A Declaration of Independence, Redux

When one people need to separate themselves from another, and to take the place to which the Laws of God and the Laws of Nature entitle them, they ought to say why they are doing so.

We hold that all humans are created equal, that God has given them rights that none can take away, and that those rights include Life, Freedom, and the means of seeking our own happiness. To do this, most people have found that governments should exist, but that their right to exist depends on the will and consent of those who are governed.

When governments stop doing this, the people have the right to shut those so-called governments down, and start over, in such a way that 'they don't get fooled again'. It is a matter of common sense that one does not change the government lightly, or because one person is upset at the way things are run. And often, one will keep going along with a bad government, because the alternative is often a worse one.

But when the system breaks down, or when it fouls up so repeatedly, or when its so-called leaders do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, it is both the right and the duty of the people to tell the government what it can do with itself, and start again afresh.

Just so that you know what we are talking about here:

The present government has refused to enact laws that would actually help the common good.

It has prevented Governors from passing laws that actually might help us, unless the government can in some way get credit for it.

It has kept the States from passing laws that might help the people in those states, unless those people buy into accepting a public dole.

It has called together Congresses at times and places that the people cannot follow what is going on, so that it can badger them into accepting what it has done.

It has undermined the will of the people, by electing representatives who have been bought and sold by lobbyists.

When it is displeased with the results of an election, it causes contests to exist which wear out the patience of those who were trying to have an election and to get things done.

Rather than helping the people of this land, it has allowed millions of people from another land to come in to waste the substance of citizens and taxpayers, and not to do one damned thing about it.

It has kept justice from being done by preselecting a group of judges who have no interest in justice or the people, but what the lobbyists can pay.

It has made a myriad of lobbies, bureaucracies, interests groups, and others to harass our people and eat out their livelihoods.

It has made standing armies, at home and abroad, without the consent of our governors or legislatures.

It has made the Department of Defense independent of and superior to the Department of State.

It has combined with the Supreme Court and the Congress to subject us to laws which we did not pass, or even to know of.

It has made a Department of Homeland Security, which has quartered a great number of 'gomer gestapo' who trouble and harry us while we try to travel.

It protects these morons from any consequences of their petty tyranny while it puts loyal citizens on 'watch lists'.

It regulates trade so that our jobs are 'outsourced' to other lands and we are sold down the river.

It imposes taxes upon us without our consent.

In so many ways, from traffic courts to administrative courts, it deprives us of trial by jury.

It changes our laws from the old 'common law' to one to which we have not consented, or even known.

It takes away our local Charters, abolishes our laws, and alters the forms of our government, for an agenda which they do not acknowledge.

It has bored us with stupid elections, and then told us that we consented to what was voted on by those who won.

At all times, we have told our government: stop doing these things without our consent or knowledge. But they continue. Anyone who does these things should be called tyrants, Nazis, and thugs, and unfit to try to govern us.

We've tried to warn you about this. You haven't been listening. We're going to have to get serious now.

Thus, we're going to have to stop following your stupid laws, and to make laws of our own. If you won't do anything, we will. Deal with it.

We therefore resist you to our last breath, and claim our independence and freedom. And to this, we will pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Sacrifice of Cain

Some time ago, I read the spiritual autobiography of the late William F. Buckley,Jr.: Nearer My God. In that book, which I recommend to all, Buckley presented his religious life, both before and after Vatican II. Like many of those of his day, he remembered with fondness the old ways, and looked with a certain regret upon the “reforms” which happened after the Second Vatican Council. But at the end of one chapter, he asked a most pertinent question: if the Council was such a time of powerful religious and spiritual reform, then why are the monasteries, seminaries, and nunneries so empty? Why have vocations among priests and religious so dried up? And why have so many who remain have been revealed as followers, not of Our Lord, but of such as Gilles de Rais and the Marquis de Sade?

