Saint Bartholomew

Portion of Michelangelo’s Last Judgment (with Saint Bartholomew). Sistine Chapel. Vatican.

The apostle we usually refer to as Bartholomew is also Nathanaël. Bartholomew is a patronymic, ‘bar’ is son, similar to the scot ‘Mac’ or the irish ‘O’. A full name might be Nathanaël son of Tolmai of Cana. He was a friend of Philip, whom brought him to Jesus:

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him: Can any thing of good come from Nazareth? Philip saith to him: Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him: and he saith of him: Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile. Nathanael saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered, and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. — John i. 45-48.

Ribera has Bartholomew, about to be raised, on the cross. He was both flayed and crucified. Michelangelo was heavily criticised, in some clerical circles, over his fresco, The Last Judgment. In this depiction of Saint Bartholomew, Bart holds a flaying knife in one hand, and his skin in another. In religious iconography, it is common for a martyr to hold, or to be pictured with the implements of their martyrdom. The skin, he is holding, is not his own. There is no beard, and the face is the painter’s.

Sébastien Râle

Well might the traveler stop to see
The tall, dark forms that take their way
From the birch canoe on the river shore,
And the forest paths, to that chapel door;
And marvel to mark the naked knees
And the dusky foreheads bending there,
While in coarse white vesture over these
In blessing or in prayer,
Stretching abroad his thin pale hands,
Like a shrouded ghost the Jesuit stands.
—Mogg Megone, John Greenleaf Whittier

The border of what came to be the maritime provinces of Canada, and New England, was not fixed until 1842*. The first half of the 18th century, the territory was disputed between french l’Acadie and english Massachusetts, and of course there were the aboriginals. There is the high school history question, “Who won the French and Indian War†?” Well, those were not the competitors, but the allied opponents of the british empire, of which the colonies, which were to form the United States, were a part.

In that territory, the french and the indians were united in faith. That faith, was the ancient faith that, was demonised by the calvinists of Massachusetts. Because of the valuable timber and furs that were coveted, and the fear of enemies that the english had, there was always a war looming.

Nanrantsouak/Norridgewock‡ was the principle village of the Abenaki/Wabanaki/Abernaquois on the Kennebec. The christian, catholic, identification of the area’s indians began with the Passamaquoddy in 1604, and later with the Penobscot and Abenaki. Sébastien Râle§ S.J.*1652, came to Quebec in 1689, and to the Abenaki in 1695 where he founded a chapel (to replace a previously burned church) and school, which the english first burned with the village in 1705. L’Acadie was lost (when the War of Spanish Succession, ended with the Treaty of Utrecht 1713), and english settlement approached the Abenaki.

It was, specifically, illegal to be a priest in the colony of Massachusetts, the repeated presence was a capital crime. More than one expedition was made to execute the law, on Father Râle. Samuel Shute, governor of Massachusetts, discharged the expedition to take care of Râle, when the english made war|| on the Abenaki, in 1722. It was the first war, in which, an american government offered a bounty on scalps. The english and their colonists always feared, and entertained conspiracies of indians, frenchmen, spaniards and catholics, and hated all of them, and coveted their possessions. Râle was a frenchman, a catholic, a priest, a jesuit (the most hated and feared of catholics) and a major figure amongst the indians. All these earned him martyrdom. On August 23rd, 1724 the Massachusetts militia caught their prey. The accounts differ widely based on partisanship, but his scalp was a prized trophy, along with other items. The oldest account, includes that, he was shot dead, in front of an outdoor cross. Forty years later, the english provided another account.

When the survivors returned, they found his grossly, mutilated body and buried him, where the altar had been. A ‘fama sanctitatis’ began among the Abenaki, concerning Râle, and remains. The requirements, to be recognised, as a martyr are, that he willingly risked life, with fervor for the faith, to those ‘in odium fidei’. Father Râle’s cause was entered in 1941, with 115 other martyrs, by Dennis Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia.
______________
*Webster-Ashburton Treaty
†In the colonial period, wars were often named after the opponent (King Philip’s War 1675, Father Rasle’s War 1724-1726, French-Indian Wars 1754-1763) or the ruler of the time (King William’s War 1689, Queen Anne’s War 1702); similarly, to-day, it would be the Second Iraqui War 2003- , or george bush junior’s war 2003- .
‡The english settled in 1773, the town incorporated in 1804, and is now Madison, Maine.
§the circumflex a (â), in french orthography, suggests a, sometimes missing, following ‘s’, hence: Râle, Rasle, Rasles
||Dummer’s, Father Rale’s, Greylock’s, Lovewell’s, Three Years, or the 4th Indian War (1722-1725).

