people (as propaganda)—as well as the non-Western world, which looks at all this with its own concerns and/or opportunism—an alternative narrative claiming that the West and “its Ukrainian lackeys” are the ones who are the aggressors, threatening to destroy Russia and rule the world. Here Putin draws once again on the remarkably resilient KGB propaganda playbook, using this “threat to Russia’s existence” as a pretext to make dire warnings about the possible use of nuclear weapons. 

The West, and indeed the whole world, cannot ignore these warnings. Still the Ukrainian people need to defend themselves, and the West wants to “help” but doesn’t want a “world war,” so it continues to “play the game” of using the power of money to blockade Russia’s economy and to send technological devices to make its contribution to the shooting fight. The strategy is to oppose Russia’s aggression with as little risk as possible. But it may be too late to avoid risks. The world may already be at the mercy of unfolding events.

Other nations besides Ukraine are uncomfortably physically close to these events. NATO seems to have a new sense of common purpose, though it’s hard to predict how long it will last, and whether the next election cycles will change the postures of its core member states. But the most zealous members of NATO today are the relatively recent members from Eastern Europe—especially Poland and the Baltic States—who have eight centuries of experience in dealing with Moscow and who share a border with Russia. They have no illusions about the ex-KGB agent who currently occupies the bizarre throne of the New Muscovite-Russian-wannabe-Empire. And they are smart enough to realize that there is no "instant democracy" waiting to spring into existence in Russia if (when?) Tsar Vladimir is overthrown. If Putin has viable rivals, they are rivals to the throne. They will not change the trajectory of current Russian ambitions, and they may be even more ideological and more reckless.

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia already feel the heat from the breath of a monstrous emerging “world war.” They are not the only ones.

Nobody sees where it all might end. It would be cynical to claim that the military-industrial complex—always a reliable engine for economic stimulus in a country like the United States—might not mind a long and aimless war that enables them to manufacture weapons and make gobs of money from a government that always seems to have plenty on hand for such “necessities.” Where the government gets that money is a question that probably has answers too obtuse for it to explain to “us [we] the people.” Meanwhile, Russia might also be planning to outlast its opponents in a long stalemate… while continuing to say that they want to negotiate peace on their terms. We have already noted that their terms are less than ideal, but in reality the issues are much deeper than they are willing to admit.

Russia claims that it wants to be a regional power in a multipolar world; it wants to be “the center” of a wider realm that it envisions as its historic patrimony and responsibility (never mind that Russia’s “special military operation” to “liberate” Ukraine, or parts of Ukraine, has been carried out in an outrageously irresponsible manner). Neither history nor the present international situation, however, support Russia’s ambitions. Whatever may be the sins and machinations and schemes of powerful forces from the West, they do not warrant Russia indulging in a fresh grasp for power, particularly in the very places that have suffered under the iron grip of a prior Kremlin government until a little more than 30 years ago—a government that has never been held accountable for heinous crimes against the peoples it now wants to rule again.

Russia has a very particular problem. Moscow has a problem. The Kremlin has a problem. In the days when he was still facing down the monolithic Soviet Union, the great Alexander Solzhenitsyn saw the problem clearly (when he returned to post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s, he became somewhat confused [they were exceptionally confusing times for Russia]—but it was as a dissident, against the Soviet Union and then in his critique of the decadent West, that Solzhenitsyn attained his historic stature). In 1973, Solzhenitsyn declared that the Russia he loved—which was then the heart of a decrepit-but-still-grasping Soviet Communist MegaState—needed to renounce power. Russia needed to be healed before it returned to the global stage. It needed, as a nation, to pass through a period of "repentance and self-limitation," a looking-inward to discover and foster its constructive identity.

Repentance. Has anybody noticed that there has been no repentance for the crimes of the Soviet Union in the twentieth century? There are many reasons why the current world order is skewed, but it's worth noting that our international institutions are still based on the outcome of the Second World War. Our current agreements about international law, human rights, treaty-obligations, disaster relief, and a host of other cooperative efforts were born directly from the Grand Alliance of 1941-1945 that defeated Nazi totalitarianism and Imperial Japanese militarism, and then put on trial people who were perpetrators and collaborators in the immense violence carried out by these regimes. The intention was that people were going to be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Even during the war, this alliance took to calling itself "The United Nations," and the institution that bears the same name today is an extension of what was born at that time.