These questions I have long pondered, and I have also pondered the answers that a number of people have given to those questions. It seems that those who are happy with the reforms after Vatican II have their answer, which in effect is to say: “we have not gone far enough down the road of reform to reap all of its benefits. We must follow the latest fashions and styles of the new musicians and liturgists. If folk masses are no longer au courant, then we must invent punk masses, with slam dances for the kiss of peace, and mosh pits in place of the sanctuary. We must call for a Third Vatican Council, which will finish those reforms which the People of God have called for. Then we will have reached the parousia, and we will be led into a land flowing with soda pop and saccharine.”

I don’t know about you, but such people remind me of Einstein’s definition: “Insanity is when people do the same thing over and over, and expect a different result.”

On the other extreme, I have seen and heard many so-called Roman Catholics say: “Many or all of the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council are in error, and that is why those who follow those doctrines have entered and have led many others into error.” There is just one problem with holding a view such as that: We have been promised by our Lord, among many other things, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. As should be obvious, the three main ways that people are led into Hell are by sin, by error, and by death. To say that an Ecumenical Council of the Church has committed grave and repeated error is in effect to say either that our Lord is a liar, or that the Roman Catholic Church is neither the or a true Church of Christ. I do not see how any one who is a true child of that Church can say such things against Her, or against Her Lord. This is usually the role taken by Her enemies.

If nothing else, I would think that the brighter of such people would remember the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc: it is a logical mistake to think that because one thing happened after another, that the first thing is therefore the cause of the second. It thus may be a mistake to think that because many evils happened after Vatican II, that that Council was thus the cause of those ills.

Then there are some who say what I think is the most plausible reason so far given as to why what happened after Vatican II did not fulfill the promise offered by that Council: They say that there were many who failed to follow the teaching of Vatican II, but instead taught what they wanted to teach, and said that they were somehow following “the spirit” of Vatican II. This eisegesis, or this misinterpretation, they call the “hermeneutic of discontinuity”.

That is all very well, and it very well may be the root of the rot which has so damaged the Roman Catholic Church. But I find this explanation to be lacking on two levels: first, like any child of the East, I prefer the simple language of Scripture, of the Fathers, and of most of the saints, to the polysyllabic jargon of the Schoolmen, be they Aquinas and Bonaventure, or Husserl and Heidegger. The expression, “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity,” savors more of the university and the lectern than the cathedral and the pulpit.

But second, and more importantly, the expression, “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity” is not adequate to the task, because it does not adequately describe or explain how and why such damage happened to the Church after Vatican II.

I thus propose a simpler, and more Biblical, explanation of what happened after the Second Vatican Council: too many bishops, priests, religious, and lay people offered the sacrifice of Cain, and as a result, the Lord God did not bless their work.

If you will recall from the book of Genesis, Cain offered the sacrifice of the first fruits of his farm, while his brother Abel offered young lambs from his flock. The Lord blessed the sacrifice of Abel, and rejected that of Cain. Both the Rabbinic and the Patristic commentary on this scripture are agreed that the Lord had taught the family of Adam that the proper sacrifice before the Lord was the sacrifice of the lamb, and that Cain had offered what he wanted to offer, rather than that which the Lord demanded. The sacrifice of Cain is thus a type for all of those who offer what they want to the Lord, rather than what the Lord asks or demands.

Lest anyone think that I exaggerate here, I invite your attention to the Vatican II statement on Divine Revelation, or Dei Verbum. In it, the council fathers proclaim that Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Church Authority, rather than being “inconvenient truths”, are the three means by which the Spirit of God has spoken to human beings. Further, in their dogmatic statement on the Church, or Lumen Gentium, the council fathers proclaimed that one of the chief means by which the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Church has been in and through Her ecumenical councils. It would thus seem obvious to anyone who actually believes in what the Church teaches that God has spoken to us through Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and through the Councils of the Church. It should also appear obvious that any one who would ignore these teachings, was in fact ignoring the Word of God.

