In response to reader H E’s guest post last week on declining church numbers, another faithful reader of mine, George True, responded with an excellent comment about a truly Catholic priest in Arizona.
It’s too good to leave there, so here it is in full:
There is a firebrand priest here in the Phoenix AZ area by the name of Father William Kosco. He has publicly, from the pulpit, denounced the Catholic bishops of America for their cowardice in going along with all of the cultural Marxist insanity. He has also publicly denounced Joe Biden as someone who is diametrically opposed to every fundamental teaching of the Roman Catholic church. He has said that Joe Biden would receive Holy Communion at his church only over his (Father Kosco’s) dead body. He has declared that Joe Biden, being a public figure, must PUBLICLY repent of his sins against God and his nation in order to be allowed Communion.
The pews at Pastor Kosco’s church, St Henry’s in Buckeye AZ, are FULL.
At this point, allow me to post a tweet that I saw shortly after reading George’s comment. It ties in well, as it shows a church full of worshippers (click on the tweet, and when it opens in a new tab, click the image to see it in full):
Now on with the conclusion of George’s comment:
He is showing all priests, Catholic and Protestant, how to put butts in the seats. Start boldly and fearlessly declaring the truth, speaking out against evil, and affirming the fundamental precepts of our faith. People are hungering and thirsting for the truth, and they will flock to shepherds who exhibit courage in the face of evil.
One cannot say better than that. May the good Lord continue to bless Father Kosco and his congregation.
Sadly, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, died on Friday, April 9, 2021, exactly two months short of his 100th birthday:
The Queen has lost her best friend. My deepest sympathies to her for the unimaginable loss of her long-time husband and daily confidant. My condolences also go to the Royal Family in their grief.
Young love
The couple first met in 1934, and began corresponding when the Prince was 18 and a cadet in the Royal Navy. Princess Elizabeth was 13 at the time.
She was smitten with him from the start.
Prince Philip served with distinction during the Second World War in the Mediterranean and Pacific fleets.
After the war ended, he could have had a stellar career in the Royal Navy. His superiors praised his clear leadership skills.
However, love intervened and the rest was history.
Born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, he renounced his foreign titles and took British citizenship before he and Princess Elizabeth were engaged. He took the surname of his maternal grandparents: Mountbatten.
He and Princess Elizabeth were engaged in July 1947. They married on November 20 that year. Shortly before the wedding, George VI gave him the titles of Duke of Edinburgh (created for him), Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.
Prince Philip remained in the Royal Navy until July 1951. He retired with the rank of Commander.
Royal succession — and surname
In January 1952, he and the Queen began a tour of the Commonwealth countries. They were in Kenya when news reached them that the Queen’s father, George VI, died on February 6 that year.
Although she became Queen immediately upon her father’s death, her coronation took place in 1953, as it had to be planned meticulously.
On Coronation Day, he knelt before her, clasped her hands and swore an oath of allegiance to her:
He also had to touch her crown and kiss her on the cheek.
He never had a constitutional role, nor was he ever formally given the title of Royal Consort. The courtiers did not like him, nor did they trust him. They believed his personality to be brash and unbecoming of the Royal household. They shut him out of as much decision making as possible.
When Elizabeth became Queen, the question about her family name arose. Prince Philip suggested that the Royal Family be known as the House of Edinburgh. Upon discovering that suggestion, Queen Mary, Elizabeth’s grandmother, wrote to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who advised the young monarch to issue a royal proclamation saying that the Royal Family would continue to be known as the House of Windsor.
In his inimitable style, Prince Philip complained privately:
I am nothing but a bloody amoeba. I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children. [57]
The Queen did nothing until eight years later, in 1960, 11 days before she gave birth to Prince Andrew. She issued an Order in Council declaring that the surname of her and her husband’s male-line descendants who are not styled as Royal Highness or titled as prince or princess would be Mountbatten-Windsor.
Pater familias
Prince Philip had to carve a role out for himself. He became the pater familias and, through the years, his role expanded to cover not only his four children but his grandchildren. He listened to their concerns, shared their joys and gave them advice. He knew everything that went on in their lives.
Although the public knew him for speaking as he saw — rather bluntly, on occasion — behind closed doors Prince Philip was known to be a warm, loving man.
He also favoured a more transparent Royal Family. According to the BBC, it was he who encouraged the Queen to make a multi-episode documentary on their daily lives, including those of their four children. It was broadcast in the late 1960s. I remember seeing it in the United States.
When Princess Diana died on August 31, 1997, Prince Philip was the one who kept an eye on the public mood that fateful week. He, the Queen and Princes William and Harry were at Balmoral in Scotland for their summer holiday. When the young princes wanted to attend church, their grandparents took them to the Sunday service on the day of their mother’s death. Later in the week, it was Prince Philip who encouraged the boys to walk behind the funeral procession the following Saturday. He said:
If you don’t walk, I think you’ll regret it later. If I walk, will you walk with me? [93]
One cannot imagine what he thought of Prince Harry’s departure for the United States to live a life separate from his closely knit family. I did read that the Royal Family shielded information about the Oprah interview from him.
John F Kennedy’s funeral
Prince Philip was in Washington for John F Kennedy’s funeral in 1963.
He had a friendly encounter with John Jr, who was still a toddler and known as John-John at the time. The child wondered where his father was, as he had no one with whom to play. The Prince stepped in to fill that gap. In 1965, the British government gave an acre of land at Runnymede to the United States for use as a memorial to JFK:
Funeral arrangements
Prince Philip was self-effacing and did not like a fuss to be made over him.
Therefore, the funeral arrangements will respect his wishes, which is rather convenient, as coronavirus restrictions are still in place. Up to 30 people will be allowed at his funeral, in line with legislation across the nation:
The funeral is scheduled to take place on Saturday, April 17:
It is interesting that Prince Harry will be able to attend when we have a 10-day quarantine in place for arrivals into the UK under coronavirus regulations.
The Sunday Mirror reported on Prince Harry’s return to the UK:
He could also be released from quarantine if he gets a negative private test on day five, under the Test to Release scheme.
Given his status as a member of the Royal Family travelling to support the Queen, Harry might be considered exempt from travel restrictions.
Wow. It’s nice to know we have a two-tiered quarantine system in place /sarc.
A championship boxer remembers the Prince
Former WBC Heavyweight Champion Frank Bruno MBE posted his memories of meeting Prince Philip. He is at the top left in the following photo:
An Anglican priest remembers the Prince
The Revd Peter Mullen, an Anglican priest, recalled his encounters with Prince Philip for Conservative Woman on April 10 in ‘A personal recollection’.
He first met the Prince during his schooldays:
The first time I met the Prince was in connection with his Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme which gave a leg up to youngsters from what would now be called the less privileged parts of the country. He paid a visit to the Leeds branch of the Church Lads’ Brigade of which, aged fourteen, I was a member. We were in the church hall making things. My task was to make a table lamp. I was hopeless at it.