One of these allies, however, was Stalin’s Soviet Union. Stalin was guilty of crimes against humanity on a scale approaching the level of Hitler. In 1932, he presided over an attempted genocide-by-forced-famine against the very people of Ukraine who today must once again fight for their right to exist. Stalin’s predecessors and successors perpetrated vast crimes as well, running a regime that ideologically subordinated the dignity of the human person and the real aspirations of communities and peoples to the pretenses of a totalitarian state. Russia was at the center of this state. We all now know the abhorrent truth about the Soviet Union. Yet Putin and his collaborators—having exchanged Soviet uniforms for Russian uniforms— play on their own people’s nostalgia for hegemonic power.

I don’t want Russia to be destroyed. I love Russia. Russia has its own deep human and Christian experience to share with the whole world. Russia has a mission in history. But the road ahead for the Russian people passes through penance and self-limitation, simplicity, love for the expansive lands already entrusted to them, and a humility in which they will find their real strength. Included in this is harmony and respect for their brother Slavic nations and the rest of the world. In these ways Russia will endure, even as the present world powers spend their energies on things that pass away.

But Russia will face catastrophe if its people choose to imitate the inhumanity of Stalin, thinking it might save them from the nihilism that surrounds them or the anxiety that feeds on their fears of irrelevance. If the present war becomes an extended global conflict or even a new “Cold War,” Russia will not be one of the powers that leads it. If Russia does not embrace a humble path, it will find itself humiliated by its new “limitless partner” to the south. If China props up Russia, it will do so on its own terms, as a mine for resources, a superhighway for its trade ambitions, and a passage to the new open ocean in the Arctic north.

The future can’t be predicted in detail, but in general it must grapple with the tensions and the unraveling of problems set in place by the past. I will have more reflections on this point and its relation to current-day events in another post coming soon. Stay tuned for that.

The “Fasting” That God Wants From Us

It is important to fast—to make sacrifices regarding the food we eat—especially for us rich Western people who are healthy and take food for granted. Lent provides us with opportunities for fasting, although in the Latin rite the only obligatory fast days are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The whole season of Lent is “penitential,” however, and we often make various kinds of sacrifices of food or practice other acts of self-denial.

These practices help us to cooperate with God’s grace. We “make space within our freedom” for the Holy Spirit to heal us and enable us to grow in love in union with Jesus our Savior.

The point of it all is conformity to the will of God. For Christians, it is a particular challenge in our times to allow our religious observances to be integral to our desire to recognize Christ, adhere to Him, serve Him in love—love for God our Father and for our “neighbors,” our brothers and sisters in Christ, the real human persons who have been given to us each day in our lives, our work, our communities, and (especially) our churches. Then there are others that we are called to seek out and care for in their suffering, accompanying them with solidarity and compassion.

How easy it is to forget the centrality of Jesus and His purpose in shaping our lives, and subtly replace it with a self- (or group- ) affirmation of a partisan identity that we think makes us “right and good” and demeans others as unworthy (of our concern). We imagine that we are pleasing God by performing certain works—not really for the love of God but more and more like badges that we “wear” in order to declare ourselves the “Party of God”—and we don’t even notice that we are fostering dissensions, fighting, and slandering our neighbors. Then we oppress others (the poor of body and/or mind) by profiting off them—if not directly or materially, then in the inflation of our egos at the expense of their indigence. Instead of helping them we neglect them, we ignore them, or perhaps we become so full of our self-righteousness that we are unaware of their existence. We are deaf to the cries of their poverty, to Jesus Crucified in their wounds.

What value, then, is there to our fasting?

The liturgical reading from the book of Isaiah shows that there is nothing new about this problem. Also, as inspired Sacred Scripture, these words have a perennial value. The Holy Spirit speaks to us through these words today. Listening to the Spirit, with an open and humble heart, will bear important fruit that will sustain us in our Lenten journey and in difficult times to come:

[God’s People cry out to the Lord:]

“Why do we fast, and you do not see it? 

afflict ourselves, and you take no note of it?”

