Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

Francis’ Four Guiding Postulates include: “Conflict cannot be ignored or concealed. It has to be faced.”

Posted on 1 September 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Juan Manuel de Rosas (17th Governor of Buenos Aires Province 1835 -1852)

“What is Francis doing?”

This is a question I get again and again in my mailbox.

I am at a loss.

This morning, however, it occurred to me that we might return to Francis’ “four postulates” which he included in his programatic document Evangelii gaudium. You will remember them:

time is greater than space
unity prevails over conflict
realities are more important than ideas
the whole is greater than the part

Some speculate that he got these from his reading of Romano Guardini. However, Juan Carlos Scannone’s ‘El papa Francisco y la teologia del pueblo’ (in Razón y Fe. 86) and Tracey Rowland (Catholic Theology US HERE – UK HERE) and others have uncovered the true source: a 1834 letter of the 19th c. Argentinian dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793– 1877) sent to another Argentinian caudillo [a type of personalist leader wielding political power], Facundo Quiroga (1788– 1835).

How might one in a swift and reductive way apply these to what is going on? First, “wait them out”. Second, “let there be chaos – eventually things will sort out, in a Hegelian way”. Third, “lived experience trumps expressions of doctrine – eventually doctrine must adapt, in a Hegelian way, to lived experience.” Fourth, “if there is a group that is not conforming to the larger group’s needs, reject them – in a Rawlsian way the whole remains the whole even if you lop off a few limbs.”

However, if you review Evangelii gaudium – as I am sure you do – you will find explanations of these four postulates.

What does Francis sign off on with EG?

“Conflict cannot be ignored or concealed. It has to be faced. But if we remain trapped in conflict, we lose our perspective, our horizons shrink and reality itself begins to fall apart. In the midst of conflict, we lose our sense of the profound unity of reality.” (no. 226)

“When conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process.” (no. 227)

Face the conflict head on!

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Francis, The Drill | Tagged Evangelii gaudium
20 Comments

US Bishop calls for meaningful investigation and action from Francis

Posted on 1 September 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

US Bishop after US Bishop have made statements about The Present Crisis in the wake of The Viganò Testimony. Some are timid. Some are in line with what a bishop ought to be.

The Bishop of Charleston, SC, Most Rev. Robert E. Guglielmone, wrote a letter to the Papal Nuncio Archbishop Pierre and he made the letter public. My emphases and comments.

Dear Archbishop Pierre,
August 31, 2018
Our Church is in crisis and as the leader of the Catholic faithful in the State of South Carolina, I write with urgency to express my sentiments and echo those of the people in my care. We feel betrayed, angry and misled. [Not “they”, “we”.]
Something must be done now. I have several recommendations that support the statement from Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is imperative that the Holy See take a leadership role in investigating the rise of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, despite the reported knowledge of his prior sexual misconduct and monetary settlements during his earlier diocesan assignments. It is absolutely necessary for all of us to know how and why this happened. Action must occur immediately and publicly. [Not just what he did, but rather, how and why he was promoted (hence, protected. We know why, but there are Deniers, such as certain inflated writers at Fishwrap and blinkered self-promoters in the Tweetosphere. Did I mention Jesuits?]
I, too, strongly support an investigation by the Holy See along with a national lay commission with its own authority to seek the truth about the statements made by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. These recent reports have triggered many different versions of what has actually happened and it is necessary that the Holy Father respond to the allegations made by the Archbishop. Please encourage the Holy Father to address these allegations directly. This is in everyone’s best interest; lack of knowledge and uncertainty contribute to the confusion so much a part of our people’s lives today. Our Church is called to be a beacon of light in the darkness. I ask that you be an ambassador of truth and assist in the securing of actionable change.

[…]

Good letter.

Is it cynical to opine that it seems some bishops are content to be in their dioceses, and aren’t climbers looking for promotion to a “better” see? They speak out knowing that in certain spheres they’re names will be added to the s-list.

Others, however, remain malleable. By going along just enough, perhaps they will weather the storm and move up. If they can only find the right tone, words that say something, but not much, they’re names will remain on the “team players” list.

Posted in ACTION ITEM!, Clerical Sexual Abuse | Tagged Bp. Guglielmone, D. Charleston
22 Comments

Wile. E. Defarge goes to the zoo.

Posted on 31 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Something is screwy in the head of Madame Wile E. Defarge. To wit, in his recent twirl into sycophantic papalotry, he compares those who are calling for Francis to make things clear and help us properly to deal with the root problems of most of the clerical abuse crisis (homosexuality) to Jansenists. ROFL.