Steward

The original meaning of steward was house guardian. His job was to protect and maintain . This, often, in lieu, vicariously of the owner, hence we are all called to be stewards of the earth, because the earth is not ours. The earth belongs to its Creator. Over the centuries the word was applied to other situations.

A union steward (including job and shop) is a full time member working as an employee in his field. He is also a union representative on the job. He is liaison between the union hall and the men (rank and file). He is there to defend the working agreement, and to see that each one of the men is treated equitably. He is there to see that laws and safety regulations are upheld. He is there to represent, and defend, the men from accusations and “disciplinary action”*. It is often said, that, a good steward is laid off at the end of the job. I work construction. The crews wax and wane. In this jurisdiction, we have men who come out of the hall, from the book (the out of work list) and shop regulars. The good steward, having attempted to hold the contractor and his agents to the rules, is resented and dismissed. THE CONTRACTING EMPLOYER CHEATS. Cutting corners equals profit. Profit is the sole reason they became an employer. They see the contract as a one way document, not a dual contract. They are quite jealous of their prerogatives, they are quite ignorant of their responsibilities.

A bad steward, is a company steward. The company has no right to choose the steward. When a shop regular is continually a job steward, it is collusion. If the shop is too comfortable with the shop steward, that is not good. Some adversarial relationship is necessary. All union members, and especially representatives, need to be advocates. When accommodation is too frequent, or when, heaven forbid, it is routine, it is disaster. The wobblies (IWW) had a motto “an injury to one is an injury to all.” We need to think that way.

Now some stewards are political animals of self interest. He wants it easy. He wants light work, he may be willing to run the coffee pot, collect for check pools and socialise. Some are appointed by the hall on favoritism. Our agreement has it, that if no one is appointed, the first man on the job is foreman and he second journeyman is the acting steward. Now, as steward, he is to remain on the job as the second last man. On a long job, this is job security. So, the steward has choices, of whom to serve: himself, the employer, the union or the men.

There is a false argument circulating, that the customer is on this list. He may be co-laterally, not directly. There are contracts legal, oral, traditional and moral. These contracts are dual. One way, or singular, contracts are tyranny and slavery, where there exists a master/slave relationship. Labor has a contract with management/employer/contractor. The contractor has another with the customer. Labor does not have one with the customer, now labor could have one; the middleman, the contractor would be expendable. The moneyed interests, that have made an idol of capitalism, will not brook this notion to be made publicly.

In the IBEW (electrical workers) construction locals, there is a movement from the IO President, Ed Hill, to force the “code of excellence”. One of the odious elements is to transform the steward into a whip†. A whip, in legislatures, is that party member that enforces discipline. Here that would make him a goon for the foreman and contractor. It is bad, that, we have members, whom have full member rights, that are foremen and act as agents of the contractor. They often, in that guise, are an enemy to the men. Granted, there are foremen, who are good brothers, and protect their men from the contractor. Such men make the steward’s job easy. But, a steward who becomes a whip is despicable.

To-day, there was a large layoff (38, how appropriate, journeymen and 1 apprentice signed the book) at Brookpark Ford. That includes the two men fired, while maintaining safety protocol, that were mentioned in an earlier post, at Walton Hills Ford. Herbst Electric was kicked off the job, after Ford found out, that Herbst lied and cheated extensively, and were arrogant about it. Many safety protocols were not done. Safety equipment was not inspected or replaced. Much paperwork was not done. Promises were not kept. So, the men are out of work.
______________________
*usually termination of employment
†that term is not used

14th Sunday after Pentecost — God or Mammon

nemo potest duobus dominis servire ... The Gospel for to-day, in the extra-ordinary rite is from the 6th chapter of Matthew:

No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment? Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit? And for raiment why are you solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. And if the grass of the field, which is to-day, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe: how much more you, O ye of little faith? Be not solicitous therefore, saying, What shall we eat: or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

Surely, this chapter would disturb a great many, it is a continuation of the Sermon on the Mount, the ethical apex of christian theology, if it was heard or read attentively. Jesus speaks against the hypocrites, and implores us, not to be like them. He then, gives us His prayer, that begins, ‘Our Father’. He also says, “For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.” Christ the logician. We make choices. As in Dylan’s song, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody.” This society is materialistic, and desires material things, and the vehicle of this consumption of riches is capitalism. This country needs to hear jeremiads and invocations against Lord Mammon, but our homilists and would be orators are co-opted or fearful. The United States is a plutocracy, where the highest absolute is profit/lucre/mammon.