[The Lord answers them:]

“Lo, on your fast day you carry out your own pursuits, 

and drive all your laborers. 

Yes, your fast ends in quarreling and fighting,

striking with wicked claw.

Would that today you might fast

so as to make your voice heard on high!

Is this the manner of fasting I wish,

of keeping a day of penance:

That a man bow his head like a reed

and lie in sackcloth and ashes?

Do you call this a fast,

a day acceptable to the Lord?

This, rather, is the fasting that I wish:

releasing those bound unjustly,

untying the thongs of the yoke;

Setting free the oppressed,

breaking every yoke;

Sharing your bread with the hungry,

sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;

Clothing the naked when you see them,

and not turning your back on your own.

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,

and your wound shall quickly be healed;

Your vindication shall go before you,

and the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.

Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer,

you shall cry for help, and he will say: ‘Here I am!’”

~Isaiah 58:1-9

"February 24, 2022" - One Year Later.

This day marks the first anniversary of what is still an ongoing atrocity: Russia's attempt (yet again) to erase Ukraine's existence as a nation and a people. The Ukrainians continue to defend themselves with profound national awareness. They also continue to suffer from what appears to be Russia's almost nihilistic aggression that cares nothing for human persons, whether they be Ukrainian children, the sick, elders, or their own young conscripts, great numbers of whom they send charging recklessly at Ukrainian defense positions (reminiscent of the suicidal trench warfare in Europe a hundred years ago). The fatal casualty rate of these poor teenagers is enormous.

What will bring this nightmare to an end? God have mercy on them, and on all of us.

Today is February 24, 2023. "February 24..." A date sure to appear in future history books, as "the beginning of... what?" At least the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but what will this all turn into before it ends? No one can say at this moment in time. But kids in the future will have to memorize this date for history tests... if we still have schools in the future, and if we still care about the facts of history... (okay, overdramatic rhetoric perhaps; hyperbole, but not without reason - lots of Ukrainian kids don't have schools because they have been blown up).

Certain dates become marked permanently by horrible events that they commemorate. There have been more than a few in my lifetime. Some come to my mind right away: November 22, 1963 (assassination of JFK); May 13, 1981 (assassination attempt on John Paul II); June 4, 1989 (Tiananmen Square Massacre); and, of course, September 11, 2001 (you all remember that one). There have been others, no doubt, in the past 60 years.

Two additional dates are permanently marked in my own mind, and in many others who were personally proximate in some manner to these particular catastrophes: One of them is April 16, 2007, that awful day for my colleagues and their students at Virginia Tech University, when a deranged gunman killed 32 people—students and a few teachers—in their classrooms. The second date—for me and for tens of thousands of people on every continent in this world (most of them very young people)—needs no explanation for anyone who reads this blog or pays any attention to my social media: June 10, 2016.

What do these dates all have in common? Innocent people died on these days. Acts of shocking violence were perpetrated against them. Their humanity and their personal dignity were violated. The human community was violated. God made us to be brothers and sisters. It should be obvious why God commanded us, "do not kill" ... do not murder your brother, your sister.

Pray for our poor world. And remember February 24, 2022.

Lent 2023

“Let us not neglect the grace of this holy season, responding generously to the powerful promptings of Lent. At the end of the journey, we will encounter with greater joy the Lord of life, who alone can raise us up from our ashes” (Pope Francis, February 22, 2023).

Fashioned By His Grace

This week’s Collect Prayer: “O God, who teach us that you abide in hearts that are just and true, grant that we may be so fashioned by your grace as to become a dwelling pleasing to you. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever.”

The Lord fashions us by His grace—God is infinite goodness, and He loves each one of us. In the most painful, most incomprehensible moments of our lives, He is with us. His love is a mystery, but our anguish can be a prayer if we trust in Him. 

God is our Father, He gives us our existence in every moment. He loves us, and His love is stronger than all the agony we face in life. He “fashions” us in the joys and sorrows of this life into the persons He has created us to become, for an eternal life more beautiful than anything we can imagine. 

God is good. No matter what happens, never stop trusting in Him.