It should also be obvious that he or she who ignores the word of God, but who says that they are doing God’s will, is simply offering the sacrifice of Cain.

Taken in that light, let us examine what the Council documents have to say about the Divine Liturgy. Those on the Divine Liturgy ask that the Latin language be retained in some way in the liturgy. They commend that clergy and people make song a principal part of that liturgy, and that the Roman Church’s traditional chant be given pride of place in all liturgical gatherings, that the treasury of polyphony be preserved and cultivated, and that modern hymns be introduced. They ask that the liturgy be served with a noble simplicity, and that all art, architecture, music, vestments, lights, and incense be used to reflect the dignity and the beauty of heaven.

The fact that almost none of this has been done in and for most of the liturgies served in the last two score of years thus is not just a shame and a pity. For the last score of years at least, Canon 214 of the Code of Canon Law has stated that “the Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.”

As those “legitimate pastors” would appear to include the Council Fathers, and as the documents of the Second Vatican Council doubtless would be included in the teaching of the Church, the failure to serve liturgies consonant with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council would appear to be both the denial of the word of God, and the denial of the rights of the Christian faithful. These denials would appear to be nothing less than sins before humankind, and before God.

If this were just a failure to serve the liturgy as God and as the Council Fathers had asked, it would be bad enough. But the sacrifice of Cain runs even deeper than this. Let us examine two other documents of the Council.

The first, Optatam Totius, expresses the Council’s wishes as regards the education and training of priests and bishops. It first commends that candidates to the priesthood be well grounded in Latin, and encourages them to learn the languages of Scripture and Tradition. As the languages of Scripture would appear to be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the languages of Tradition are Greek and Latin (and some would add Christian Aramaic, or Syriac), candidates to the priesthood are thus commended to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, and to use these tongues better to know the sources of Divine Revelation: that is, Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Church Authority.

It then commends that the candidates, before entering the seminary, gain the scientific, literary, and humanistic education customary to those going on to higher studies. That is to say, the sort of education which is required before one can go on to studies in Medicine and Science, Law, Theology, and Philosophy. In short, the Council Fathers asked that candidates to the priesthood, even before entry into the seminary, be well educated in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, music, classics, literature, history, and political theory. As most areas of higher studies require a reading knowledge at least of French, German, and Italian, three of the four languages of modern scholarship (the fourth being English), these would also appear to be prerequisites.

It further states that the candidate should, while in seminary, take two years of study in philosophy, and four in theology. As regards philosophy, it recommends that all philosophical studies of “perennial” value should be undertaken. That would appear to include Plato and Aristotle, the Schoolmen, and everyone from Descartes to the modern philosophers. As regards theology, it commends that the sources of theology (again, Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority) be examined thoroughly, that the candidate be fully trained in liturgical theology, moral theology, and dogmatic theology, and finally that the candidate be instructed in the Summa of the blessed Aquinas.

I have a question for my readers: how many priests do you know who have had or even approach the level of education demanded by the Council Fathers? I only know of three: Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Joseph O’Leary, and my parish priest at St. Andrew’s, Fr. Alexei Smith. I hope and believe that there are some others. I fear that few of them live and serve in my country. This lack among the Roman Catholic priesthood is one of the main reasons that I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I need more than they can give me, or to the rest of the faithful.

The last document which I wish to examine in this essay is Presbyterorum Ordinis. In it, the Council fathers express their wishes for the spiritual life of priests and bishops. They state in no uncertain terms that the first duties of bishops and priests are to preach the word of God and to serve the sacraments. Priests and bishops are to work together as co-laborers, with priests acting in obedience to their bishops, and the bishops seeking to act to better direct and to ease the labors of their priests. The sacraments do not simply include the Eucharist and Penance, but also the Liturgy of the Hours, which in some part should be shared with the people. Priests are to cultivate the spiritual life, and are to assist the laity in their efforts to live that life. Further, priests are to keep up their knowledge of theology, through a thorough study of scripture, tradition, and authority, and are to keep up their knowledge of secular matters, so as better to bring the Gospel to the world.