What comes to mind is the line in the movie: “You keep using that word. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Winters/Defarge has gone down this silly Jansenism road before. Over at First Things he got beat up by a girl in 2017 for his stupid comparison. HERE You would do well to read that piece before you read the deceptive piece at Fishwrap.

We have to have a taste, first, of Defarge from his platform at Fishwrap.

What is interesting about the comparison with Pope Leo’s condemnation of Americanism is that the relationship of ideology and ultramontanism is now reversed, adding another layer of weirdness. In 1899, Leo framed his central concern about the American Church in this indictment:

[Ask yourselves as you read this. What group in the Church is he describing?] The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind.

Today, it is American conservatives who resist the “new opinions” that Pope Francis has brought to the fore in his exercise of the Petrine ministry. [They are resisting in those ideas things are clearly contrary to the Church’s perennial teachings! They are not, like those described by Leo, trying to adapt the Church to the world!] Their devotion to the papacy, once their calling card, is now abandoned because the pope espouses some theological nuance they have been trying to stamp out as heretical innovation. [When nothing else works, invoke “nuance”.] Except there is nothing “new” about mercy, and it is mercy that has been the central theological principle of this pontificate. [See what he did there? Because “mercy” is an old idea, and because Francis and Co., talk about “mercy”, therefore if you are against what Francis and Co. say about “mercy” you must have some NEW idea about mercy. Hence, you are like an Americanist condemned by Leo XIII. ]

Mercy was not much valued by the Jansenists in the 17th century, and it is positively detested by the neo-Jansenists of our time. [So now, leaving aside his knitting for a moment we returns to his inner Coyote and straps on a couple of ACME rockets. They don’t just resist what Francis and Coyote/Defarge say about mercy, they detest mercy. Is that even slightly plausible?] Jansenism is a heresy and it, too, produced a schism. It was 15 years between the condemnation of Jansenism in the bull Unigenitus Dei Filius in 1713 and the submission of Cardinal Louis de Noailles of Paris in 1728. Then, some souls were led astray by the schismatics just as now some souls may be led astray by the neo-Jansenists supporting Viganò. [Good grief! This is sheer hysteria.] Make no mistake: This is not about protecting children or vulnerable adults from sexual predation. [Ummm… well… yes, it is.] The people defending Viganò shared the conservative theological critique of Francis that was dying out for lack of traction. They were calling for the resignation of Cardinal Donald Wuerl before the Pennsylvania grand jury report was released. [Calling for Francis to accept the resignation Wuerl submitted is tantamount of Jansenism. I see.] They have been stoking the flames of anti-Francis fervor on EWTN and in the pages of First Things and at conferences sponsored by the Napa Institute long before Viganò was sacked as nuncio. What this week showed is that they see no downside in coming out of the closet and demonstrating for all to see and without ambiguity where their loyalties lay. [And not he is into full spittle-flecked nutty.] Now we know beyond any shadow of a doubt. How lucky they are to have a pope who is so committed to mercy.

You already know what is wrong with all of this.

The “mercy” of which Lafarge/Coyote is talking sets aside a) truth and b) truth about our relationship with God. First, he – and Francis, too, it seems – want people who are not in the state of grace to receive Communion. Why? Because there are some moral ideals that most people can’t live up to. So, that violates the truth of what and who the Eucharist is and it violates the nature of man. We can choose, with the help of grace, to strive after the ideal.

So… who really, what group, has the “new ideas” again?

Winters/Lafarge/Coyote has embraced the opposite position, namely, that people can’t live up to impossible ideals, because he wants to justify a certain kind of sinful behavior.

My heavens they are desperate! They’ll say anything to divert attention from the real problems.

Remember: Winters has gone down this silly Jansenism road before. Over at First Things he got beat up by a girl in 2017 for his stupid comparison. HERE

Posted in Liberals, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty, You must be joking! |
16 Comments

ASK FATHER: Mass for the Space Force in the Extraterrestrial Form

Posted on 31 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

This comes from a reader…

QUAERITUR:

On a somewhat lighter note, what liturgical changes do you think would have to be made for chaplains of a hypothetical Space Force to celebrate Mass in the Extraterrestrial Form? In particular, the Precious Blood seems particularly difficult to consecrate safely in zero-gravity environments, and some of the more traditional vestments might experience issues as well. I’m curious to know if The Manual has contingencies for this sort of situation.