The Duke got hold of my half-finished creation, held it up to one eye and said, ‘I suppose this hole is where the flex goes?’
‘I think so, Sir.’
‘You think so? I was never any good at this sort of thing either!’
And he was off . . .
As an adult, Mullen met him on more than one occasion thanks to the Honourable Company of Air Pilots. The Prince was its Grand Master. Mullen served as chaplain.
He recalls:
The Company gave a lunch for him to mark his 80th birthday and I recall how jovial he was, making light of his years: ‘I believe I have lasted so long because you people are always toasting my good health, but I don’t want to live to be a hundred. Things are dropping off already!’
At another luncheon one of our Liverymen who had his own port wine business presented the prince with Bottle Number One, the first fruits, so to speak. As he left, the duke handed the bottle to me: ‘You have this, Peter. Our house floats on the bloody stuff.’
‘Well, Sir, now I don’t know whether to drink it or frame it.’
‘Gerrit down ya neck!’
Prince Philip on MPs
Guido Fawkes came up with a good quote from one of the Prince’s trips to Ghana. It concerns MPs. His Ghanaian hosts told him the country had 200 MPs. Prince Philip replied:
That’s about the right number. We have 650 and most of them are a complete bloody waste of time.
Incidentally, Parliament will be recalled one day early from Easter recess. On Monday, April 12, MPs and Lords paid tribute to the Prince in their respective Houses:
That afternoon, the House of Commons reconvened to pay their tribute — from 2:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. (good grief).
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle spoke first:
Prime Minister Boris Johnson had this to say:
Boris Johnson, who was invited to the funeral but declined so that another member of the Royal Family can attend, said that he would forego a pint when pub gardens reopen on April 12, out of respect for the Prince. Guido Fawkes, however, thinks that the Duke of Edinburgh would have wanted us to toast his memory, especially at a pub that bears his title in Brixton, south London:
Guido had a second tweet on the subject with another quote from the Prince:
Agreed.
Prince Philip on Australia
This is too funny. For those who are unaware, Australia was established as a place where Britain could send convicts. That was a long time ago, but the nation’s original purpose was to serve as a prison:
Prince Philip on civil liberties
On a serious note, the 12-minute interview below from 1984 is well worth watching, especially in the coronavirus era.
Prince Philip firmly supported the rights of the individual and believed that the state should serve the individual, not, as in our times, the other way around.
This is from a Thames Television programme originally broadcast on ITV:
I have posted the video below in case the tweets are deleted:
The Prince also said that certain subjects are out of bounds, such as the media and the NHS.
He said that the media are incapable of taking a joke about themselves and, as for the NHS, well, one cannot say anything against it. He didn’t necessarily dislike the NHS but thought it was held in too high a regard. Nothing is perfect in this world.
We have been travelling a long road towards the point where we are at present: ruled by the media (they clamoured for coronavirus restrictions) and worship of the NHS. This is how Health Secretary Matt Hancock, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and SAGE have been able to rule our lives. It’s been at least 40 years in the making.
BBC coverage on Friday
I was watching BBC Parliament early Friday afternoon, around 1:15, when the programme was interrupted by a broadcast from the BBC News Channel.
I checked the schedule an hour later, which said that the programme would last until 4 p.m. It was still going when I was preparing dinner at 5 p.m.
The final of MasterChef was to have been broadcast that night on BBC1. This was a clip from Thursday’s programme:
Pictured are the hosts and judges, chef/restaurateur John Torode on the left and former greengrocer, now television presenter, Gregg Wallace on the right:
BUT:
The BBC News channel was simulcast all afternoon and all night long, not only on BBC Parliament but also on BBC1, to the dismay of MasterChef fans (myself included), and BBC2. BBC4 was suspended for the evening.
I read on social media that the BBC also broadcast continuous coverage of Prince Philip on their radio stations, including Radio 2, knocking out Steve Wright’s drive-time show on Friday afternoon.
A friend of mine said that most of the BBC’s employees were probably rubbing their hands with glee because it meant an early weekend for them. It’s a cynical perspective that could well turn out to be true. We’ll find out when someone writes his or her memoirs.
Everyone with a television set receives the BBC News channel. It comes into our homes at no extra charge. There was no need for the BBC to take over every channel for hours on end. By the way, if one had watched two hours of the Prince Philip coverage, as I did, one would have seen and heard everything in its entirety.
The BBC braced themselves for a plethora of complaints; they took the relevant page down on Sunday. Good. I am sure Prince Philip would have objected, too.
As much as I love the Queen, I hope they do not try this when her day comes. God willing, may it be long into the future.
Record-beating prince
Prince Philip established two records as consort to the Queen. He was the longest-serving royal consort in British history. He was also the longest-lived male member of the British royal family.
May he rest in eternal peace with his Maker.
May our gracious Lord grant the Queen, Defender of the Faith, His infinite peace and comfort in the months ahead. May He also bless the Royal Family during this difficult time.
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
11 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Head Coverings
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[d] 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
——————————————————————————————————–
My last instalment in this series discussed Paul’s exhortation at the end of 1 Corinthians 10 to do everything for the glory of God whilst taking care to not offend Jews, pagans or Christians.
Today’s reading is a contentious one, and even John MacArthur admitted he was reluctant to preach on it back in 1976 (emphases mine below):
First Corinthians chapter 11. And I tried to delay it as long as I could but finally I just really ran against the wall, and I couldn’t think of anything else to get out of it, so here we are. And it has to do with the subordination and equality of women.
The following week, he asked the congregation for their patience:
This chapter is very interesting, and I want all of you to please remain until I’m finished this morning and not duck your head or be inclined to leave until I’m finished. This is a very interesting passage, and you’re going to find some very interesting truth, I’m sure, applied perhaps in a way you’ve never really understood it before.
This was a time when women were entering the job market en masse in the United States. Some were married, some were divorced and the end result was that the demographic of work — and the family — would change irreversibly. How many women are single or divorced heads of households today?
Our reality of the 21st century makes this a particularly difficult passage.
However, MacArthur says something highly interesting that puts these verses into perspective:
… this isn’t a universal principle; this is a custom. Paul never said anything to the – to the Jews or the Romans about hats or not hats or covered or uncovered. It was an issue in Corinth. And in fact, Paul, as a Jew, was uttering language here entirely antagonistic to the Jewish custom of rabbinical teaching. The Jew always wore a tallit, a covering. And Paul is saying, “Don’t wear a covering.”
We say, “Paul, you know the Jews always wear a covering.”
