Breaking the Seal of Confession

In the state of Washington, and in many other places, legislatures have acted cruelly toward Christian Churches that have the sacrament of confession. Also called reconciliation, the sacredness of this sacrament has been guarded as a matter so holy that any priest daring to break is latae sententiae excommunicated under Church law. While these laws are set up with a noble goal of protecting children from molesters, these noble goals open up more problems with their solutions than they actually fix. But I think it's actually important that people understand what goes on in the sacrament of confession when a penitent approaches with fear and with faith.

In the sacrament of confession, we confess our sins committed after baptism. While most focus exclusively on mortal sins, any sin can be confessed, even temptations suffered. The priest is bound to the obligation of secrecy. This goes back to the event Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:21-27 where Ham, Shem, and Japeth saw their father naked. While Shem and Japeth covered him, Ham refused to do so. Allowing his father to be embarrassed in his nakedness, Ham received a curse of the highest censure from God. It wasn't a racial curse, it was a curse on all who refuse to cover their brother's nakedness. In the medieval decretals of Gratian, we read a severe reprimand of any priest who breaks what is called the seal of confession: "'Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed', and he goes on to say that the violator of this law should be made a life-long, ignominious wanderer.'" This is because our sins that we confess and are given mercy to, the only one who continues to care about them afterward, is Satan. The Accuser who wants to make us revel in our sins and be bound to our despair.

It is a form of the sin of detraction for a priest to break the seal of confession. The seal of confession is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and for a priest to break this seal, it is a grave sin. It is a grave sin for a layman to listen in on his brother's confession. These are sins of detraction. We live in a modern culture of democracy where politicians find themselves so ugly that the only way they ascend to the top is by presenting them as the least ugliest. So they present their opponents as uglier. They highlight their opponents' sins in the form of negative campaigning because they have no accomplishments of their own. Living in this culture of detraction, I fear many Christians have forgotten what the sin of detraction even is or are even aware that it is a sin. But highlighting other people's sins in public brings upon themselves the curse of Ham. We're used to public trials, lawsuits, smear campaigns, that many people don't even look at these as sins anymore. No wonder why we no longer live in the realm of charity! Our society punts charity to the side and endorses sins against charity. If you don't cooperate in these sins, you're viewed as almost alien.

And that's why so much emphasis is placed on the seal of confession. The Church is not protecting child molesters or sex abusers by honoring the seal of confession. They are guarding the penitent who has sought out the grace and aid of Our Lord to flea from his sins. In the sacrament of confession, we are unbound from the chains of sin that the Devil has placed on us. And these laws targeting the seal of confession are an assault on the essence and nature of the sacrament. These laws would relegate the sacrament of confession to a matter of dubiousness. Am I really receiving grace or will the priest report me to my friends as he already takes this sacrament so lightly to begin with and cares nothing for the serious nature of it? Am I going to be bound continually to this sin I seek to free myself from? These laws do more harm to the seal of confession. In confession, the letter of the law is not what reigns.

Theologically, these laws are an odious assault on grace and true charity. While we should protect children and the abused from child molesters and murderers and assailants, the sacrament of confession is not the letter of the law of the State nor is the Church the handmaiden of the State to use her sacraments as a means for "catching bad guys". In many instances of confession, the priest sits on one side of a booth separated from the penitent who speaks through a grate. How would most priests, who hear thousands of confessions a year, hundreds a week, even know who is confessing to them? How would the State even know what a priest has heard in a confession unless a State agent sneaks in and listens in on a confession? Aside from having a twisted view on theology, the State would have to become thuggish in order to even properly enforce this law.

While many are praising this law as protecting children from abusers, the reality is that the nature of this law attempts to twist the Church into becoming a police agent for the purposes of the State, it assaults the nature of confession, it encourages the sin of detraction as a virtue, and it has no real way of being enforced as the nature of the sacrament is entirely secret, often times anonymous. Are those defending the seal though guilty of defending child molesters then? I want to be clear on this as I have been falsely accused of not caring about children myself. The answer is: NO! The answer is "no" because it's about defending what the nature of the Church is and what the nature of confession is. We live in a world where people want to storm the Church and violate the sanctuary. Whether it's the State breaking in and capturing immigrants or its the State breaking in and intruding upon confession, the State is in violation of the sacred. Far from defending child molesters, and there are many other ways to bring justice to those that the State could pursue, Christians defending the sacrament of confession are only doing that and nothing more. Confession is not the place to "catch bad guys". It's the place to offer spiritual instruction so that wolves may become sheep.