Hong Kong: The Show (Trial) Must Go On

“Bravery is not about never being afraid, but about feeling fear and still choosing to do the right thing” (Joshua Wong).

On February 6 —two years after their arrest on the charge of “conspiring to subvert state power”—the trial of the “Hong Kong 47” finally began. The Hong Kong 47 group includes former members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and other leaders of Hong Kong’s long-standing and intense human rights protest campaign (from 2014 to 2019). Among them are Benny Tai, law professor and organizer of the famous nonviolent “Umbrella Movement” of 2014 —and Joshua Wong, onetime leader of the students of 2014 who later became a political activist and has already served two short prison sentences. Most of these alleged “criminals” were denied bail, and have been forced to remain in jail since 2021. There are some other high profile trials for allegedly seditious activity—distinct from the charges against “the 47”—that have yet to begin, the most well-known being the upcoming trial of Jimmy Lai, the septuagenarian former publisher of the most prominent opposition newspaper, “Apple Daily.”

I used to post more frequently about Hong Kong, especially during the long Summer and Autumn of 2019. So much has happened since the overwhelming victory of the Pro-Democracy supporters in the November 2019 “district council” elections. It is important to recall some details of this stunning event: In Hong Kong’s system, “District Council” officers have only local administrative duties and no political power, which was why they were the only officials chosen by free and fair elections throughout the territory. But in 2019. the democracy movement ran its own candidates in most of the districts, turning an otherwise politically insignificant election into a de-facto referendum on recent events. The people were given a chance through an unrigged ballot box to present—even if only symbolically—their position regarding Beijing’s incremental usurpation of Hong Kong’s guaranteed domestic political and institutional autonomy. After months of social crisis and protests in the streets, Hong Kongers voted in unprecedented numbers throughout the territory, knowing full well what their votes would express to Beijing and to the wider world that was watching. Seldom had an East Asian election so gripped the attention of peoples outside the region. All things considered, the resulting massive paradigm shift in favor of pro-democracy candidates in the election demonstrated that the people repudiated Beijing’s agenda by a wide margin (see HERE for my report at the time).

.

The rulers of China, no doubt, realized that the democracy movement had to be stopped. With their obsession for political and social control, who knows what desperate measures the CCP might have taken, were it not for other circumstances that arose suddenly to change the entire focus of global news. Thus, while the whole world was struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, mainland China’s “PartyState” saw the chance to effectively (and quietly) dismantle the distinctive Hong Kong system that it had previously agreed to preserve until at least 2047.

The Chinese Communist Party and the State organs it controls imposed a “National Security Law” on Hong Kong in June 2020, bypassing what remained of the territorial legislative process (and—need it even be said?—without consulting or even informing in advance the seven million people who live there). Since then, Beijing has installed a new set of political and law enforcement personnel to carry out a Stalinesque purge of all democratic sympathy in Hong Kong. Thousands of arrests have been made, with activists denied bail and left behind bars waiting for long-delayed trials. Many of these trials end with convictions, in spite of the fact that Hong Kong’s judiciary is perhaps the last branch of the island’s “System” (remember “One Country, Two Systems”?) that retains some shred of independence according to its continuing usage of English “common law” traditions and recognition of human rights. (The judges still wear the antiquated “white wigs” in the courtroom.)

Sadly, common law precedents and classical civil liberties don’t have much chance of holding up against the New Chinese Empire. The CCP claims that the nation they control observes the “rule of law.” Unfortunately, it appears that what this means in practice is that, if they want to persecute you, they find a law (or invent a new one) and use it as a pretext to harass you, accuse you of violating the law, arrest you, roll you around in the Bureaucracy until you are exhausted, and finally—even if they can’t make a case against you in court—they have dissipated your influence, destroyed your business, bankrupted you, and have made you “lose face” as much as possible.

This process is referred to by its critics as “Lawfare.” As a technique for social control, it’s more efficient than old fashioned Maoist “re-education through labor” (unless you’re a Uighur, in which case you are being “re-educated”…indefinitely, and if it’s deemed necessary, to death).