Yeah, but these aren’t Jews, and if they do, it’ll be wrong for their society. It’s cultural. Paul isn’t laying down an absolute rule to be observed by all Christians. And I just – I read something this week that said that this proves that women should never come to church without a hat. It doesn’t prove that at all. That used to be the feeling of many people, and then the hats got so bad, no one could see, and the thing kind of died down a little …
But that isn’t the point. It’s fine to wear a hat. That’s wonderful. But that isn’t what he’s saying. He’s simply saying, “Accommodate yourselves to the custom of the Corinthians. If for a Corinthian woman to appear submissive and modest she wears a veil, then women, you wear a veil. And men the opposite.” Don’t violate customs that have significance in your society. The man and the woman are – to be sure they acquiesce to those.
I can back this up with an essay on hermeneutics that Dr Craig S Keener wrote several years ago. Hermeneutics involves studying historical and cultural context when interpreting Scripture. My post which included this example from 1 Corinthians 11 is here, and Dr Keener’s essay, which I cited, is here.
In citing Ephesians 5, Keener discusses the order of authority in the family unit in Greek and Roman societies:
… from Aristotle onward Greeks and Romans often emphasized that the male head of the household must rule his wife, children and slaves. But Paul, while taking over the topic, modifies the instructions: he tells a husband not how to rule his wife, but how to love her (Eph 5:25). The wife must submit, but as a form of Christian submission that all Christians must learn to practice (Eph 5:21-22). If we read this passage as if Paul were saying exactly the same thing as Aristotle, we would miss his point …
As for head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11, Keener says:
… knowing why women wore head coverings in Paul’s day helps us understand why he gives the instructions he does. Most women in the eastern Mediterranean world covered their hair in public as a sign of sexual modesty; thus the lower class women in the churches were concerned when some upper class women refused to wear them.
But would Paul solve matters of sexual modesty or class division in the same way in every culture as he did in Corinth? Would the head covering provide a solution to such issues in every culture? Could head coverings in some cultures become signs of ostentation, showing off wealth? Could they in some cultures actually become tools of seduction the way jewels and costly array sometimes were in Paul’s culture? What of a culture where only well-to-do people could afford to wear head coverings, thus introducing class division into the church? Is it possible that in churches in some parts of the world, wearing a head covering (as opposed to not wearing one) might draw attention to the wearer? …
This is why it is so important for us to take into account cultural background and read Scripture consistently in light of it …
Jesus claimed that what mattered most was justice, mercy and faith (Matt 23:23)–the heart of God’s word. Paul in the same way disagreed with his contemporaries on what was fundamental, arguing that it is God’s own power that saves us, not secondary issues like circumcision or food laws. This method of interpretation requires us to keep central what matters most (the gospel and obedience to God’s will), rather than becoming legalistic on secondary matters that could distract us from the heart of the gospel …
You can read excerpts and find source links to all of Craig Keener’s essays on biblical hermeneutics here. They help to explain much in the Bible.
Now on to today’s reading.
Recall that Paul is responding by letter to questions that the Corinthians have been sending him. He begins by exhorting them to follow his example in all things, because he is ‘of Christ’ (verse 1). In other words, when the Corinthians are in doubt, they should do what he does.
1 Corinthians addresses difficult topics, so, in prefacing his remarks, Paul compliments the congregation for remembering his teachings and maintaining the traditions as he taught — delivered — them (verse 2).
MacArthur explains that this was Paul’s way of saying that they understood the Gospel message and Christian doctrine:
… I think what he’s saying there, and I’m not going to give you all the background, except to say if you check the word there “ordinances,” it’s the word “tradition.” And as it’s used in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, it is used to speak of doctrine. And whenever the word “delivered” is used, it is used in connection with teaching content.
And so, what he’s saying there is, “I’m glad that you at least asked me questions, and you have maintained the doctrine that I gave you.” You see, as you read the whole of 1 Corinthians, he doesn’t straighten them out on doctrine. He doesn’t have to tell them about the deity of Christ, or the truth of God, or the ministry of the Spirit – the Holy Spirit, he doesn’t have to discuss the believer’s life pattern as it operates in the yieldedness to the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t go into those doctrinal issues. Because apparently, they were really hanging in on those. Apparently there weren’t doctrinal impurities. Chapter 15 may indicate some misunderstanding about resurrection, but for the most part, they didn’t have questions about the deity of Christ or his saving work. He doesn’t have a grace vs. works section in here.
Doctrinally, they had heard and received and maintained, and they were at least consulting him about things, and he says, “For that I just want to praise you. I just want to…” And it’s a very strong assertion of praise; a very, very strong term is used there.
The problem with the Corinthians was their personal conduct as Christians who were young in the faith. Corinth was a highly decadent city where all manner of sin was committed.
Paul began his explanation of head coverings by laying out the authority in the family unit which was common in Greek and Roman societies at that time, as explained above, but in a Christian context. Christ rules over every man, every husband is his wife’s superior and Christ submits to God the Father (verse 3).
MacArthur explains the theology behind that verse:
Think of it this way: if Christ does not submit to the Father, then redemption is not accomplished. Man is lost; he is doomed; and God is at war with Himself if the Son does not submit.
If man, on the other hand, does not submit to Christ, then man is lost. His destiny is denied, and judgment falls on him. If woman does not submit to man in the family, the family is shattered, and society is wrecked. So, God is saying, “These are the principles, everybody. There is a submission principle between man and man, between man and God, between God and God. It pervades everything.
Paul then goes into prevailing social customs whereby a man looks like a man and a woman a woman. For Gentile men — i.e. the bulk of the Corinthian congregation — that meant having one’s head uncovered in worship or prophecy (verse 4). For a woman, it meant wearing a veil for prayer or prophecy, as would be the custom outside of worship (verses 5, 6).
According to some Bible scholars, there was a social movement with women who were discarding their femininity in order to look like men. Furthermore, only prostitutes went around without veils:
In that society, when the veil was on, a woman was taking the place of submission; she was honoring the sanctity of a woman’s virtue, and of marriage. We would even go further in to say it was the custom in the Corinthian society for prostitutes to be unveiled because their business was to make sure they got seen. How could they drum up business if they had a veil on? And so, they would throw their veil aside.
There is another interesting historical note that we find in studying the Corinthian situation, Eerdman points this out; and that is that there were women in the Corinthian society, and in much of Roman society, who were making statements against the sacredness of marriage. There was a feminist movement, even on a broader base, in the Roman Empire, and women frequently would take their veils off and cut their hair. And the cutting of their hair to look like a man, and the throwing away of the veil was a protest against the inequality of men and women, and it was a statement of their antagonism toward the sacredness of marriage.
So, you see, what we’re seeing today isn’t anything new. It’s nothing new at all. You can read it in history. And so, in the Corinthian situation, the church was right in the midst of a society that was struggling with this very issue. And the word that Paul gives to the church, simply stated, is this, “Look, whatever standard your society sets up as the way in which you manifest a submissive spirit, you abide by that standard so that society knows you are following the God-ordained pattern. If it’s a veil, wear it; don’t throw it away. Last of all, don’t throw it away in the name of Christian liberty.”
Paul supports his points for the natural order of the family by referring to the creation story in Genesis. He purports that a man should not cover his head because God created him (verse 7). God created Adam.