How the next Pope can heal divisions...

One of the challenges facing the next Pope, regardless as to who it is, will be in healing the cultural divide between the unfortunate wings of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who is seen as a favorite to become the next Pope, has spoken of one of the more unfortunate divides in the Church over the Tridentine Mass. There is gossip about him that he intends to further restrict it, but I am actually not entirely certain about that. He seems to even take a more sympathetic stance toward the French regarding Traditionis Custodes. Although it's hard to tell what Parolin's exact views are in the midst of the gossip and banter, I think the divide among Catholics regarding Old Rites and New Rites is going to continue unless something is done.

Traditionis Custodes, on face value, doesn't ban the Tridentine Mass, though many Bishops maliciously took it that way. Here is where I'll say things that Traditionalists are not going to like, but they need to understand. I do not believe that Traditionis Custodes was ever intended to phase out the Tridentine Mass at all, but was meant to build bridges between those in the Church who refused to attend the Novus Ordo and preferred the Tridentine Mass with those who only looked at the Novus Ordo as the true expression of Vatican II. One thing neglected among Catholics and often difficult to grasp is the hermeneutics of continuity. The hermeneutics of continuity is the Church's official doctrine regarding the interpretation of Vatican II with the continuity of the Church as it existed before Vatican II. If one reads works such as Michael Davies's The Liturgical Revolution or Alcuin Reid's Organic Liturgy, one will find that the reform of the Western liturgy actually predates Vatican II. The only Missal we got from Vatican II was the 1962 Roman Missal, and Eastern Catholics were ordered to return to their traditions.

Far from being an anti-Traditionalist Council, Vatican II encapsulated the pastoral process of prior years leading up to its culmination. Today, you won't see many Catholics fasting from midnight before they receive Holy Communion in the morning, let alone six hours prior to receiving Holy Communion as is a recommended abbreviated Eucharistic fast in the East. You can thank the Ven. Pius XII for shortening the Eucharistic fast, not Vatican II! And that, I don't think, is understood when we talk about Vatican II's liturgical reforms. They predated Vatican II. Far from being a Council that changed the direction of the Western Church, Vatican II further propelled the Western Church on liturgical reform. But some reform is too much. That is where Traditionalists have a point.

The problem in the Church, is not that there are two expressions of the Western Rite. The problem is one group insisting that only one version of that expression was valid. The next Pope is going to have to address this issue with the same hermeneutics of continuity that his predecessors used. Far from phasing out the Tridentine Mass, it must be noted from Traditionis Custodes, that Francis actually wanted the Tridentine Mass continued. But he wanted the Tridentine Mass continued in the spirit of continuity with the Novus Ordo. This was also Pope John Paul II's and Pope Benedict XVI's vision as well. Such position is also maintained by Cardinal Sarah, whom Traditionalists are very enthused with. But many who attend the Tridentine Mass refuse to see the Novus Ordo as valid. Which is why Francis went to great lengths to ensure that those who continued celebrating the Tridentine Mass would also see the Novus Ordo as valid. In order to continue Francis's legacy, the next Pope will have to further help Traditionalists see the Novus Ordo as bearing continuity with the ancient Church.

But how is that to be done? With the general direction the Novus Ordo is going, things have to change in the Novus Ordo. Let's be realistic, Traditionalists are going to continue looking at the Novus Ordo with skepticism if bishops and priests continue to castigate those who receive on the tongue or in the mouth despite the Church's instruction. Traditionalists are never going to see the Novus Ordo as respectful to God if the charismatic dancing continues to be done and EHMCs remain as numerous as they do and the priests continue to appear as if they're just having a conversation with the congregation. Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo if it included more incense, was done ad orientem, and with much more Gregorian chant as Musicam sacram argues for and commends. Far from being anti-traditional, much of the abuses that we see in the Novus Ordo, the Church already does consider as being in opposition with the spirit of Vatican II that these people claim to follow. And the next Pope will have to further address these deficiencies. In that way, bringing Novus Ordo attendees to respect the ancient customs of the Church and Tridentine Mass attendees to respect the New Mass of St. Paul VI. I don't think any Traditionalists have issues with the Ordinariate, after all.