But what are the specific “subversion charges” raised against the Hong Kong 47? As far as I can tell, their “conspiracy” involved collaborative political tactics that any other democratic country in the world would recognize as entirely legitimate, and well within their rights as citizens running for (or working with) candidates for an elected legislature. The Hong Kong Legislative Council, however,  was rigged from the start to ensure a large majority of pro-Beijing legislators chosen not to represent the people, but rather specific business and social sectors who depend on Beijing. Only 40% of the LegCo was chosen by popular vote, which (not surprisingly) has consistently returned a sizable block of democratic legislators who opposed Beijing encroachment within Hong Kong. Though they were unable to win on controversial votes within the LegCo, they remained a public voice of transparency and protest against pro-Beijing schemes, capable of sounding alarms to the people about proposals for imminent change. The Hong Kong people would then take to the streets and protest until the offensive proposals were withdrawn. As we may remember, this was what began the “Revolution of 2019”—the enormous popular protest marches against a proposal for extradition of alleged criminals wanted in mainland China.

What happened early in 2020 was that minority partisans made an effort toward the strategic organization of their forces. They organized an informal “primary election” that would allow their constituents to unite behind a slate of candidates who might be able to work together and exercise some real power in the LegCo: for example, by holding up the passage of the (Beijing appointed) Chief Executive’s annual budget proposal. The primary was apparently “illegal” even then, perhaps since Hong Kong had always forbidden formal political parties. In any case, no one considered it to be anything like treasonous or subversive at the time. It took place unhindered and hundreds of thousands of voters openly participated.

But the rest of the world turned its eyes away from Hong Kong as the year progressed and nations began struggling with their own COVID emergencies. Beijing saw the opportunity to wage Lawfare, and they did not hesitate to act. On June 1, 2020 they announced the new National Security Law, that effectively criminalized—in terms that savored of treason—all acts of opposition to the government. At first they assured people that the law was not retroactive, but that distinction soon crumbled into irrelevance, and those who stand trial today are being charged with “subversion” under a law that didn’t even exist when they committed their alleged “crime.”

Interestingly, however, 31 of the 47 defendants pleaded guilty to the charges (including Joshua Wong and Benny Tai). One reason for this may be that—knowing that the court proceedings are essentially a Show Trial and that their convictions are inevitable—they pleaded guilty in the hopes of receiving a lesser sentence. Another reason may be that they wanted to acknowledge that “subverting [Beijing’s] state power” was ultimately what they aimed to accomplish by organizing an opposition primary. They were determined to do everything they could to “subvert” the neocolonial foreign power—the Chinese Communist PartyState—that was relentlessly crushing their particular local identity and their corresponding human right to self-determination. One defendant commented in words to the effect that “I am guilty of trying to subvert the power of a totalitarian state.”

These guilty pleas, however, do not procure exemption from the show trial. All of the 47 are required to stand in court through what promises to be a three month ordeal. They will not be sentenced until after those who are convicted in spite of their attempt to defend their innocence (conviction may lead to life imprisonment). Moreover, the court itself has been constituted—by government demand—in a most unusual way. The classic common law right to a “trial by jury” has been decreed to be inadequate for the gravity of this case. Instead, a panel of three judges has been appointed to decide the matter. Can anyone imagine any acquittals emerging from such a tribunal?

This is how Beijing and its running dogs wage “Lawfare.”

Lawfare has invaded Hong Kong to expedite the process of absorption that Hong Kongers have resisted since the British handed them off to the overlordship of mainland China’s Communist PartyState in 1997. It is too facile to reduce Hong Kong’s distinctiveness to the consequences of 19th century Western Imperialism. British aggression and the deplorable opium trade did draw its borders, but—amidst the imposition of many burdens and contradictions—the British also contributed the ideal of freedom and the governing processes of a Western-style civil society, while Cantonese migrants built and inhabited an entirely new city on what had up to that time been a sparsely populated rocky coast. They built a unique Asian city with its own history separate from the mainland for the past 170+ years. After 1949 Hong Kong grew enormously, serving as a refuge for many Chinese who were fleeing the Communist revolution and the political and social catastrophes of the Maoist era that followed.