Several questions come to mind, which I wish to pose to my readers: How many priests do you know who appear to spend more than a few minutes in the preparation of their sermons? How many show that they have even the remotest acquaintance with Holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the lives of the saints, or the traditions and teachings of the Church? How many lead their people in Vespers, Matins, or any of the hours? How many have any inkling of the spiritual life, or show that they might have something to teach you of that life? I am happy to say that my parish priest does quite well in all these regards. I am sad to say that I know of few others who are where I live. Most of those either visit or help to serve at my church.

In short, most of the Divine Liturgies served for the last two score years, and most of those priests allegedly serving them, have neither been informed by nor obedient to the teachings of their Church, or of Her most recent Council. In the parlance of the sixties, they have “done their own thing.” They have offered the sacrifice of Cain.

There are three things that we know of from the Book of Genesis as regards the sacrifice of Cain: The first is that God will not bless it. This should be obvious. If we do not listen to the Spirit of God, or to do what it has to say, then how can God bless us? The Psalmist tells us, from the first to the last Psalm, that those are blessed who hear the word of God, who meditate upon it, and who do what it tells us. The Psalms also have some rather harsh things to say about those who do not listen, and who instead harden their hearts. I suggest reading Psalm 1, or Psalm 95, to see what God has to say here.

The second thing that we know from the Book of Genesis is that the error of the sacrifice of Cain is correctable. God told Cain, and through Cain, us, that if we did well, we would be rewarded, and if not, we would not be blessed. He thus gives us hope that if we were to listen to what God has to say, and to apply it to our worship and to our lives, that we can still obtain His blessing. I am happy to say that there are some who are now trying to bring the teachings of the Second Vatican Council for once into the worship of the Divine Liturgy in the West.

For priests in particular, and for those with the gifts for it, it is the simplest thing in the world to heal one’s ignorance. All that one needs is a little knowledge applied to one’s mind. For my part, later essays will attempt to give guides by which both priests and lay people can learn what needs to be known.

But the third thing that Genesis teaches us is that for those who persist in the sacrifice of Cain, sin lies in wait along the way, and that sin is twofold: the denial of God, and wrath for those who try to do His will. That wrath moved Cain to kill his brother, Abel. This wrath, which is the mark of Cain, is the surest sign that those bearing that mark have made the sacrifice of Cain. We see it now in the wrath which some display towards the advocates of the “hermeneutic of continuity”, or said more simply, those who wish to learn and to do the will of God.

Another "gentle critique" of the modern news media

It would seem that the stable of whores who call themselves the modern news media, not being content with having trashed the name and the life of the governor of our northmost state, because of her temerity in running against The Chosen One, have decided to use the same tactics against the Holy Father as well.

We know the tactics well: look through every thing that the opponent has done, examine his or her trash, set investigators on every small detail of his or her life, and see what dirt you can find. If you cannot find any bad thing that one’s foe has done, then look to the foe’s family. Surely one can find a child born out of wedlock, or a charge of drunk driving in one’s spouse. Of course, it does not matter if the parents later wed, or if the spouse had been charged before the spouses married. Parade the shameful facts and declare the foe to be unfit for office, whether that office be the vice-presidency of the United States, or the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course, in the case of the Holy Father, it was a bit more difficult. Paparazzi and other poltroons find it hard to gain access to the Vatican. There are those little matters of the Swiss Guard while His Holiness is at home, or His diplomatic staff while He is abroad. It also does not help when faced with trying to find dirt on a man of the highest probity and privacy, as is certainly the case for the life of the man who, from priesthood to professorship to papacy, has shown himself in all things to be both a complex genius and a simple saint. It is even more difficult when His Holiness’ only close living relative is such a good and gentle man as His brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger.