The next Pope, in bringing together Traditionalists, Novus Ordo attendees, and the Ordinariate, will be fulfilling not only the legacy of Pope Francis, but will also be fulfilling the hermeneutics of continuity of Vatican II, honoring the ancient Traditions of the Church, and building bridges in the Church Universal. Also, he would not be giving cause for anxiety to Eastern Rite Catholics who might be more inclined to wonder that if the Pope can abrogate a Western liturgy, can he then abrogate an Eastern liturgy? Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a Novus Ordo, reconstructed and enforced to include more Gregorian chant, incense, and ad orientem posturing of the priests, is both what is encouraged and what is the expectation of Vatican II. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the 1962 Roman Missal was produced by that Council. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the Ordinariate is just the fruitful outcome of a theologically corrected once-Protestant liturgy. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a return to Tradition was called for. The next Pope's biggest task will be in implementing what those reforms actually looked like. Easing Traditionalists into accepting not the Novus Ordo as they have perceived it, but as the Church perceived it. In doing so, Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo, also allowing for easing of restrictions against the Tridentine Mass and a greater harmony of continuity to exist in the Church. I pray the next Pope can actually do what the Church needs, and not further continue divisions by ignoring the plights of the Traditionalists.

MAGA's trends toward liberalism...

Christians are not talking about this enough right now. There are the common Woke critiques of the Trump Administration right now that even some self-professing Christians are going on and then claiming that they are doing what other Christians should. But these range on subjects that are either morally neutral or morally commendable. For instance, the ending of DEI should rightfully be praised by Christians. While the suffering that has been experienced by many races under the yoke of past white supremacy is not something that we should ever want to see come back, the problem with DEI and affirmative action is that it issued an ideology founded in a never-ending cycle of revenge politics. To truly move past our racist past, we can't allow either the past white supremacy or the current implementing of hiring people based solely on race to continue. People's attributes need to be looked at. Their work ethic, their ability to function on a team, and their commitment to creating a better life for their peers.

Immigration policy has been something frequently critiqued by Christians on the grounds that Christians are expected to welcome the foreigner. Christians are supposed to welcome the foreigner. The State has the right to establish proper order (Rom. 13:1-4). Immigration policies should be based on a combination of both the individual obligation and the State's obligation to be a guarantor of order in society. I've seen many Christians on both sides of the issue failing to properly synthesize that issue. Mass deportations are the current result of a past Administration which committed a dereliction of their duty to create order, allowing numerous people into a country unchecked. The Laken Riley Act, which was passed recently, received support from both Republican and Democrat Senators. I'm not saying Democrat and Republican support makes something inherently wholesome, but it shows that there needs to be real concern for the State to actually guarantee security and safety to its nation. I would hope that these mass deportations are being conducted in a humanitarian way, and that's the best I can state because I don't have control over the situation.

Cutting USAID has also recently been something that I've seen Christians taking issue with. And while cutting funding to charity groups has disastrous consequences for the charity groups that are doing legitimately quality work in improving people's lives, there needs to be something said about this. Government funding needs to be able to have oversight from the general public. Which means sending tax-money to a charity group is not a good thing to happen at any rate. All the tax-payer can see is that their money has been sent to a third-party group. They have no idea what this third-party group is doing with their money or even if they support that. It's like using tax-money to build a wall that many people don't support. Individuals should be allowed and invested with the authority to discern how their money is spent, even if its tax-money, and they should be allowed to see how government is using or abusing that money. Christians on both sides need to start looking at government distributism like that. Too often we hear the phrase "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" used as a justification for outrageous taxation, along with Romans 13:1-4. However, in creating proper order, the State needs to also honor the individual who was made in the image of God, otherwise, the tyranny of the collective will be implemented.

There are also a shocking number of Christians who are opposing the Administration's relative pivots on transgenderism and abortion from the previous Administration's. I'm not sure where these people got their theology from, but according to Christian tradition, God created mankind male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). There is also the historic condemnation of murder which applies to children in the womb as well as to those outside it. There are frighteningly very few Christians who are opposing sending money to Israel to use in an offensive against Gaza. While I support Israel's right to defend its citizens from being kidnapped by the terror group Hamas, I only support a defensive. At the same time, Ukraine also has a right to defend its own borders from Russia. But the Benedictine position would be to pursue peace between the Romans and the Lombards in regard to both issues. Christians on both sides have de-sacralized life by promoting a twisted anthropology defending the murder of the unborn, turning from the truth of creation, and salivating over war and the destruction of lives.