Furthermore, woman found her creation from the man (verses 8, 11, 12). God created Eve from Adam’s rib.
Still following the creation story, Paul says that man was not created for woman, rather woman was created for man (verse 9) as a help meet to him. He explains that this is why a woman wears a veil, or a ‘symbol of authority’ on her head, because of the angels (verse 10).
To us, this sounds strange and harsh, but MacArthur says that Paul was attempting to put the order of society into a new, Christian context.
MacArthur explains why some women in ancient societies rose up and became feminists:
In the Roman and the Greek world, it takes very little study at all to determine that women were thought of purely as slaves, purely as animals and nothing more, not allowed to make any contribution beyond that of servitude.
So, when Christianity came along and announced equality of women spiritually, equality of women in personhood, equality of women in capacity and so forth, this was liberating. This was not confining. But when it maintained the distinction in role, it was also not confining women, but it was helping women and men to see their God-ordained design and therefore be able to fulfill it with a commitment …
In the Roman society, for example, women were definitely abused. And out of the abuses, there grew a feminist movement. And in some senses, we would agree that it was justifiable. But when Christianity came along and truly liberated women, that feminist attitude should never have carried into the church, but it did. In fact, if you study the feminist movement of ancient Rome, you will find that they had all of the characteristics of the feminist movements of all the times in history, most all of them, and of today.
For example, women were stating their independence, in those days, by leaving home; … by refusing to have children, or if they had children, refusing to care for them; by demanding jobs always held by men; by wearing men’s clothes and discarding all signs of femininity; by violating their marriage vows; by seeking independence in general, etcetera, etcetera. All of the things that were characteristic of that time in feminist movements are pretty much what’s going on today.
And so it was that culture had brought abuses to womanhood. And womanhood was reacting to the cultural abuses. Christianity came in and truly set women free to be what God designed them to be, recognizing their equality in every dimension except in the assignment of a role within society’s framework.
Why did Paul bring angels into his reasoning? MacArthur explains:
There’s one principle angels really recognize very well. There’s one principle angels understand completely. There’s one principle they never have to ask questions about. You know what that principle is? Authority and submission. You read Hebrews chapter 1 and find how many times it tells us in there that angels are under the authority of God. It calls them ministering spirits, serving spirits. It says, “The Son is here, and the angels are here. To which of the angels has He ever said, ‘Sit here on My throne and rule?’” It says that Christ, in verse 4 of Hebrews 1 is a better name than angels. So, they understand the authority of God and the submissiveness of their own service.
Paul says that all things are from God (verse 12), a reference to the natural order of mankind and society. Matthew Henry offers this brief analysis of checks and balances:
The authority and subjection should be no greater than are suitable to two in such near relation and close union to each other. Note, As it is the will of God that the woman know her place, so it is his will also that the man abuse not his power.
Paul asks a question in the social context of the Corinthians (verse 13): is it proper for a Corinthian woman to pray with her head uncovered? The answer would be ‘no’. Today, it would be like asking if a woman should go to church in a swimsuit. Everyone would agree that she should not.
In the next two verses, Paul applies social convention once again. Men in that era did not have long hair. Women did. Paul asks if it would be appropriate for a man to have long hair (verse 14). He asks if a woman should have short hair, since her long hair is ‘her glory’ and ‘a covering’ (verse 15). During the Second World War, the French shaved the heads of women who were helping the Germans and forbade them from wearing a head covering. It was a humiliating, if somewhat justified, punishment for aiding and abetting the enemy.
Paul ends by saying that the Church has no provision for contentiousness (verse 16). He wants the Corinthians to obey social convention and not introduce provocation or controversy.
Henry explains:
Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency … Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.
MacArthur offers a scientific explanation:
Hair grows in a three-phase cycle. Number one in the cycle is the formation and growth of new hair. Secondly is the resting stage. Thirdly is the fall-out stage with which some of you are so well acquainted. Okay? So, you have beginning the formation and growth of new hair, the resting stage, and the fall-out. And then after the fall-out the cycle starts all over again.
Now, the male hormone, testosterone – the male hormone speeds those three phases so that quickly the man gets to phase three, fall out. That’s why you see bald men but never see bald women. Aristotle said, “I have never seen a bald child, eunuch, or woman.” There’s a reason for that. Testosterone , the male hormone, causes the speed up of the steps to get you quickly to step three. And that retards the process of growth in a man. The female hormone, estrogen, in the woman causes the cycle to remain in stage one, the growth stage, longer than it does in a man. That’s why a woman’s hair will grow longer than a man’s over the same period of time.
So, does not nature teach you? Hasn’t God put right into human physiology the truth that short hair belongs to men, and long hair belongs to women. Interesting, isn’t it? It’s interesting. You all look so stunned.
All right, now listen; I’m not through with you. The second term, phusis, the second way it can be translated is by the word “instinct.” Instinct means the instinctive sense of man as he recognizes what he sees in society. So, he’s saying, “It isn’t just physiological, but it’s just plain obvious.” Look around you in society. Isn’t it obvious that men have shorter hair than women? Nature has made it so, and man has agreed to nature, and that’s the way it is. And around the world, and for all history, men have generally had hair shorter than women. You can verify that, and you can cover a lot of ground historically, and you’ll see it verified.
Now, sometimes men’s hair was long enough to be at the shoulder, but the women’s hair was down around the tops of the legs. But always there was the distinction. In ancient Rome, it was considered a mark of effeminacy to have long hair. And it was ridiculed by Roman writers. In later times, early Church councils condemned men with long hair.
He concludes:
You take to heart what the Spirit of God says to you. And please, as I said earlier, don’t go running around, because you have long hair, thinking you’re spiritual. You might be, but that isn’t it. Or because you have short hair you can’t come back to church for the next eight weeks. No, I don’t want you to do that. I want you to think about it; I want you to pray about it. I want you to deal with it as God reveals it to your own heart as He has to mine. And let’s see where the Spirit of God leads in your life. And I’ll leave that up to Him and to you. Let’s pray.
In thinking about couples today in Western countries, one cannot help but wonder if continued role reversals over the past few decades have led to fewer marriages and fewer children. Something to ponder in the week ahead.
Next time — 1 Corinthians 11:17-22
Below are the readings for the Second Sunday of Easter, April 11, 2021.
These are for Year B in the three-year Lectionary used in public worship.
This particular day is also known as Quasimodo Sunday, taken from the Latin Introit:
‘Quasi modo geniti infantes, rationabile, sine dolo lac concupiscite’. This translates to: ‘As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile’ and is intended for those baptised the week before.
You can read more about Quasimodo Sunday here. The Victor Hugo character got his nickname because he had been left abandoned as a child at Notre Dame Cathedral on that particular day.
Emphases below are mine.
First reading
These verses describe the generosity of the members of the earliest church, which was in Jerusalem.
Acts 4:32-35
4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
4:33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.