But, as all bad journalists know, when the going gets tough, the tough dig deeper. Look at every thing that the foe has done, every friend, every action, however minor. Look! The Pope has lifted the ban of excommunication on four bishops ordained by the schismatic, Archbishop LeFebvre. Let’s look at every single thing that these four men have said or written or done. Maybe we can find something we can use there.

And look! One of the four is a nutter who, in one of his sermons, questions whether the Holocaust ever happened. Let’s parade this out and repeat the shout: “The Pope is a Holocaust denier! The Pope is a Holocaust denier!”

Of course, it does not matter that His Holiness may have acted in a spirit of generosity to attempt to end a schism which had been plaguing the Roman Catholic Church for the last forty or so years. Nor does it matter that His Holiness has done much in support of modern Judaism and the state of Israel, and has roundly and repeatedly condemned ha-Shoah, that greatest of the evils of the Nazis. Nor does it even matter that His Holiness may not have known of the statements of this one idiot bishop, or that He acted immediately to condemn that statement once it had been brought to his attention. “To the guillotine! Off with his head!”

Now I can understand the motives of the secular press in acting as they have. Anti-Catholicism has long been known to be the one remaining “politically correct” bigotry. I suppose that it must be fun to trash someone whose positions one is in disagreement with; at least, this must be fun for the small minded.

Of course, the actions of the press in this and in so many other things, give repeated proof that they have long ago abandoned even their claim of impartiality and objectivity for what they actually stand for: partisanship and propaganda. Even the brightest stars of the Left have figured this one out. If you have any doubt of that, I suggest that you may want to read Edward S. Herman’s and Noam Chomsky’s excellent work, Manufacturing Consent.

In the words of the late H. G. Wells: “They have sold their birthright for a pot of message.” That sentence may well serve as an epitaph for the modern press. I can only take wry pleasure in the fact that the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and a score of other rags are quickly becoming as financially as they are morally bankrupt. With any luck, or if there is any justice, much of the electronic “news” media will soon follow suit. And there are some strong signs that that is in fact beginning to be the case.

What I can not understand is the reaction of a number of so-called Roman Catholics, who are joining in the present rush to judgment against His Holiness. In addition to being played for fools by the press, they are showing that they either do not know their own faith, or that they are unwilling or unable to practice it.

If I remember it right, one of the canons of the Second Ecumenical Counsel states that the Bishop of Rome is to be given the primacy of honor by all the faithful. I would think that “primacy of honor” would include such paltry matters as “giving the benefit of the doubt” or “presuming innocence until proven guilty” or “actually listening to what His Holiness has to say in the matter”. This is what even the glitterati of the press would call “a no-brainer”.

But I am given to understand that there are some RCs who seem to feel that the Second Vatican Counsel has abrogated all previous ecumenical councils. I should rather like to know where it is in the Council documents that such a momentous doctrine was published and promulgated. So far, I have been unable to find it anywhere in the documents of Vatican II, and I have read and looked long and hard. Be that as it may, if one looks at the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, or Lumen Gentium, at paragraph 25, one finds instead the following:

“. . .Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

I would personally think that this “religious submission of mind and will”, from the context given, would include such matters as actually listening to His Holiness, and giving Him the benefit of the doubt as regards his motives and intents in taking the actions that He has. Perhaps, though, such people as Fr. Hans Kung (who has been most vocal in the present foolishness) believe that there will be a Third Vatican Council, summoned by the People of God, which will abrogate all previous councils, including Vatican II, and will free that People from such retrograde “submission”. If so, I suggest that such people re-read Psalm II. You know, the one starting with “Why do the heathen rage?” God may have other things in mind.

Finally, I suspect that some RCs are of the mind that regardless of what they do, there is no law against what they are doing. If so, for those legalistic minds which can only understand laws and punishments, I would suggest that such people read Canon 1373 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that “One who publicly either stirs up hostilities or hatred among subjects against the Apostolic See or against an ordinary on account of some act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or incites subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or by other just penalties.”