Which takes me back to the main point. While there are many legitimate concerns over the criticism of the Trump Administration right now, as there were many concerns over the Biden Administration, I've seen Christians on both sides missing the mark. Part of it is because of a grotesque negligence of historic Christianity, but there is also a political element to it as well. I can certainly understand the people who voted for Trump over Harris as a lesser evil, but the people who voted for him and are supporting him whole-heartedly while claiming that they are pro-life is frightening. We have a man who supports the abortion pill about to take over Human Health Services. Both J.D. Vance and Donald Trump have spoken out in favor of the abortion pill. MAGA has become liberalized to the same extent that the Democrat Party has become liberalized. What I mean by liberalized is this - there is a devaluation of the sacred among the movement that emphasizes the material over that of the sacred and even throws out the sacred. The material nation is now more important than the Church. Winning elections is more important than influencing culture for future generations. Joe Biden said in 2021 that democracy has prevailed. In 2025, we are finally seeing the effects of that victory that democracy has won. Democracy has won and it has conquered the Church. Well, rather, it looks like its winning. The Church will never be conquered.

I am very frightened by the liberalism that has been embraced by Christians who are in the MAGA movement. While there are some good things that the Trump Administration has done, there can be no doubt that a Christian cannot support the totality of this Administration. While it may be an improvement for Christians than the last Administration, which was even more divisive at this point, it's grotesquely imperfect. Put not your trust in princes. The worship of political leaders - Trudeau, Trump, Harris, Vance, Biden, etc. - is not something Christians should get behind at all. A lot of right-wing Christians have anger toward church leaders for failing to properly call out the Biden Administration and they are right to be angered about that. Left-wing theology is not the solution to the right-wing politics among Christianity. One failure of the Church this past decade is in the over-protection of republican forms of government and the neglect of the sacred aspect of the human condition. Had the Church been properly addressing this, we would not have the political idolatry. Man is hungry right now. They are hungry for God. But if the Church yields its evangelical duties, Man will find God in himself and exert power over others. This has been the frightening scenario for the last decade.

What would it take? (response to Mr. Roger Olson)

Mr. Roger Olson, an Evangelical historical theologian who, over the past several years, has demonstrated the political intoxication of American Evangelicalism from the "never-Trump side", blogged recently about the reaction to Trump's conviction by a Manhattan jury. My main response to his question is perceived fairness. When Democrats tell you in 2016 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted because that's prosecuting political opponents, then open an investigation in 2017 on their political opponent over "collusion with Russia" which was proven never occurred, then in 2020 complain about Trump attempting to investigate Biden, then start cheerleading over the conviction of a President, any effort to lecture the general populace on democracy, fairness, rule of law, is moot. Now, one could insist that it was a "jury of his peers" to defend said "fairness", but that ignores the fact of how Manhattan voted in 2020 (85-15 pro-Biden). This is a district where you are almost guaranteed to get a jury of your peers that's 10-2 Democrat, with strong Democrat ideologues, where Democrat bullies can bludgeon the other two to render in the desired verdict. Does that seem "fair"?

Mr. Olson also complains that Trump is a bully though. In his efforts to condemn people who still support Trump to Hell after this. Right. Trump is a bully. I've been abused by both people on the right and people on the left for solely being autistic. Now, Mr. Olson can deny my personal experience (which is called gaslighting and a form of bullying), or Mr. Olson can take my personal experience into account for why I find the left more venomous. Because even though I've been abused for my autism by people on both sides of the court, none has abused me more than those who are Biden-voters. While Joe Biden himself may not be a bully, his failure to control and stabilize his voting base is telling. When a significant portion of Biden-voters found on social media tell you things like you're a moron because you're autistic or that you shouldn't vote or be allowed to drive because you're autistic, you definitely have a much different perspective. Trump might be a bully but who he bullies are people who deserve it. I would rather have a President who refers to Biden-voters who abuse people based on their disability as human scum than what we currently have.

