Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, October 28, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time - Guest Post
There was once a movie about a little boy who went to live with his wealthy grandfather. The grandfather was selfish and mean, but the little boy idolized him. He didn’t see his grandfather’s abrasive nature. Instead, he believed his grandfather was generous and kind.
By the end of the movie, the boy’s love softens his grandfather’s heart. He becomes the kind of person his grandson always believed him to be.
Love is at the heart of Jesus’ teaching and His life. Love is at the center of the greatest commandment we hear in today’s Gospel: “Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength – and love your neighbor as yourself.”
When I think of Jesus’ ultimate expression of love, I think of the crucifixion. What makes the crucifixion such a profound symbol of Jesus’ love?
First, it is a dramatic sign of love. Jesus said, “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for a friend.” On the cross, Jesus gave His very Self so that we might have eternal life.
But while the crucifixion is the sign of love Jesus gives us, we must also recognize that He sacrificed Himself because we are lovable. If we do not see ourselves as lovable, it becomes difficult to love others.
Blessed Bishop Fulton Sheen, who was beatified last month, once said, “The less we are loved, the less lovable we become. The less lovable we become, the less capable we are of loving others.”
My friends, we must learn to see ourselves as valuable and lovable in the eyes of God. When we recognize how deeply we are loved, we become capable of giving that love away to others.
Secondly, besides being a sign of love, the crucifixion is an invitation to love. It shows us, in the most visible way, what Jesus means when He tells us, “Love one another, as I have loved you.”
We see this kind of love lived out when a young adult begins tutoring a struggling student, then goes on to read to the blind and visit the elderly. Perhaps for the first time, that young person has discovered their own value. Having experienced that love, that young person is now able to share it with others who need it.
Finally, the crucifixion is a revelation of love. It reveals something we might rather not hear: Love can involve suffering.
Think about the defining characteristics of love: patience, kindness, forgiveness and humility. All of these can be difficult to live.
It is painful to be patient when someone is shouting at you. It is painful to be kind when someone is hurtful or disrespectful toward you. It is painful to forgive when someone has betrayed you. And it is painful to be humble enough to admit that you were wrong.
Yet sometimes, the pain is proof that we are truly loving. It means we are choosing love when it would be easier to choose anger, resentment, pride or indifference.
Perhaps that is what the cross asks of us: not only to receive the love of Jesus, but to love as He loved; to recognize we are loved, and let that love flow to others.
The little boy’s love changed his grandfather. How much more can Christ’s love change us –and, through us, touch the lives of others?
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
[Salon] A Reflection on the Israeli Election
FM: John Whitbeck
With more than 85% of votes having been counted, the distribution of the 120 Knesset seats is shaping up as follows: 53 seats for the five parties of the current government, 48 seats for the four anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties and 19 seats for the two anti-Bibi "Arab" parties.
While there may be slight changes when the final apportionment of seats is announced on Friday, the fundamental electoral landscape has been set for the coalition building negotiations that follows all Israeli elections.
The basics:
1. A majority of Jewish Israeli voters support the current government.
2. A majority of all Israeli voters oppose the current government.
3. A stable "Change" government could be formed by the four anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties and the two anti-Bibi "Arab" parties.
4. If the anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties spurn the opportunity to form a democratic, non-racist coalition with the anti-Bibi "Arab" parties, which have made clear their desire to join forces to oust Bibi from power, it will constitute incontrovertible proof that, for "Zionists", racism is a value that trumps all other values and even the common political lust for power.
Unfortunately, two other scenarios are far more likely that the formation of a democratic, non-racist coalition of the six anti-Bibi parties:
1. The "Zionist" parties live up to their pledges to treat the "Arab" parties as untouchables, no "Zionist" coalition can be formed and the current government stays in power as a "caretaker" government until a new election roughly six months from now.
2. The three extreme-right anti-Bibi "Zionist" parties (Yashar, B'Yachad and Yisrael Beytenu), which have no significant ideological or policy differences (only personal differences) with Bibi, form a four-party coalition with Bibi's Likud Party (with or, more likely, without Bibi, who, at 77 and in less than robust health, might agree to retire from active politics on a relative high in return for a presidential pardon in his corruption trials). While such a coalition, excluding the two lunatic-right parties of Ben Gvir and Smotrich and the two ultra-Orthodox parties, could produce significant changes in some purely domestic matters, it would change nothing in Israel's behavior outside its internationally recognized borders. New or intensified wars would probably enhance the chances for the realization of this scenario.
Tuesday, October 27, 2026
Monday, October 26, 2026
Sunday, October 25, 2026
Saturday, October 24, 2026
Friday, October 23, 2026
Thursday, October 22, 2026
[Salon] The Suffocation of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech in Norway Guest Post by Glenn Diesen
Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2026
Subject: Statement by Glenn Diesen
The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.