In other words, folks, it’s not just Tradition, or Church Authority, or even just a good idea. It’s the law.

Now, I know that the canonists are not apt these days to construe Canon 1373 too strictly against those raising legitimate criticisms against Church leaders. Meaning no disrespect to His Holiness, who I believe has suffered unjustly from the above-mentioned media thugs, but it might be simple prudence these days, when trying to do good, to take some care to “vet” the people whom one is trying to help, if only to anticipate and avoid such pitfalls. After all, under the watchful eye of the media elites, no good deed goes unpunished.

In the same way, those who have offered useful critiques to the bishops who allowed child abuse to continue under their oversight, or those who have suggested that certain liturgical abuses have gone on for far too long, should not have to suffer for their critiques.

But when people say that the Pope, or any of his bishops, should be deposed, or should resign, because of simple mob rule, then I begin to think that those who call for such deposition, or resignation, out of simple justice, should themselves face the same accusers, and the same fate. I am tempted to say: “Where is Savanarola when you really need him?”

But I will not say that, or at least, not outside of quotes. Those great philosophers, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, have spoken truth when they said: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” Nor should they. But our Lord has also said, “According to the measure that you measure out to others, it will be measured out to you.” For those who suggest, or demand, that the Pope be deposed because of some imagined imperfection, then I am sorely tempted to suggest the following: “May the same be done to you, according to your will.”

As for me, this uncharity of the unfaithful has tempted me to respond with such uncharity of my own that, as I am writing this on a Saturday night, I will go tomorrow to the Divine Liturgy, if God so permits me, and as per the counsel of the good Fr. Z, I shall pray, as I always do, for His Holiness, the Pope of Rome, for the priesthood, for the diaconate in Christ, and for all the clergy and people. And I will pray also:

Lord, have mercy.

Modern Roman Catholic Music: Still sucks

Finally over my post election tristesse, I have decided to return to writing in my weblog. As usual, it is a case of reading the papers and reporting the facts.

It seems that Jeffrey Tucker, in a recent entry in that estimable web journal, The New Liturgical Movement, reports that while Musica Sacra has all sorts of free musical settings of ICEL texts, it is not permitted to publish them until for-profit publishers have geared up to shill their swill, er, publish their own Haagen-Haas settings.

Ah, now I see.

I had actually thought for a time that my essays Why (Modern) Roman Catholic Music Sucks so Much and (Modern) Roman Catholic Music: Now Sucks Two-Thirds Less as well as those of the NLM and the Recovering Choir Director had actually had some effect in getting ICEL to modify its onerous and stupid policies concerning royalties.

I am relieved, in an odd way, to see that they are continuing their bureaucratic norm. In as many words, they are saying: "Why, of course, we will allow you to publish freeware liturgical music, but we will have to set the date when everyone will do it. And we will postpone that date, for as much as ten or so years, if necessary.

Of course, one should only expect this from a group that seems to worship, not the God, but the Dog in the manger.

Merry Christmas, all.

How I feel just now

"Why yes, Bobby: any boy or girl can grow up to be slimed and slandered by elite media whores while they are running for President or Vice-President. But then, we have the best political system that money can buy."

An Historic Event

The original purpose of this weblog was to speak of recent events from the point of view of an Eastern Christian. I would like this week to return to that original purpose. This last Saturday, I saw history being made. As usual, most of the usual suspects from the fifth, er, fourth column were absent. Fortunately, EWTN was there to present, and hopefully, to record the event.

The event of which I speak took place in Rome, at St. Peter's, in the Sistine Chapel. There, at the invitation of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew I addressed the assembled Synod of Roman Catholic Bishops. (The text of that address may be found here. In the event that I am able to find a YouTube or other video link, I will certainly put it up here.) As His All-Holiness remarked in His address, this was the first time in history that an Ecumenical Patriarch had been invited to address such a Synod. That alone would be saying something.

But there were three things that happened at His All-Holiness' address that have not happened in more than a millenium.