What people come up with!

I should at this point add that I, Fr. Z, am also a character in a sci-fi series. We fight critters which want to kill, even eat, the human race. SpaceHawks!

First, ad orientem worship becomes an interesting question. Of course, when the priest is at the altar, he is facing liturgical East even if he is whizzing about.

I suppose that Roman Vestments would be more practical, since they have less fabric to float around. They should probably be a little stiff, so they won’t wave about.

It seems to me that we have to find a way to keep the Host on the paten. For that, I would use a variant of the sacred vessel called an asterisk which covered the Host (held it down) during Papal Solemn Mass. Let’s say that the sacred vessels are magnetized steel which has been gilded. The asterisk will keep a host in place. A ciborium has a cover. A chalice could have a cover as well. There is already a sacred vessel, a metal tube, called a fistula that can be used to consume the Precious Blood.

Questions remain. For example, do Communicants have to be on the same plane and with the same basic “vector” as the priest? Can they be, relatively speaking, “upside down”. How does kneeling work? Velcro on knees?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged Space Force
13 Comments

Wherein homosexualist activist @JamesMartinSJ tries to deceive you

Posted on 31 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Scandalous Jesuit and homosexualist activist James Martin has a 1700 word deceptive whine at Jesuit produced Amerika Magazine.

Let’s have a look.

First, a few comment to hold in mind as you sort through Martin’s claims, bad premises, and distortions.

Above all, Martin thinks there is a “witch hunt” on for “gay” (I hate that word) priests. Who is he trying to fool? This is patently ridiculous. But it is at least clever, because it distracts your attention.

Also, Martin claims that the reason why people don’t accept homosexuality in the priesthood is because of hate. We are homophobic. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who is truly homophobic, and I will bet you don’t either. We hate sin, not sinners. Accusations of homophobia are lazy and distracting. Martin even compares it to “racism”. Absurd.

Martin wants you to accept that homosexuality and priesthood are entirely compatible. A man who is sexually or romantically attracted to other men do not, cannot, have a proper nuptial relationship with the Church.

Think of it this way. You have two power magnets. You misalign their polls. Instead of powerfully attracting, they powerfully repel each other. You can force them together with real effort. They remain in contact only because you are applying great force to overcome their natural opposition. That’s what priesthood and homosexuality are like: misaligned magnets. Homosexual priests can function in the Church, no question. But there is a huge strain inherent in what they do. And when the effort to keep them together slips, disaster results.

Let’s see Martin. It’s really long, which was a tactical error. Many people will simply move on after a while. As you read, think about the magnets.

The witch hunt for gay priests

[…]

No. On second thought don’t waste your time. If you do go over there to read, keep in mind the magnet analogy. Priesthood and intrinsically disordered homosexual tendencies repel each other like misaligned magnets. Constant force is required to keep them together. Let up just a little and they fly apart.

Oh… one thing you should know. He wrote: “Many priests abusers had a homosexual orientation. That is undeniable.”

Posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse, Liberals, Mail from priests, Sin That Cries To Heaven | Tagged Fr. James Martin SJ, homosexualist agenda
40 Comments

30 Aug 1568 – St Pius V’s Bull against “gay” clergy

Posted on 30 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At The Josias, which a friend and patron of this blog told my about recently there is this post. It is perhaps a coincidence that today is the anniversary of the promulgation of this document, even as the Roman titular church of Card. Cocopalmerio caved in. You might remember that he did kabuki fan dances with ostrich plumes to justify communion for adulterers.

Confronted with clerical depravity in Rome, Pius V did not say, “Who am I to judge?”

On August 30, 1568, Pope St. Pius V issued the bull Horrendum Illud scelus. We present it now on its four hundred and fiftieth anniversary.