4:35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
Psalm
It is likely that David wrote this Psalm when the tribes of Israel had been reunited under his reign. It ties in well with the reading from Acts.
Psalm 133
133:1 How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity!
133:2 It is like the precious oil on the head, running down upon the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down over the collar of his robes.
133:3 It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion. For there the LORD ordained his blessing, life forevermore.
Epistle
I enjoy reading John’s Epistles as much as I do his Gospel. Note his recurring theme of the light of Christ. The second half of 1 John 2:1 remains part of the traditional Anglican liturgy for Holy Communion.
1 John 1:1-2:2
1:1 We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—
1:2 this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us—
1:3 we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1:4 We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.
1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true;
1:7 but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2:2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Gospel
The Gospel is the same for this particular Sunday, regardless of the Lectionary year. It is the story of Doubting Thomas, more about whom can be found here and here. This reading concludes John’s Gospel.
John 20:19-31
20:19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
20:20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
20:24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”
20:26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”
20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
20:31 But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
It is worth remembering that, after His resurrection, Jesus had a glorified body which looked different to that of His previous body. This is why He showed the Apostles His wounds from His crucifixion.
We will be in Eastertide for the next several weeks, through to Pentecost Sunday. The celebrant wears white vestments during this season.
On March 28, 2021 an hour-long interview with General Thomas McInerney appeared online.
I do not know of the interviewer Nino, but the two seemed to get on well. Both support President Trump and both are sceptical of coronavirus vaccines.
General McInerney, 84, began his career in the Army then joined the Air Force. He completed his initial pilot training in 1960. In 1962, he flew escort missions in the West Berlin Air Corridor during the Berlin Crisis and escort reconnaissance missions over Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In April 1963, he was one of the first forward air controllers assigned to South Vietnam with a Vietnamese army division. He was sent to South East Asia on three additional deployments.
After the Vietnam War, he completed studies at the Armed Forces Staff College and graduated from the National War College.
In 1974, he was stationed in London as the air attaché to the U.S. Embassy. Between November 1976 and October 1977, he was assigned to the Royal Air Force Station in Upper Heyford, England, where he was vice commander of the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing.
In 1979, he was stationed in Asia, first in the Philippines, where he commanded the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing at Clark Air Base, then in 1981, in Japan, where he commanded the 313th Air Division at Kadena Air Base.
In 1983, he was transferred to Hawaii, where he served as deputy chief of staff for operations and intelligence, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces at Hickam Air Force Base.
In 1985, he returned to Europe. He became commander of 3rd Air Force, Royal Air Force Station in Mildenhall, England. The following year, he became vice commander in chief, Headquarters US Air Forces in Europe, Ramstein Air Base, West Germany.
In 1988, he was reassigned to the United States, serving as commander of Alaskan Air Command, Alaskan NORAD Region, and Joint Task Force Alaska. In July 1989, when Alaskan Command was activated, he became its commander. In 1990, he commanded the 11th Air Force, the redesignation of Alaskan Air Command.
His last active duty assignment was as assistant vice chief of staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. He retired from the Air Force in 1994, with the rank of Lieutenant General. Afterwards, he served on the boards of directors for several military contractors.
General McInerney endorsed Donald Trump both in 2016 and 2020. After the 2020 election, he supported the use of the Insurrection Act and all additional powers available. He was quoted as saying that he wanted President Trump:
to declare a national emergency, use the Insurrection Act, declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, set up military tribunals, and suspend the electoral college [vote for president and vice-president] on December 14 and the presidential inauguration on January 20.
A summary of the General’s interview with Nino follows. As one would expect in a conversation, the subjects ran together, so I have separated them below.
2020 election
At the 13-minute point, he said that Trump had 79 million votes to Biden’s 68 million. At the 15-minute mark, he mentioned the recount in Maricopa County and two more recounts in two other states. He believes that the Supreme Court did not want to hear any cases about the election because Chief Justice John Roberts is ‘compromised’ in some way.
He also thinks that coronavirus was engineered to steal the election and that someone cut a deal with the C C P.
The General said that President Trump should have appointed Sidney Powell as special legal counsel in December.
He said that, as nothing has been done:
Americans have got to take control over their country.
As to why Cyber Command did not report election irregularities on the night to the President, he said
I believe we have a Deep State.
He would like to know the reasons why Trump did not contest the election and made this assertion:
Trump had a lot of the Deep State around him.
He repeated later in the interview that Trump was surrounded by:
Deep Staters.
When asked about his former Vice President, Mike Pence, he said:
I think he is Deep State. He is part of the problem.
He was disappointed that the military did not do anything with regard to the election. He believes that Germany intercepted Dominion votes but took no action:
I think the military’s asleep at the switch.
He said that the United States needs:
a transparent audit that we’re all comfortable with.
He asserted:
Biden did not win.
He explained that votes exceeded voter rolls in all suspect states, a situation that, on a national level, was previously:
unheard of … a stolen election.
He said that Biden did not win through properly cast votes and that one would have to throw out mail-in votes as well as:
get the right people to look at them.
He thinks the focus needs to be on clean elections for 2022:
We’ve got to just keep banging away at it …
and if done fairly, Trump gets in for 2024.
As for the Q movement, he said:
I don’t know anything about the Q movement.
Coronavirus
With regard to coronavirus, at the 17:30 mark, the General said:
Do not take the vaccine.
He revealed that has already had one shot.
He explained that the vaccine is a prophylactic mRNA and that there will be no built-in immunity to COVID-20 and COVID-21.
Whether all the military have had it is still unconfirmed, he said.
He was and is clearly against lockdown. He added that a proper hydroxychloroquine protocol would have been sufficient and also suggested ivermectin. He believes that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) lied to President Trump.
He mentioned a Dr Northrop, whom he described as a well renowned physician, who says that Americans should stop taking the vaccine.
The General has strong feelings on this subject:
This is our Normandy, this is our Iwo Jima.
He believes that Dr Fauci:
has been part of this cabal.
He mentioned New York’s Governor Cuomo and deplored the nursing home deaths in that state.
On the other hand, he added, COVID-19 has a 99.2% survival rate and said of the American response:
We over-reacted.
Potentially, he said, Americans could go to ‘camps’ for refusing vaccines.
Conclusion
General McInerney said that Americans need to be realistic and resolute:
Hope is not a strategy.
He also foresees difficulties later in 2021, with serious problems starting:
this winter.
My readers wonder why President Trump is not doing more to oppose the Biden administration’s agenda. I am not sure that he can do much, if anything, at this point.
I will have more on the concluding days of the Trump administration next week which might help explain his current circumstances. I haven’t written about those final weeks. They have been too painful to consider.
The other day, one of my readers, H E, commented on my post about the latest Gallup poll showing a severe decline in religious affiliation in the United States, which is down to an all-time low of 47%.