The first thing was that His All-Holiness, instead of simply reciting the Creed or a prayer together with His Holiness the Pope of Rome, initiated a prayer, in which He invoked the aid of the Holy Spirit to bless and to help the Synod of Bishops. That simply has not happened since the Schism of East and West.

The second thing was that His All-Holiness, in His written speech, addressed the assembled (Latin) bishops as "My brothers in Christ". Unless I am gravely mistaken, that has not happened since the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the last such council in which East and West spoke with one voice.

But the third thing that happened, which was not in the written speech, was that at that speech's end, His All-Holiness referred to His Holiness, Benedict XVI, as "My elder brother in Christ."

While I severely doubt that the Orthodox Churches would ever accept either Papal Infallibility or Jurisdiction as those terms are held among Roman Catholics, this would appear, at least to me, to be a first step between East and West in working toward an Orthodox understanding of papal primacy in synodicity. For more as regards this concept, I would suggest that the reader look here.

Whatever the ultimate result, history was made on that Saturday. I was happy that I was able to witness it.

Lady Palin and the Branchflower Report

Well, I've decided to switch from economics to politics, at least for this week or so. It seems I'm needed to use my paltry knowledge of law to tell something like the truth about Lady Palin (with a tip of the hat to that genuine comedian and true reporter, Dennis Miller).

I've read the Branchflower Report, which may be found here, and after reading it, I now would like to read an Alaska State Ethics Report which actually follows Alaska law. Branchflower's report certainly did not.

I'm glad in passing to find that at least that Branchflower, the investigator who wrote the report, was able to find that Lady Palin was within her rights to fire the Administrator of Police, Mr. Monaghan. You see, Article 3, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution states that all heads of Alaska's departments are to be hired by the Governor and are to serve as his or her pleasure. That basically means that Palin could hire and fire any one she pleased, with or without cause.

But I'm shocked, shocked to find that while Branchflower quotes a part of the law on Executive Ethics, he fails to quote, far less to act upon, any part of that law which would seem to me to exonerate Lady Palin.

You see, Branchflower, at pages 49 through 52 of his Report quotes from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (Title 39, Chapter 52), and in particular, quotes from the first sentence of Section 110, subsection (a):

"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

What I find surprising is that nowhere in his Report does Branchflower mention subsection (b) of that section, which I will quote in its entirety:

(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's

(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or

(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter. (emphasis added)

Now I find this surprising because Branchflower goes out of his way to state that while Palin wanted to have Officer Wooten fired, and to have his administrative benefits cut off, she was unable to do that. It would seem clear to anyone reading the report that since Palin's actions had no effect on Officer Wooten's career, that Palin's actions had an "insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter", and thus did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(2).

I also find Branchflower's report surprising because he goes out of his way to state that Palin wanted Officer Wooten fired, not only because Wooten was involved in a nasty divorce with Palin's sister, but because she had evidence that Wooten threatened to kill Palin's father, that Wooten had driven in a police vehicle with an open beer can, and that Wooten had committed other misdemeanors. It would seem to me that there was evidence by which Branchflower could find that Palin shared an interest with those members of the public (and I suspect they may be many) who would not want a police officer committing crimes under color of law or of his office. Thus, I think there was evidence that Palin's actions did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(1).

Finally, I find surprising that Branchflower fails anywhere in his report to quote from subsection (c) of Section 110. I will quote it in its entirety:

(c) The attorney general, designated supervisors, hearing officers, and the personnel board must be guided by this section when issuing opinions and reaching decisions. (emphasis added)

It would seem to me that this subsection would apply to Branchflower as an appointed hearing officer, and that he should at the very least have quoted, and perhaps actually considered, this subsection before coming to his conclusions. I thus believe that under Alaska law, Branchflower has failed to follow a mandatory provision of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, and thus has come to both an invalid decision. I look forward to seeing a revised report which actually takes Alaska law in account. But I am not holding my breath.