Mr. Olson, despite being an Evangelical, apparently has no concern for the Left-wing agenda. No one may sway his opinion on this, but I'm fully aware that Christians, even Evangelicals, are opposed to the Left-wing agenda of tax-funded trans surgeries for minors, tax-funded abortions, tax-funded overseas wars, gay marriage, abortion up to the point of birth, etc. Since Mr. Olson is a Christian and against all of that, I do find it curious he thinks the Left-wing agenda is no threat. Now, he does contradict himself a lot though. For instance, he will unequivocally support Liz Cheney who supports overseas wars but supports Robert F. Kennedy because he does not support overseas wars. To be honest, I've never honestly believed Mr. Olson was anything other than a hypocrite and a false Christian. But that's irrelevant. That the Left-wing agenda is dangerous, is something that I continue to have a lot greater concern about than anything Trump has said or done.

What would it take? What would it take to get me to see that a Trump Presidency should be feared? Okay, here's a good list: Masses of liberals who aren't ghoulishly promoting abortion but at least view it as a tragedy. Masses of liberals who can hold an intellectual conversation with someone who doesn't agree with them on a political issue. Masses of liberals who don't foolishly drift tot the argument that being an orthodox Catholic makes someone a pedophile-supporter. Masses of liberals who have a respectful tolerance for the beliefs of Christians who aren't shouting "HOMOPHOBIA!". Basically, liberals behaving like the opposite of human scum would have me much more inclined to see eye-to-eye with Mr. Olson that a second Trump term would be a very evil thing. Instead, we have just the opposite of that. I'm an independent voter and still undecided. I don't know if I want to vote for Kennedy right now or not. Kennedy has said some good things in the past. Trump had a lot of objectively good policies. What I think America needs more than a President is an exorcism and a mass conversion to orthodox Catholicism.

But I think that Mr. Olson shows overall a significant problem with Evangelicalism today. A lot of Trump's most bitter critics and supporters are among Evangelical Christians and self-described Evangelicals. Evangelicalism, without anything sacred to look toward in the Church, has effectively satiated its lack of the sacred with the sacred within the State. It's a very sad state that Evangelicalism is in. Mr. Olson's posts frequently dunk on the Evangelical Trump-supporters, and safe to say, they aren't listening to him, but he still dunks on them anyway. Never-Trumper Evangelical critics will certainly act like they aren't political but when 9 out of 10 of your posts each week are all about the political state of America and Trump, you don't really give a good impression to an outsider that you are in favor of that. Maybe it's the idea of having a god who responds to Mr. Olson's every call that makes him lose focus on the sacred. That kind of god is being advanced by many Evangelicals nowadays. I don't see much of a future for Evangelicals. For Catholics, apostasies will come and mass conversions will come. With the death of Evangelicalism as it inclines itself more toward replacing the sacred with the political, I think that we might see an objectively good thing for this country in a mass conversion to Catholicism.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Review

I had been wanting to watch The Exorcism of Emily Rose for a while and last night, it went on sale via the Apple Store and so I didn't hesitate to get it. I was not disappointed. It is partially a supernatural horror and partially a legal drama with a heavy focus on the question of exorcism and the overlap between the possible realm of the spiritual and the naturalist. The movie ends up pitting the spiritual against the naturalist, the Truth against the lie, and the Church against the State. It is a State that is hostile to the Church that must be convinced of the spiritual reality of the Victory of Christ over the demonic, but the State refuses to see itself as subjected to the demonic. Right from the beginning, we see the spiritual battle unfolding.

The movie opens up right after the death of Emily Rose, the titular character, most of her story will be shown in flashback during the court questionings of the witnesses involved in the story. The priest, Fr. Moore, is at the house and a medical examiner comes in to give his conclusion of cause of death to the officer. The officer then charges Fr. Moore with negligent homicide. It now must be determined who shall prosecute. The prosecution calculates the prosecutor must be a Christian, preferably a Catholic, and that he must be seen as Church-going and friendly toward the Faith. While this is a calculative decision, it is remarkable as to how in the real world such Satanic thinking operates. We are often presented with a "devoutly Christian" politician presented to us by the media who happens to have firm agreements with the faithlessness of the World because it is only under such an appearance of light that Satan could ever deceive us. How many times have we heard the drivel that Nancy Pelosi or Tim Kaine or Joe Biden are "devout Catholics" while they openly oppose every single Church doctrine?

It so happens that the prosecuting attorney picked is a regular Church-going Methodist. A Protestant. The defense attorney is an agnostic with doubts about her own past. And it is in that remarkable mixture that we are presented with the conversion power of the Church over a heresy. Throughout the course of the trial, we see the defense attorney come under both spiritual attack and receive spiritual protection in her own time of need as she becomes more and more open to the idea that there are spiritual powers that we come into conflict with. The priest, Fr. Moore, is more focused on presenting the Truth of the story of Emily Rose and he does not fear being portrayed as a madman.