H E’s observations are worthy of a guest post (emphases mine):
Another reader of mine, CMinTN replied:
Very good points. This is how I see things as well. I am 45 and my wife is 35. She came from a devout Catholic family while I come from a Methodist family on my mother’s side. We were very active at Church until the covid. Now, there is no choir, mandantory distancing, must make an appt. to attend. Very few people are going to our Church anymore and the bishop and conference seem to want to stay locked down out of a combination of fear and social justice virtue signaling. We still keep the faith though…
One day, misguided clergy will have to answer to the Lord, in person. One wonders how they will spin their answers.
My thanks to H E for another excellent commentary. H E has also written about coronavirus through the lens of history, the lack of support for John MacArthur’s court battle and today’s Democrats.
Last week, I was reading through Dr Taylor Marshall’s Twitter feed.
He featured in my Easter Monday post about the Dallas woman who was forbidden from entering her own parish church for not wearing a mask.
Over the 20th century, before my lifetime, the Catholic Church began reforms prior to Vatican II. This post will explore some of them.
The more reforms there are, the more questions the faithful have.
Chrism Mass — Maundy Thursday
In the old days of the Catholic Church, the chrism (oil) used in Baptism and, as it was then known, Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick and Dying) was blessed on Maundy Thursday at a daytime Mass attended by clergy and ordinands.
Now anything goes:
Holy Saturday – Easter Vigil Mass
I was too young to attend Easter Vigil Mass in Latin and wasn’t even around for pre-1955 Masses.
As such, this tweet piqued my interest at the weekend:
To know that this older rite is being celebrated around the world is heartening, indeed.
It took me a while to delve into the background and find out where the church is as well as the identity of the celebrant. Fortunately, the Easter Sunday Mass (below) has the Live Chat operating, which gave me a good start.
The YouTube channel, What Catholics Believe, is run by the priests belonging to the Society of Saint Pius V (SSPV).
The priest celebrating the Mass in the videos below is the Revd William Jenkins, pastor of Immaculate Conception Church, in Norwood, Ohio, near Cleveland.
The SSPV is a group of priests whose founding members broke away from Bishop Lefebvre’s Society of St Pius X (SSPX) in 1983.
The SSPV did not think that the SSPX had returned to the traditional Latin Mass and Catholic teachings sufficiently. They formed their own group, named after the pope who developed the Tridentine Mass in the 16th century: Saint Pius V.
The SSPV is based on Long Island, in Oyster Bay Cove, New York. The Society has its own bishop, five permanent priories, and a network of chapels and churches in 14 American states. The SSPV does not have canonical standing with Rome. The SSPV considers the possibility that the Holy See is currently unoccupied, meaning that they have not fully recognised the past few popes, including the present incumbent.
Below is the video of the pre-1955 Latin Mass celebrated on Holy Saturday by the Revd William Jenkins at Immaculate Conception Church. I watched all of it. It took me back to my post-1955 Tridentine Mass childhood, which preceded the reforms of Vatican II:
Look at the number of people attending. Women were traditionally required to wear lace mantillas, although there are a few young women with no head covering. Best of all, during our era of coronavirus: no masks!
As Mass begins, the statues on the altar are covered. That is because the Triduum — period of mourning — ends with the Easter Vigil Mass. After the introductory prayers, two of the altar boys carefully remove the purple fabric from the covered statues.
There is no Paschal candle, so it must have been a later development.
This Mass has more altar attendants than usual because of its ceremonial and celebratory nature. Incense is used to great effect, borrowing early worship traditions from the Old Testament. The fragrance from the incense in the thurifer ascends heavenward in the desire to make all the aspects of worship pleasing to God.
There are only two readings: the Epistle and the Gospel. The sermon follows. The sermon was not as scriptural as I would have liked, but it was good. The only thing I disagreed with was the priest’s saying that Mary anointed her son’s body. There is no mention of that in the New Testament. Other women named Mary did the anointing and visiting the tomb on the day of the Resurrection.
The next part that is worth watching and listening to is the consecration of the bread and wine. The priest prays quietly, therefore, as was true centuries ago, the congregation needs to know when the important parts of the prayer are being read, so that they, too, may bow their heads and pray. Hence the frequent ringing of bells by one or more of the altar boys.
Everyone approaches the altar for Holy Communion. They kneel at the altar rail. The priest blesses each communicant with the Sign of the Cross and places a consecrated host on each person’s tongue. (The cup is a much more recent development.)
It is wonderfully solemn. I was struck by the presence of people of all ages, from small children, to adolescents, to university-age students as well as adults, older and younger. If there were more Latin Masses, there would be more Catholics in the pews, that’s for sure!
Easter Sunday Masses
This video has back-to-back Easter Sunday Masses with the same celebrant at the same church:
All are well attended.
Some viewers might notice red and green lights early on in the lower left-hand corner of the screen. That is a shot of the confessional: red when occupied, green when the next penitent can enter.
Again, many people attended these Masses over Easter. What does that tell us? Traditional liturgy attracts a wide cross-section of worshippers, more that a modern service. Even my fellow Protestants can figure out from this what works and what doesn’t.
Those interested in more pre-1955 Latin Masses from the SSPV can view them here. These are viewed by people all over the world.
Dominus vobiscum.
(This ends my posts on Holy Week and Easter 2021.)
A lot happened during Holy Week 2021 to Christ’s faithful.
They, too, suffered afflictions, some more serious than others, all because of coronavirus.
London
On Good Friday, a Polish Catholic congregation in Balham, south London, received a visit from the Metropolitan Police which ended their service:
Too many people showed up:
The BBC has more on the story:
The Daily Mail also featured a report, including a lot of photos. It points out the service was only going to be 30 minutes long.
I can see the social distancing problem, so why didn’t the cop just ask for some people to leave and the remaining congregants could then spread out a bit in the pews?
Looks like another soft target for the police: obedient Christians with little command of the English language.
The BBC reports that people living near the church called the police (emphases mine):
Police say they were called to reports of large groups of people queuing outside Christ the King church on Balham High Road.
The video went viral:
Video of officers addressing the congregation, from the altar of the church, has been circulating online.
The church said all “government requirements have been complied with”.
A representative of Polish Catholic Mission Balham, which runs the church, added worshippers “obeyed” the police “without objection”.
“We believe, however, that the police have brutally exceeded their powers by issuing their warrant for no good reason,” the spokesman added.
“We regret that the rights of the faithful have been wronged on such an important day for every believer, and that our worship has been profaned.”
On Saturday, the Archbishop of Southwark, John Wilson, visited the church to discuss the incident.
Rector of the Catholic Polish Mission, Stefan Wylezek, said he intended to contact the Met to discuss how the situation was handled …
No fines were issued to worshippers.
The Met said it was “engaging with the church authorities” in connection with numerous events taking place at the church over the Easter period.
Incidentally, the next day, more protests about the proposed policing bill took place:
I’m tempted to make a comment, so I’ll refrain.