1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university - no arguments are apparently required. It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?
I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.
I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.
2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental "human rights organisation" that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.
3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they "debunk"?
My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.
My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.
My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.
Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.
[Salon] Does Sisi go or does he stay past 2030? - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Does Sisi go or does he stay past 2030?
Summary: President Sisi’s musings on what happens when his current term ends in 2030 reveal unease within the ranks of regime loyalists and concern that the economic crisis engendered by his government could produce a spontaneous explosion of popular anger.
We thank Hossam el-Hamalawy for today’s newsletter, an edited version of his Egypt Security Sector Report. Hossam is a journalist and scholar-activist currently based in Germany. He was involved in the Egyptian labour movement and was one of the organisers of the 2011 revolution. The Egypt Security Sector Report is available on 3Arabawy. Hossam is the author of Counterrevolution in Egypt: Sisi’s New Republic published by Verso. Follow his writings on Substack and X.
On 14 October, President Sisi insisted nobody would touch the constitution, apparently ruling out another extension of his presidency beyond 2030. Was he reassuring the public, or addressing growing unease within the ruling establishment?
The confusion was visible almost immediately. Several news websites deleted reports that quoted Sisi’s remarks regarding the constitution. This was roughly around 5 pm. They republished them only after the presidential spokesperson released his speech at 7 pm, roughly two hours before its television broadcast.
Further confusion emerged when the presidential spokesperson, within minutes of publishing a statement on 15 October, quietly deleted a reference to Sisi remaining in office until 2030, replacing it with the open-ended assurance that he would continue working until his last day in power. The original wording remains visible in the post’s edit history on Facebook.
Meanwhile, the MOI’s Homeland Security-backed Nation’s Future Party and the Military Intelligence-backed Homeland Defenders Party remained silent. The parties issued no statements on the constitutional remarks. Such hesitation hardly suggests a ruling establishment confidently following a settled succession strategy.
Mada Masr quoted an anonymous parliamentary source claiming Sisi had privately declared: “I won’t wait for the defense minister to tell me to go to Sharm el-Sheikh,” invoking Hosni Mubarak’s downfall in 2011. Meanwhile, regime loyalist Mortada Mansour interpreted Sisi’s constitutional remarks as a definitive commitment to leave office, while other supporters demanded he remain.
An apparently bogus campaign promoting Sisi’s son Mahmoud, which pro-regime presenter Ahmed Moussa blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood without substantiating the allegation, further muddied the waters.
The confusion continued on 17 October, when Sisi delivered an extraordinary speech at the Military Academy graduation ceremony. He revealed that pro-regime broadcasters Nashat al-Deehi and Mostafa Bakry had questioned him about what would happen after his current term. This time, he was explicit: “In 2030, my term as president will end, if I live that long. This is completely settled and will not be discussed.” He also disclosed that Bakry had urged him against discussing the succession question publicly.
The optics of fear: Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi among the populace in 2012, contrasted with Sisi’s isolated motorcade on a deserted boulevard. As Sisi contemplates a military-vetted succession plan for 2030, his daily security measures reveal the paranoia of a regime fearing a sudden explosion of public discontent.
Sisi then outlined a proposed mechanism for preparing future leaders, including potential presidential candidates, under the supervision of the Egyptian Military Academy. With approximately 43 months remaining before 2030, he suggested selecting hundreds of candidates, principally holders of advanced university degrees, aged between 40 and 50, for a 30-month training program. The Speaker of Parliament, politicians and the Ministers of Higher Education and Justice would put together the selection mechanism. The armed forces would finance the training. Egyptians could subsequently elect their leaders from this pool of military-trained candidates, although Sisi said participation would not formally exclude others. The initiative would also produce future ministers, governors and senior officials.
The Military Academy has already become an instrument for militarising the civilian bureaucracy, screening recruits and subjecting teachers, diplomats, civil servants and other professionals to military training and ideological indoctrination. Sisi is now proposing to extend this model to the political leadership itself. He explicitly denied preparing a family member or relative to succeed him, rejecting suggestions of hereditary succession. He insisted that Egypt could produce leaders considerably better than himself, provided they underwent “appropriate preparation.”
More revealingly, Sisi invoked Article 200 of the constitution, assigning the armed forces responsibility for safeguarding the constitution, democracy and the state’s fundamental institutions. He claimed he had insisted on including this provision when the constitution was drafted in 2014, although the relevant language was actually introduced through amendments in 2019. Basically, this means a military institution is empowered to determine who is qualified to govern. “Not just anyone who can string two sentences together” should be allowed to lead the state, the president warned.
Such an arrangement is reminiscent of Türkiye’s pre-Erdoğan political order—where the military appointed itself guardian of the constitutional system and repeatedly intervened whenever civilian politics were deemed to have crossed certain red lines. Sisi appears to be contemplating a similar guardianship arrangement, with the Military Academy preparing an approved political elite and the armed forces retaining a decisive role in safeguarding the system.