Throughout the trial, we see the materialistic side presented by the prosecution to prove the case of negligent homicide. When I consider my old Protestant views and how much of it favored the idea of syncretism of the materialistic viewpoint with Christian theology even when both were incompatible, I see the manifestations of the Enlightenment mindset which Protestantism has given birth to. The "man of faith" is ultimately seen as the faithless and the skeptic. It is he who is exposed as the unbeliever. Whereas the agnostic is shown to have much more faith than she even realizes throughout the movie. It is something that many people don't recognize among our current world how faithless those they present as faithful are. It is the Satanic nature of today's world to present as faithful those who oppose the very Faith that is claimed to represent in an effort to undermine the very essence of the Faith. And that is where the real spiritual battle in the movie lies.

The priest, we find, does not intend to defend his own self. He only intends to present what he believes is the Truth. That is the very Truth of the Victory of Christ. He wants to make it known to the jury, not that he is a martyr, but that Emily Rose is a saint. He does not fight the battle but he puts the battle into the hands of God and the saints and lets them fight the battle. The movie also contains quite a theodicy in it where Emily Rose relates in a note to the priest a brief encounter she experiences with the Virgin Mary prior to her death and how it is in that which she ultimately chose to accept her continued sufferings so that others may come to belief.

The movie is based on the real life exorcism of a German girl named Annelise Michel. Annelise Michel was a college student who went through the exact same struggles as Emily Rose. It was presumed by the Church and the clergy that she was possessed and needed exorcism. The overlap between the spiritual and the material was forgotten and she was ultimately left malnourished and died. The priests involved, and her parents, were convicted of negligent homicide by German authorities. But today, the grave site of Annelise Michel is a place of pilgrimage among many German Catholics who even ask for her intercession as a saint. Through the sufferings of Annelise Michel, many have been brought to Faith. I won't reveal the ending of the trial of Fr. Moore in the movie as that would be a spoiler, but I would strongly recommend it. There are scenes that can be frightening so I would not recommend children see it, the theological message is very important.

Why modern day modalist doctrine rejects God's oneness

Divine Simplicity is a doctrine often times brought up to challenge the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which is believed by all Christians and denied by non-Christians. I go so far to say that because, simply put, without the Trinity, there is no salvation. Not that invincible ignorance might lead to damnation. I cannot make judgments on that as I am not God, but that unless God is Triune, the doctrine of salvation as taught by the Church is incoherent. Christ's Mission on Earth was to defeat Death and Hell and He did exactly that. To those denying that He is Divine in and of Himself, they would posit that a mere mortal could do such. And to those confounding the Persons of the Trinity, well...

A large problem is there is ample literature on Trinitarian doctrine and Trinitarian apologetics and the Church's classical doctrine and teaching are often times buried in the philosophical mumbo-jumbo that modern day anti-Trinitarians accuse Trinitarians of holding. The philosophical mumbo-jumbo about the Trinity in modern day Trinitarian apologetics is rarely seen or observed in classical orthodox dogmatics. That is because that mumbo-jumbo never even occurred to the Church. I see a lot of anti-Trinitarians using the word "Godhead" to refer to the Trinity as if "Godhead" is the same as God or even the famed "Trinity Delusion" website. They mostly respond to the anti-cult hunters and the Trinitarian apologists who are divorced from classical Christian doctrine.

The Trinity Delusion website is a class example. In the article I linked, it enforces modern understanding of the terminology upheld at Nicaea to arrive at the conclusion that the "nature" cannot be a "Who" but a "What". This is echoed strongly among Trinitarian apologists and lends itself to the greatest anti-Trinitarian strawman attack ever. I used to be an anti-Trinitarian and that was the dogma I attacked. But it was not the doctrine taught in historical Christian theology. In fact, in order to understand what Trinitarians mean by "ousia" and "persons" and "beings", a knowledge of the historical controversies has to be gathered. In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, he has an entire chapter dedicated to proving the point that the Trinitarian doctrine is built on a graveyard of heresies. It was Sabellians who first used terms such as "ousia" and "persons" and "beings" and this was why the Church was reluctant at first to adopt Nicene orthodoxy.