Canada
Now let’s cross the pond for more Holy Week stories.
Our first stop is Calgary, Alberta, where, coincidentally, another Polish pastor was targeted.
On Holy Saturday, Pastor Artur Pawlowski, the head of Calgary’s Street Church in Alberta, Canada, was holding a service at the Fortress (Cave) of Adullam when the officers entered the building.
This is because, according to local media, Pawlowski has violated coronavirus regulations before. He:
has been charged multiple times under Alberta’s Public Health Act for breaching Covid-19 regulations.
‘We expect that all places of worship across Alberta follow the CMOH restrictions and we thank everyone who continues to do their part to prevent the spread of COVID-19 this holiday weekend and throughout the pandemic.’
CTV News reported that officials from the City of Calgary Bylaw Services were also in attendance, alongside city police …
Churches in the area can hold services but must keep attendance below 15 per cent and follow guidelines including wearing masks and social distancing.
However the controversial pastor was praised by some on social media who see pandemic restrictions as infringing on their right to religious worship.
Ezra Levant, the founder of far-right commentary website Rebel News, said Pawlowski’s response was ‘how you handle police who enter a church without a warrant.’
Here is Levant’s tweet, along with a video taken at the church showing the main confrontation (H/T to the Gateway Pundit):
Fox News reported what Pawlowski said:
“Get out of this property immediately,” he says in the video. “I don’t want to hear anything … out immediately.”
Most of the officials don’t engage Pawlowski, but an unidentified woman seems to try and explain their presence. Pawlowski was not having it.
“Out!” he yelled. “Out of this property … immediately until you come back with a warrant.” The officials and officers slowly exit the building, and Pawlowski followed them.
“Nazis are not welcome here,” he then says. “And don’t come out without a warrant.”
The pastor also called them “Gestapo.”
The second video follows. The pastor says that the Canadian government is trying to take people’s rights away and will succeed if people do not rally together to stop it:
The Church of Adullam is a group of churches in North America which offer spiritual refuge to those experiencing brokenness in their lives:
We aim to provide a safe place of help, hope, and healing for all who enter the cave.
At Adullam, we believe deeply in the power of community. We believe community in the church means an ongoing fellowship of connectedness with Jesus by His spirit taking his rightful place among the people as King.
The church also provides food to those in need.
Its name comes from 1 Samuel 22:1-2:
1 David left Gath and escaped to the cave of Adullam. When his brothers and his father’s household heard about it, they went down to him there. 2 All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their commander. About four hundred men were with him.
On Easter Sunday, the Calgary Police Service issued a statement:
United States
The US also had sad Holy Week episodes.
Texas
The following story broke on Lazarus Saturday, the day before Palm Sunday. Technically, it did not take place during Holy Week — rather two weeks before — but it circulated during that time, especially when the Gateway Pundit featured it on Monday, March 29.
Dr Taylor Marshall, a husband and father of eight children, converted to the Catholic faith. He was mainline Protestant. He is an author who also broadcasts on YouTube:
In the video, Mrs Deirdre Hairston, mother of a one-year-old with another baby expected later this year, described her experience at Holy Trinity Church in Dallas. She has been permanently barred from entering that church — her parish church — again:
She says that, during Mass, the pastor approached her — the assistant pastor was saying Mass — and told her that she had to wear a mask or he would call the police. Mrs Hairston purposely sat in the back row of chairs. She had her baby with her and wanted to be able to make a quick exit should the baby start crying.
She told Taylor Marshall that she was not wearing her mask because she did not feel well, which isn’t surprising, given that she is in the early stages of pregnancy.
She went to receive Holy Communion with her baby in her arms. She returned to her chair to pray, the Eucharist still in her mouth, when she felt a rough tug on her arm.
It was a police woman who said she was going to put handcuffs on her. Remember, she was holding her baby at the time!
Hairston asked if she was under arrest. The police woman said that she was not.
Here’s the clip:
Texas has not had a state mask mandate since early March.
Therefore, she was under no legal obligation to wear one, although businesses can ask a person to do so.
Hairston and her baby left the church. In the video, it appears as if her husband shows up — a man wearing shorts and a polo shirt. The police woman tells him that the church is a business. He tells her that it is not, under 501c(3) rules. She insists that it is.
Anyway, the family left, and Mrs Hairston can no longer attend that church — her parish church!
I love this tweet addressed to the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas:
The CBS affiliate in Dallas/Fort Worth picked up the story on Monday and reported:
Cell phone footage shows Hairston asking what crime she has committed, to which police replied she was “trespassing on a business.”
Hairston said her parish-priest, Father Ryan called police.
Once outside, Hairston said the usher ran to her car and took photos of her license plate as police were taking her information. She also said she was issued a ticket for trespassing.
Holy Trinity, which serves the uptown community near Oak Lawn and Lemmon Ave. responded on March 29, two weeks after the incident and two days after Marshall shared the interview on Youtube.
In it, they state that Hairston wasn’t arrested or ticketed, merely issued a trespass warning. They also said the pastor of the parish has required masks at Mass out of concern for the health and welfare of its entire congregation. Hairston and her husband said that isn’t true. They said it wasn’t required – only encouraged.
How can Holy Trinity ‘encourage’ it when the parish priest calls the police? As for ‘concern’, has he no concern for a pregnant mother who isn’t feeling well?
In the video, Hairston and Marshall discuss what impact incidents such as these might have on church attendance.
Some Catholics are angry:
This might even unintentionally encourage Catholics to attend other churches.
And, lo, here’s a Twitter exchange on that very subject:
Too right.
New York
My final news story — a sad and violent one — took place in Manhattan on Monday of Holy Week.
Vilma Kari, a 65-year-old woman of slight build, was on her way to church on Monday when a man at least twice her size pushed her to the ground and began kicking her in the head.
Ms Kari is an American of Filipino heritage. Her attacker is black.
Here’s the video. Watch the security guards of the nearby building close the door on the scene:
People were outraged that the security guards did not come to her rescue:
On Wednesday, March 31, the NYPD arrested the perp:
That also angered people, especially when they found out he killed his own mother and was out on parole:
The New York Post reported:
Bystanders did nothing to help an Asian woman as she was being beaten in broad daylight in Manhattan this week — and didn’t even bother calling 911, police said Wednesday.
An NYPD spokesperson said it had zero records of a 911 call from Monday’s unprovoked attack — when convicted murderer Brandon Elliot, 38, allegedly kicked a 65-year-old victim to the ground and repeatedly stomped on her face outside 360 West 43rd Street.
At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Det. Michael Rodriguez said police on patrol drove by and saw the victim after she was attacked.
“They came upon the victim after she was assaulted,” he said.
Outrage has mounted over the caught-on-camera beatdown — the latest in a disturbing trend of hate crimes against Asian Americans — after at least three staffers inside the building were caught doing nothing to thwart Elliot.
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said detectives would be interviewing those on video tape who witnessed the assault first hand.