The first brasilian bishop to be interrogated by the military was Pedro Casadaliga. When, once, he spoke about his country’s national debt, he did say, “ ... debt has already been collected by taking our natural resources and cheap labor. It was collected in our infant mortality, and in the blood, and deaths of our people.” This internationalisation of capitalistic materialism preys on all, for the benefit of few. There is nothing the servants of Mammon will not sacrifice for it, especially, if it comes from someone else.Evelyn Pickering de Morgan. The Worship of Mammon.1909. London.
Notice the wretch, supra, who bows before the knee of Mammon and gazes. Mammon does not meet her eyes, his face we cannot see. Perhaps, one or both are blind. His bag of bounty is outstreched and closed. It is a scene of want in spiritual darkness. The lilies of the field make for a pleasanter consideration.

My bugle calls for peace ...

Sometime in the early fifties, the troubadour, Woody Guthrie wrote, Peace Call. It took over 50 years for anyone to release a recording. Eliza Gilkyson joined Mary Chapin Carpenter, Iris Dement and Patty Griffin, on Gilkyson’s 2004 album, in a sweet plaintive chorus:

Peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace.
I can hear the bugle sounding,
Roaming around my land, my city and my town;
Peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace, peace.
I can hear the horn and voices ring louder,
While my bugle calls for peace.

The bugle developed from an animal horn blown to signal. Postmen, in some countries, blew their horn to announce mail. Norway, traditionally, had stamps issued with the posthorn pictured. But, its more stereotypical use was for communication on the battlefield. There were calls for: assembly, attention, charge, mess, retreat, reveille, taps, to arms and others. Guthrie added one for peace, one that the army had not.

Dormition and Assumption of Mary

The Apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, was the ex cathedra statement of the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Pius XII, in 1950. The only other instance, of the exercise, of infallibilty was in 1854, when Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Even these official dogmatic statements were not new. These articles of belief were widely understood since the beginning of christianity. As with the New Testament, and the doctrine of the Trinity, they took time to formulate into declarative statements.

We believe at the end of her earthly life, the Mother of Our Saviour, Mary the Theotokos fell asleep. Later she was bodily assumed to heaven. Before her Dormition, the remaining apostles gathered in the house of Saint John to see her.

Judgment of Solomon

Raphaël. The Judgment of Solomon. c.1518-1519. Vatican

The amazing, yet unrealised, marvel of Solomon’s judgment is, that, it was never carried out. If it was, then great tragedy and wrong would have occurred, but precisely, because, it was not executed (and was not meant to have been) it was just and meet.

This came to me at work, early monday morning. My little project, at the moment, was to reduce the length of an arm of equipment, so that it would clear between two fences. Instead of allowing me to take a good measurement, as I was perched on top of a stool, some unidentified, and rude, Ford management person wanted the halfway point immediately. This was not the right measurement, for the arm moved on a pivot creating a radius, it did not move in parallel. There were other things that might have changed the measurement, they turned out to be negligible, but the operative point was the radius. The piece came back too short. Luckily, the remainder was longer, and that was cut, the next day, with a good measurement, without the presence of management.

Well, it was customary that the king’s, or magistrate’s, or potentate’s judgment was irrevocable, and had to be carried out exactly. Mercy and sense were not required. Management still has that cavalier air of diktat. Recently (27 July), the Sunday’s Old Testament reading was the gift of wisdom to Solomon. This story, in the second part of that chapter, past the liturgical recitation, of the baby is quite a memorable story to women, and of course to others, that demonstrated Solomon’s wisdom. This was early in his reign, so Solomon should not be portrayed as an old man, for as the years progressed, he allowed for great error to grow in the kingdom.

Then there came two women that were harlots, to the king, and stood before him: And one of them said: I beseech thee, my lord, I and this woman dwelt in one house, and I was delivered of a child with her in the chamber. And the third day, after that I was delivered, she also was delivered, and we were together, and no other person with us in the house, only we two.And this woman's child died in the night: for in her sleep she overlaid him. And rising in the dead time of the night, she took my child from my side, while I thy handmaid was asleep, and laid it in her bosom: and laid her dead child in my bosom. And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold it was dead: but considering him more diligently when it was clear day, I found that it was not mine which I bore. And the other woman answered: It is not so as thou sayest, but thy child is dead, and mine is alive. On the contrary she said: Thou liest: for my child liveth, and thy child is dead. And in this manner they strove before the king.Then said the king: The one saith, My child is alive, and thy child is dead. And the other answereth: Nay, but thy child is dead, and mine liveth. The king therefore said: Bring me a sword. And when they had brought a sword before the king, Divide, said he, the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. But the woman whose child was alive, said to the king, (for her bowels were moved upon her child,) I beseech thee, my lord, give her the child alive, and do not kill it. But the other said: Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. The king answered, and said: Give the living child to this woman, and let it not be killed, for she is the mother thereof. And all Israel heard the judgment which the king had judged, and they feared the king, seeing that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment. — 3 Kings iii. 16-28. DRC.