And that brings us to Sabellians of the modern day who are mostly found among a group called "Oneness Pentecostals". When contending with an upholder of this modern day Oneness philosophy, a variant of modalism which insists that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, much appeal is made to the hypostatic union doctrine. Of course, it is not. Sabellians will say that their doctrine is consistent with Divine Simplicity because they misunderstand the proper Trinitarian theology regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not a "group" deity nor is the Trinity a conglomeration of "parts" and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not parts of God either. Rather the Father is wholly God, the Son is wholly God, and the Holy Spirit is wholly God. If God was divided into parts, this would violate Divine Simplicity. But God's Oneness is found in His infinitude. Infinity is the only thing which cannot be divided into parts. God is infinite in nature, indivisible in nature, hence, the three persons of the Trinity can never be acknowledged as divided or in parts.

But when confronted, what you will notice with "Oneness theologians" is that they frequently separate the Son from the Father. How else will they get two witnesses (John 8)? How else do they explain the baptism of Christ or the Transfiguration? Either the Son and the Father are two persons or the Son and the Father are two entities which are not united as one together. The Son would have to be a projection created by the Father. This exceeds the hypostatic union doctrine of Chalcedon. While the hypostatic union differentiated between a human nature and divine nature had by Christ, it never denied that Christ was wholly talking as God. There are many places in Scriptures where Christ conceals His deity, but He never denies it. Matthew 24:36 is often times brought up by anti-Trinitarians on both sides and the Church has never accepted the interpretation that it marks Christ as "ingorant". There are many senses of "knowing". In knowing the day and hour, Christ does, but it is not to the benefit of His Mission. He is fully aware of the events that shall lead up to that hour and so He does know the hour. What is not of His earthly Mission is to judge the world. St. Augustine writes: "That He says that the “Father knoweth,” implies that in the Father the Son also knows." (Serm. 97, 1)

Further, St. Hilary of Poitiers elaborates on the text by indicating that "in all cases, in which God declares Himself ignorant, He is not under the power of ignorance, but either it is not a fit time for speaking, or it is an economy of not acting." (On the Trinity, IX) Therefore, we see that it is in the humanity, of being contained in finitude and time, that the Son is not here eternally acting, and therefore confesses not knowing. For is in such that He is not at act that He states His ignorance in figurative language. For both the Arians and the Modalists, the omniscience of the Son is denied outright by this text. And the Modalists have such a perverse view that they will proceed to differentiate the man Jesus Christ from God. But if Jesus Christ is the Father in their theology, then Who was incarnated? And that is where the Modalist position collapses. In essence, in denying that the Son is the Father and yet insisting that Jesus is the Father and the Son, the modern day Modalist or Oneness position gives itself over to philosophical reasonings in a desperate attempt to preserve it's anti-Scriptural theology. And it splits God into two - a man and a god. Oneness doctrine therefore cannot uphold in any matter the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. For their "Oneness" of God is a Jesus that is split into the Son and the Father who are both Jesus but not each other, meaning Jesus has a conversation with Himself, declares Himself His own God, prays to Himself, declares Himself to be His own Son, etc.

Triune Oneness posits the infinitude of God which cannot be divided. The Trinity is not merely a "Godhead". The Trinity is God. And the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is the only true God. The Son is the only true God. The Holy Spirit is the only true God. The Trinity is the only true God. Those statements cannot all be true unless they are wholly, uniquely, God, in and of themselves, and are indivisible. The "Oneness" deity is divided against himself.

How to cleanse right-wing brainwashing...

I speak from the position of someone who voted for Trump twice. I was never really what would be properly called a "Trumper" or "MAGA" even, except maybe to those on the hard left who see any opposition of any kind toward leftism as being "MAGA" or "Trumpism" or "Trump-supportive". Like how many Biden voters or Hillary Clinton voters do you really honestly know who actually gave whole support to the ideologies of those? Like most people, I just ended up voting for the lesser of evils. But nevertheless, I did venture more toward right-wing brainwashing. I think a lot of it is dictated by the news we watch. But there is a large responsibility that the left itself needs to take up in creating right-wing brainwashing. There's positive brainwashing and negative brainwashing. And the left contributes to a lot of negative brainwashing.