“I fully understand the public’s anger,” Shea said about the bystander inaction …
The staffers who witnessed the attack have since been suspended as an investigation plays out …
The victim, Vilma Kari, suffered a broken pelvis and was released from the hospital Tuesday.
Early Wednesday morning, police nabbed Elliot — a homeless man who was out on parole for murdering his mother in 2002 — for the alleged hate crime.
The New York Post had an article on Elliot, who lived near the building in front of which he assaulted Ms Kari:
Brandon Elliot, 38, who lives in a nearby hotel that serves as a homeless shelter, was arrested early Wednesday and hit with a number of charges, including assault as a hate crime and attempted assault as a hate crime, police said.
He was caught on video mercilessly punching and kicking the 65-year-old victim in front of an apartment building at 360 West 43rd Street around 11:40 a.m. Monday, yelling “F–k you, you don’t belong here,” according to cops and police sources.
In April 2002, Elliot was charged with murder for using a kitchen knife to stab his mother, Bridget Johnson in the chest three times in their East 224th Street home in the Bronx, according to previous reports.
The deadly attack took place in front of Elliot’s 5-year-old sister, sources told The Post. It’s unclear what led to the slaying.
Johnson, 42, died a couple of days later.
Elliot was convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years-to-life in prison.
He was denied parole twice — first at a February 2017 hearing and again in December 2018, according to a state Department of Corrections official.
But the following year, he was approved for release in September and sprung on lifetime parole two months later.
Also:
Kari is Filipino American, according to Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Manuel Romualdez.
Elliot is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan criminal court sometime on Wednesday.
A resident at the Four Points by Sheraton — the West 40th Street homeless shelter where Elliot was staying during the alleged attack — said he knew the brute well after spending time with him at another shelter.
“He told me he was [a] diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic,” the man, who declined to give his name, told The Post. “He’s quiet. He doesn’t talk much. He is really paranoid. He has mental issues.”
Elliot’s latest bust comes in the wake of a surge of attacks against Asian victims in New York City and elsewhere.
That is because of coronavirus. Shameful and ignorant on so many levels.
UPDATE — April 6: The two security guards have been fired. However, under their union’s — SEIU’s — procedures, they can appeal, although that could take weeks or months, according to a union official. The perp, Elliot, will be arraigned on April 21.
——————————————————————————–
All of these incidents happened because of coronavirus or coronavirus restrictions.
May the Risen Lord Jesus look graciously upon His believers who have been afflicted during the past few weeks, particularly those profiled here. May He give them sustained hope and healing, especially during this Easter season.
On Monday, March 29, 2021, news emerged of a Gallup poll indicating that only 47% of Americans now have a religious affiliation.
Sarah Pulliam Bailey writes about matters of faith for the Washington Post. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson served as general secretary of the Reformed Church in America for 17 years and writes for RNS (Religion News Service):
I went to Wes Granberg-Michaelson’s article ‘Behind Gallup’s portrait of church decline’ for more details.
Excerpts follow, emphases mine.
The article begins as follows:
As Holy Week began this year, a Gallup Poll found that church membership in the United States had declined to less than half of the population for the first time. The headline grabbed attention, but it’s mostly unsurprising: In a country where 90% of the 350,000 congregations in the U.S. have a profile older than the general population, time brings an inevitable decline.
Christians have also suffered self-inflicted damage: Surveys show that the identification of many white evangelicals with former President Donald Trump drove many millennials away, as did the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church over the previous decades. “Nones” — those claiming no religious affiliation — are growing, now roughly equaling the number of evangelicals or of Catholics in the U.S.
However, not everyone has stopped worshipping publicly. It appears this phenomenon affects the white population:
People of color are actually preventing a more precipitous drop in overall church participation. The Assemblies of God, one of the few denominations showing growth, saw its white membership decrease in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014, but nonwhite members increased by 43%, reflecting trends continuing today. One-third of U.S. Catholics are now Hispanic. Without its growing nonwhite members, the Catholic Church would be in free fall instead of remaining at about 22% of the U.S. population.
Interestingly, there has been a slight uptick for mainline Protestant denominations:
The latest available data from the General Social Survey, a major tool for sociologists, shows that the percentage of mainline Protestants in the U.S. recently increased for the first time in nearly 30 years, from 10.2% to 10.8%, while Catholics and evangelicals showed a moderate decline.
The lack of religious affiliation with any world religion, not only Christianity, is not a matter of unbelief, either, as only 22% of those polled describe themselves as atheists.
Another RNS article looks at the survey: ‘Gallup: Fewer than half of Americans belong to a church or other house of worship’.
That article shows the Gallup graph of formal religious affiliation from the late 1930s to the present. It’s a rather shocking picture.
Looking at it, we see that, in the late 1930s, 73% of Americans were members of a church or synagogue. In the post-war years, that figure rose to 76% then went back to 73% until the 1970s when it slipped to 71%.
Today’s decline began after the Millennium, when religious affiliation was under 70%. By 2015, that figure was 55% and falling continuously to the present 47%.
By now, multiple generations have grown accustomed to not entering a place of worship unless it is for a wedding or a funeral. The article says:
Younger Americans are increasingly disconnected from organized religion, according to the report from Gallup. But the number of older Americans who are members of a house of worship has also declined in recent years.
No doubt Christian clergy will think they need to make their church services even more ‘relevant’ in a secular style. However, Britain’s Anglican churches have been doing that for decades with little to no success.
Meanwhile, in California, Pastor John MacArthur has no problem attracting well over 1,000 people to his church every Sunday and Wednesday. He also has a very well attended Spanish service.
What is the secret of his success? Preaching the Bible, one verse at a time. Clergy, take note.
The news reports in your post mention how people have turned their backs on organized religion. I think a more important story is how organized religion has turned its back on its parishioners.
I can speak only for what I witness in the US. The mainline denominations have moved away from preaching God and the Bible to preaching political activism and pop-psychology. Observers are puzzled by the decreasing number of people who attend church services. This is no surprise to me. Why should someone go to church to listen to a second-rate political stump-speech for the latest left-wing cause when he could hear the same thing by turning on his television at home and watch the evening news?
A few months ago, I drove through a nearby city and I passed a church which had an electronic sign in front with a scrolling message. The message said the following:
We love you
So we are closed
I was so shocked by this message that I stopped my car and took pictures of the sign and its message. Last Spring, our governor ordered churches to close, but he lifted this restriction after a few months and churches may now hold services, but with limited capacity. This particular church decided to remain closed, as a “service” to its parishioners.
The church was a Methodist church. I recall reading about the Wesleys and the early days of their ministry and how they would travel from city to city and ask permission to preach in the local church. If they were refused permission to preach in the church, they weren’t deterred. They would look for a large open field nearby and preach there.
I wonder what they would think if they knew their spiritual descendants thought so little of God’s Word that they suspended preaching as a service to their parishioners.