Finally, Sisi made a striking overture to his Gulf sponsors. Recalling the financial and material assistance provided by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait following the 2013 coup, he ordered troops participating in the ceremony to perform a military salute honouring those countries. He then declared that Egypt was prepared to take whatever measures were necessary to defend Saudi Arabia. He called for an emergency parliamentary session to authorise military action if such assistance were requested, stressing that any intervention would be defensive. No deployment was announced. Nevertheless, the demonstration of loyalty to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies is worth noting amid the ongoing uncertainty over Sisi’s future.
The timing was also telling. Just a day before Sisi’s extravagant declarations of Gulf solidarity, Asharq Bloomberg reported that Cairo was negotiating with Riyadh to renew US$5.3 billion in Saudi deposits at the Central Bank, falling due in October.
In my book, Counterrevolution in Egypt, I argued that Sisi had unified the repressive apparatus for the first time since 1952. Yet this unprecedented unity was never guaranteed to last. The 2025 parliamentary elections already exposed tensions among security agencies, while the deepening economic crisis places the entire ruling coalition under increasing strain.
I find it hard to believe Sisi willingly intends to relinquish power. What seems less certain is how he can engineer another extension without destabilising the very coalition sustaining his rule. It is still unclear which forces, if any, within the state apparatus oppose his continuation. His frantic appeals for unity, though, and the conflicting signals from regime loyalists, suggest a rift or at least confusion about what lies ahead.
The present level of socio-political dissent remains insufficient to trigger a serious rupture at the top, despite the slow, incremental rise in industrial actions. Yet the security agencies monitoring public sentiment must surely recognise how deeply hated Sisi has become for a long list of reasons, most importantly the economic deterioration that his government has presided over. A spontaneous explosion of popular anger is not inconceivable.
Finally, what do Saudi Arabia and the UAE—the regime’s most important sponsors—think? Are they OK with Sisi remaining in office beyond 2030? The answer is still unclear, but Sisi can no longer take for granted the support Saudi Arabia and the UAE gave him during the 2013 coup and its aftermath.
Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Twenty-Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time - Guest Post
If you visit the Manchester Museum in England, you will find an exhibit containing Roman coins from the time of Jesus. Among them is a small, silver coin called a denarius.
If you could hold that ancient coin in your hand and turn it over, you might find yourself transported back to the world of the Gospels. A coin very much like it appears at the center of today’s Gospel, when the Pharisees and the followers of Herod attempt to trap Jesus with a question about taxes.
On one side of the coin is the image of Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor who ruled during Jesus’ ministry. He is the same Caesar mentioned by Luke in connection with the time of John the Baptist’s preaching at the Jordan River. On the reverse side is Livia, Tiberius’ mother, seated and holding an olive branch.
The question posed to Jesus seems simple enough: “Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?”
But there was nothing simple about the question.
Why did they ask it?
Jesus reveals their intentions when He responds, “Why are you putting Me to the test?” Those questioning Him were divided. The followers of Herod generally supported Rome and accepted its authority to collect taxes. The Pharisees, meanwhile, opposed the tax on religious and political grounds, although they paid it to avoid conflict with Rome.
It was a carefully constructed trap. No matter how Jesus answered, they believed He would offend one side or the other.
Then Jesus asks them to produce a coin.
The silver denarius, stamped with Caesar’s image, provides Jesus with the perfect way to answer. He asks them whose image appears on the coin. When they answer, “Caesar’s,” Jesus responds, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”
In a sense, Jesus leads them to answer their own question. The coin bears Caesar’s image, so it belongs within the realm of Caesar.
But Jesus’ final words take us somewhere much deeper.
We, too, have a kind of dual citizenship. We are citizens of this world, but we are also citizens of Heaven. Most of the time, those two identities can peacefully coexist. But there are moments when the demands of this world conflict with the demands of God.
Consider the life of St. Thomas More, the English martyr.
King Henry VIII wanted his marriage annulled, but Rome refused. The king then took matters into his own hands and married again. He ordered his friends and officials to sign a document affirming that he had acted lawfully. Many agreed. Thomas More refused.
More understood that there was a limit to what he could give to an earthly king. When the demands of the world came into conflict with his conscience and his loyalty to God, he chose faithfulness to God – even at the cost of his life.
That is the deeper lesson of today’s Gospel.
Yes, the Roman coin may have been stamped with the image of Caesar. But we are stamped with the image of God.
And while we may have responsibilities to this world, our ultimate allegiance belongs to the One whose image is written upon our hearts.
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A. Headshot
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, October 20, 2026
Monday, October 19, 2026
Sunday, October 18, 2026
Saturday, October 17, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)