Pigeonholing is a tactic used frequently in rhetoric where someone puts someone in a position that they would not otherwise hold because of hasty generalizations or strawmanning or even guilt by association. And the left excels in it. I do believe this is how many otherwise conservative people, such as David French, get sucked into making excuses for the left even as the left attacks them. Because if they didn't stray toward the left, they'd end up in my position of being labeled a "MAGA". But that's the thing, these are labels that can be rejected. Labels aren't something that are handed out by people who aren't extemist. Labels are handed out by people who are extremists! I want to make that clear. Understanding that there is pigeonholing by left-wing extremists and anyone who undertakes in pigeonholing is, more often than not, an extremist, is a crucial component of this.

You're not an extremist just because someone says you are an extremist. In fact, you might be normal. I have empathy toward those who see January 6, 2021 as an insurrection. I think that it is an opinion. It doesn't make someone a defender of "MAGA" or a "Trumper" to be able to understand that the usage of the term "insurrection" to define that event is opinionated. What's more concerning is when politicians use the opinionated term as part of their investigation into what happened and so the legal search starts with a conclusion and then finds evidence to support that conclusion. Others, such as myself, see an otherwise organized rally that somehow erupted into a riot. And that's an equally justified opinion unless evidence proves there was an insurrection. When it becomes a matter of good and evil to see such a thing as an insurrection or people who became riotous and politicians start to use that as part of a legal investigation of the issue, that's dangerous. But an extremist, nevertheless, isolates people who see it as either/or into groups of us vs. them and ignores their own responsibility.

So during the Summer of 2020, the President had to hide in a bunker. That is a fact. He had to hide into a bunker because an organized group of people was committing violent acts, vandalizing the streets of Washington, D.C., and riot cops had to be called into to break everything up. Leftists denied this happened and yet video footage showed it happened. When confronted with this, leftists didn't call it out. They actually sought to justify it based on the nation's treatment of racial minorities...in the past. Most people tend to grow up, but extremists tend to grasp onto what happened in the past and act as if everything in the past is the same as today. That's why you get "Hitler" analogies. Obviously, no one's bringing back Hitler. Though due to the fact that Nazism is a variation of socialism and both right and left cling to socialism, it's understandable why so many make these Hitler analogies, on both right and left. The point is, that the Summer riot could also be categorized as an insurrection.

An insurrection, I think, is something that should be defined before the word is thrown out. Generally speaking, insurrection refers to acts that are intentionally undermining the Civil Government. It's impressive to me how many leftists will insist that our government institutionalizes racism and then will somehow care about that government being undermined. That's just cognitive dissonance disorder. Either you care about the institution or you think the institution is inherently racist. The fact that intent is typically emphasized is why I don't think that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection. I'm not saying it may have been, I'm just saying I don't think that happened. The only insurrection I am aware of that happened with certainty was the insurrection in Seattle that occurred in 2020 with "CHAZ".

Going back to my original point, extremism happens on both sides. I don't know what side it is more common with, but the hard rightists typically see the media make comments ad nauseam about right-wing extremism. Then they see on social media video clips of various examples of left-wing extremists and they are hurt and wounded by the fact that there is so much demonization of the right. More than that, but people in the middle, who hold more socially conservative views, see all of this, end up being pigeon-holed along with the more extreme bunch of the right, and end up being categorized as "MAGA", "Trumpers", "Nazis", and "extremists" as well. No one likes being called things they aren't, but it's a part of labeling. Cults typically divide the world into two categories of good guys vs. bad guys. It's easier then to glorify violent acts such as the knifing of Derek Chauvin (leftists recently) and the death of George Floyd (right-wing extremists in the past and today). Or even Kyle Rittenhouse's usage of force against people trying to kill him. Even justified violence should not be glorified. It reminds me of what Elyas says to Perrin Aybara in The Wheel of Time. The moment you start to love that axe is when you need to get rid of it.

The left has engaged in what I would call "negative brainwashing". By creating such a negative picture of the right, that more people on the right have started materializing that in response to the left-wing extremism that is both justified by the media and supported by politicians. Did Nancy Pelosi ever call out those who vandalized a crisis pregnancy center? While opposing right-wing extremism continues to be necessary, it must be remembered that left-wing extremism has media and corporate support. Both should be opposed equally. Those who are of the Kingdom of God know that the enemies attack it from all sides. The warfare is not a material one, but it is an important one. For the left to actually get rid of right-wing extremists, they themselves need to stop thinking like extremists of seeing people as two groups, those for, and those against, their ideological group think. But one thing I give credit to the left on, they at least know that the Kingdom of God is their main enemy.