–The Editors

Horrendum illud scelus, quo pollutae foedataeque Civitates a tremendo Dei iudicio conflagrarunt, acerbissimum Nobis dolorem inurit, graviterque animum nostrum commovet, ut ad illud, quantum potest, comprimendum, studia nostra conferamus.		That horrible crime, by which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, [hence, “sodomy”] causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
§ 1. Sane Lateranensi Concilio dignoscitur constitutum, ut quicumque Clerici, illa incontinentia, quae contra naturam est, propter quam ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiae, deprehensi fuerint laborare, a Clero deiiciantur, vel ad agendam in Monasteriis poenitentiam detrudantur.		§ 1. Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).
§ 2. Verum ne tanti flagitii contagium, impunitatis spe, quae maxima peccandi illecebra est, fidentius invalescat, Clericos huius nefarii criminis reos, gravius ulciscendos deliberavimus, ut qui animae interitum non horrescunt, hos certe deterreat civilium legum vindex gladius saecularis.		§ 2. So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
§ 3. ltaque quod Nos iam in ipso Pontificatus nostri principio hac de re decrevimus, plenius nunc, fortiusque persequi intendentes, omnes, et quoscumque Presbyteros, et alios Clericos saeculares, et regulares, cuiuscumque gradus, et dignitatis, tam dirum nefas exercentes, omni privilegio clericali, omnique officio, dignitate, et beneficio Ecclesiastico praesentis canonis auctoritate privamus. Ita quod per ludicem Ecclesiasticum degradati, potestati statim saeculari tradantur, qui de eis illud idem capiat supplicium, quod in laicos hoc in exitio devolutos, legitimis reperitur sanctionibus constitutum.		§ 3. Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. [Use your imagination and review the Rite of Degradation of a Priest or Bishop. After which the walking tragedy is handed over.]
Nulli ergo, etc.		Nothing to the contrary withstanding, etc.
[Bull. Rom., tom. 4, III, p. 33]

S. Pius V, const. Horrendum, 30 aug. 1568.

A brief note on the continuing relevance of Horrendum illud:

It is occasionally suggested by critics of integralism that the existence of bad or corrupt clergy proves that integralism, with its high concept of the authority of the church, is unworkable. This argument taken to its logical conclusion would of course rule out any authority in the here-below. For integralists, however, the existence of lamentable and execrable corruption in the Church, far from calling her authority into question, rather demonstrates the need for it.

Pope St. Pius V responded to the vicious immorality then widespread among the clergy repeatedly and with force, most prominently, perhaps, here in this bull. His response offers us even today an exemplar of church-state relations and of the medicinal power of the law.

What do you supposed the civil penalties were like?

I note that the Bull says “removed” OR “forced to do penance.

Right now I am in the UP of MI. I was told that a prison has closed up here. Perhaps the Church could take it over and put all the guys there who need time to think. They would be required to say Masses of reparation and, as a canonist suggested, to earn their keep they would transcribed nullity process interviews. I can think of a few other things.

PRAY FOR US!

Posted in Si vis pacem para bellum!, Sin That Cries To Heaven | Tagged Horrendum illud scelus, St. Pius V
15 Comments

Francis, generally voluble, now surprisingly mum

Posted on 30 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Ubi loqui et debet et potuit, qui tacet consentire videtur.

Washington Examiner:

Pope Francis normally won’t stop talking. He’s picked a funny time to go silent

by Becket Adams
| August 30, 2018 01:08 PM

For a guy who loves to talk, Pope Francis sure has picked a funny time to be silent.

The Holy Father dodged questions this weekend about an 11-page document alleging he knowingly enabled and empowered sexual predators in the Catholic Church. The New York Times weirdly characterized the pope’s non-response as taking “ the high road,” but it’s hard to reconcile this description with the role Francis is supposed to play for the Catholic faithful around the world.

[…]

Pope Francis’ non-response this weekend is especially frustrating, considering his penchant for sloppily expressed public positions that routinely lead to misleading and poorly informed news cycles. When it comes to climate change, immigration reform, priestly celibacy, same-sex marriage, weapons manufacturers, etc., Francis is often willing to rush in, as critics might put it, without too much circumspection.

In fact, in the very same press conference this weekend where he refused to comment on the Vigano letter , Francis was quick to answer a question about what parents should do should they learn their child is gay.

[…]

Posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse, Francis | Tagged Francis, The Viganò Testimony
17 Comments

Francis dismissed Card. Müller who disagreed about abuse cases

Posted on 30 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

LifeSite says:

Pope dismissed Cdl Müller for following Church rules on abuse cases

August 29, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A highly placed Vatican source told LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, together with his much-experienced three CDF priests, was dismissed by Pope Francis because they all had tried to follow loyally the Church’s standing rules concerning abusive clergymen. In one specific case, Müller opposed the Pope’ wanting to re-instate Don Mauro Inzoli, an unmistakably cruel abuser of many boys; but the Pope would not listen to Müller. In another case, the Pope decided not to give a Vatican apartment to one of Müller’s own secretaries, but to the now-infamous Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, in spite of the fact that someone had warned the Pope about Capozzi’s grave problems. The Vatican source also said that it was known to several people in the Vatican that some restrictions were put on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, and he thereby confirms Viganò’s own claim.