This helps explain something of the special character and resilience of Hong Kong people. But there is more that distinguishes them. Over the past decade, the culture of Hong Kong has been powerfully impacted by the question of the meaning of freedom. What kind of freedom is worthy of human dignity? The CCP State is in many ways unaware of its own brutality. It believes that the future it is planning for Hong Kong is full of opportunities for advancement in prosperity, industriousness, technical creativity, and material comfort. Hong Kongers know that the gross incompetence and austerity of the Mao era are over. They know the new “New China” that lies across the border in Guangdong, the glitter of the multi-city metropolis surrounding the Pearl River Delta on the South China Sea, bursting with unimaginable economic growth, and inviting Hong Kong to join—perhaps even to lead—this region as it becomes the center of global commerce in the future. This is a vital aspect of the Chinese Dream that promises to lead the world of tomorrow.

Is this not “freedom” enough?

It is certainly a temptation, and not a stupid one either. If all we hope for is limited to the boundaries of this present life, what value does personal freedom really have? It it not a small sacrifice to make in exchange for the glories of material wealth, the mastery of power over the things of this world, the opportunity to collaborate in the building of a harmonious society?

It would be hard to answer this question if all we meant by “personal freedom” was the license to define ourselves and our values in whatever way we choose, without any responsibility to anyone but ourselves, without the recognition of a reality greater than our own measure, or the possibility of an unconditional commitment to any “other”. Is human personal freedom nothing more than the “right to choose” as an end in itself, rather than as the means to seek and follow the meaning of reality and the vocation of our lives, to adhere to what is good, to give and receive love? Of course everyone admits that these goals are the object of freedom, but for many the overarching goal of human freedom is to have power over reality and to be able to reduce goodness and love to our own measure. No one wants to admit that this kind of “autonomy” is an enervating illusion. No one would fight for the right to be absolute sovereign of a narcissistic dreamworld that numbs them to the actual world, wherein they are in fact slaves to the powers-that-be?

The Hong Kong 47 —along with all their compatriots—must keep searching for true human freedom. How does the search and struggle for freedom endure in prison? Among the pro-Democracy contingent in Hong Kong, there are some prominent Christians who are deeply motivated by their faith in Christ. He alone gives true freedom, and he calls out to everyone from within their own need for freedom. All those who hunger for freedom and dignity are in some way responding to him and following him, even if they don’t (yet) know him. Those who do know him and are faithful to him will generate spaces of life and community no matter where they are.

Please do not forget to pray for Hong Kong.

Law professor Benny Tai posted some reflections shortly after his arrest two years ago. This was one of his final posts before the internet was taken beyond his reach two years ago. A quotation from it can serve as a brief conclusion to these observations.

Love is Patience (Benny Tai)

There have been a few moments in the past few years 

where I feel the limits of patience.
But the Lord Jesus always makes me feel His love again 

in my weakest moments.
He loves me, loves Hong Kong, loves the world, 

including those who reject Him.
For love He is constantly patient, waiting for them to turn and change.
When I understand why love is patient and willing to love like the Lord, 

patience is born again.

Ten Years Later

Ten years ago today… well, I guess, it’s ten years ago yesterday at this point, but still … how strange it was on Monday morning, February 11, 2013, to go on Twitter and see THIS NEWS!

A decade later, supposedly legitimate news outlets themselves rely on social media sources, and world leaders and other important people use them to issue statements. It didn’t used to be that way, but those days seem so long ago…. 

Christina Grimmie on “Healed Wounds”

Remembering Christina Grimmie after 6 years and 8 months, with love and gratitude.💚🎶

“Confidence in God’s Strength…”

“Human weakness must not trouble us if God calls…”

Ten years ago today was a Sunday, and I posted on my social media this quotation from the late Pope Benedict XVI’s Angelus Message for that day. He reminded us that God’s “strength…acts precisely in our poverty.” 

The very next day—Monday, February 11, 2013—Benedict shocked the world by announcing that God was calling him to resign the Papacy. In the decade that followed, he never wavered from his conviction that he had set aside the papal office in obedience to God’s will. 

Throughout his long life, Josef Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was a witness to the truth of human life as responsiveness to the call of God, free adherence to “the divine proposal, radical receptivity to the Gift that grounds all we are and all we do—the Gift that “transforms and renews” us, and is therefore worthy of our complete trust.