When LifeSiteNews reached out to this very trustworthy and well-informed Vatican source, asking him about the then-breaking Viganò story and the archbishop’s allegations that Pope Francis knew of McCarrick’s habitual abuse, he answered: “Cardinal Müller [as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)] had always decidedly and most sharply followed up on these abuse cases, and that is why he was dismissed, just as his three good collaborators [the three CDF priests] were also dismissed.”

In my follow-up with this source, he again explained that Cardinal Müller, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had always been loyally following the Church’s laws with regard to abuse cases, for the handling of which the CDF is responsible. According to the source, Müller also “resisted” Pope Francis in 2014 when he wanted to re-instate the serial molester of boys, the Italian priest Don Inzoli, allowing him to perform some functions of the priesthood. In opposition to Müller, “the Pope decided differently,” the source continued. That is to say, Pope Francis did not follow Cardinal Müller’s advice.

[…]

There’s more of that article available.

Posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse, The future and our choices | Tagged Gerhard Ludwig Müller
33 Comments

Disquiet in Hell over The Present Crisis

Posted on 29 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Take this story with a grain of salt.

From The Onion.

Satan Refuses To Accept Any More Catholic Priests In Hell

NINTH CIRCLE, HELL—Stressing that the situation in the underworld was quickly spiraling out of control, Satan, the Great Tempter and Father of Lies, announced Wednesday that he would not allow any more Catholic priests to enter hell. “This place is completely overrun with those monsters, and frankly, they kind of creep me out,” said the Prince of Darkness, adding that every time he looked up, he saw another recently deceased member of the Roman Catholic clergy being cast down into the fires of hell, where each is expected to be tortured until the end of time by Satan and his minions. “We’re used to having every manner of unrepentant sinner down here, but those guys are beyond messed up. I swear, if I see one more of those sick bastards, I’m going to throw myself into the eternal flames.” In response, God has reportedly instituted a secret policy whereby the priests would no longer face damnation but would instead attend mandatory counseling sessions and then be quietly transferred into heaven.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged The Onion
4 Comments

29 August – Beheading of John the Baptist: exposing corrupt priests who covered Herod’s pedophile lust

Posted on 29 August 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I jotted this for the print edition of UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald. I give them 400 words (exactly) a week.

I celebrate as my onomastico or “name day” the Feast of the Beheading of John the Baptist, 29 August. “He must increase,” said the Baptist, “I must decrease” (John 3:30). I need that rule of life. St Augustine of Hippo (d 430) connected John’s sudden, violent “decrease”, his head’s removal from his shoulders, with the autumnal shortening of daylight, while the feast of John’s birth coincided with the vernal lengthening of days.

Speaking of shoulders, as I write I am in the “City of Big Shoulders”, as poet Carl Sandburg described Chicago, in defiance of the world’s other great cities, like London, Rome, and Paris. As he explained it, “The poem sort of says, ‘Maybe we ain’t got culture, but we’re eatin’ regular.’” One of the things I regularly eat here is the indigenous hot dog. I’ve learned to order these like a native speaker by cordially growling, “drag it through da’ garden”, to make sure that all the necessary hot peppers, onions, tomatoes, celery salt and pickles are included. When they weren’t eatin’ so regular here, they loaded up the bun with veggies. What was once famine fare is now a feast.

Chicago has culture in addition to the hot dog. Not far from where I am, on the other side of the “Friendly Confines” of Wrigley Field (where the Cubs play The Game God Surely Loves Best) in the Art Institute of Chicago, there is a tempera on panel depiction of the Beheading of the Baptist by the Sienese painter Giovanni di Paolo (d 1482). You view the instant after the deed. Seen from outside the prison, John leans out of his window, guillotine like, his headless shoulders and angled arms still in place as a massive gout of blood jets forth the jutting neck. A servant with a platter stoops for his head. The executioner sheathes his man-length blade.

John was not only a martyr for the Truth. Miraculous son of the elderly priest Zechariah, he was a priestly martyr. John stood against Herod and his crony cadre of corrupted priests who backed his violation of the truth of sexuality and marriage. Herod used his power to sin. John’s blood exposed also priestly corruption in a way that no one could ignore. By the way, Herod’s command to kill John, the incorruptible priest, came from his lust for a child. Salome was a “little girl” (Greek korásion).