Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, October 10, 2026
The Wedding Garment of Greatest Joy - Saint John's Seminary
The Wedding Garment of Greatest Joy - Saint John's Seminary
The Wedding Garment of Greatest Joy
October 10, 2026
The guest thrown out of the wedding feast was not ejected for a social faux pas or minor infraction of dress code. God is not petty. The expulsion of the unfortunate guest signifies something more serious.
The unsuitably attired guest of today’s gospel is found to be without charity in his heart. This is not just an oversight. It’s a tragedy because charity (God’s love) has been poured out superabundantly for all. For the wedding guest to be empty of divine love means he somehow refused it or lost it along the way. This is not easily done, given the insistence and eagerness of the king that people come to the wedding feast of his son.
The king said to him, 'My friend, how is it
that you came in here without a wedding garment?'
But he was reduced to silence.
Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet,
and cast him into the darkness outside,
where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
Many are invited, but few are chosen."
It’s clear that in the parable, God the Father is the king who throws a wedding feast for Christ His Son, the Divine Bridegroom. The wedding garment expected of every guest is Christ Himself: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Saint Paul tells us (Rom 13:14). As the king (God the Father) greets the guests, He seeks only one thing: the wedding garment. That wedding garment is the image of His Son in every guest. The wedding garment is divine love embodied in us.
Image: Parable of the Wedding Feast, Andrey Mironov, 2014. Wikimedia
The guest without a wedding garment appears to have distanced himself from that love. Worse, he has no interest in the relationship being healed. The wedding feast would be torturous for him. Why did he come? He seems to belong more to the people who refused to come in the first place. The king’s decision to have him thrown out ratifies the decision already made by the unfortunate man.
Note how the guest had nothing to say when asked how he got in. He was “speechless” (Matt 22:12). He could have murmured an explanation or an excuse or an apology: he didn’t. Even better, he could have said: “I know your son.” He didn’t.
It’s a reminder to us that something is expected of us. Some response to Jesus Christ is expected. God’s grace is gratuitous and utterly free, but this does not cheapen the gift. It cost Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, every drop of His blood. The man without a wedding garment cheapened the gift. Everything about him in the parable conveys the message: “I don’t care what you have done for me.”
This is not about wearing poor or simple clothes to the wedding feast. Not at all! The poor, the humble, and those who make themselves like little children are the greatest in the kingdom of God and have the highest place at the wedding feast. They are clothed in Jesus Christ. The issue is not poverty or simplicity of garb. Rather, it’s the failure to care—to care about God the Father; to care about His Son, the Divine Bridegroom; and to care about those we meet who are in the image of that Son—the Son who longs to be honored in them.
At every Mass, Jesus the Divine Bridegroom is shown to the faithful as the priest raises the Host saying: “Behold the Lamb of God . . . blessed those called to the Supper of the Lamb.” This is the appeal the Father makes to come to the Wedding Feast. The Father seeks only that we be clothed with Christ. He seeks in us the image of the Son He loves. Moreover, He gives us that image, imprinting it on our very being through Baptism. To be “in Christ” is to be clothed in a glorious wedding garment and given the vocation to love in Christ.
To alienate ourselves from Him is to carry a hollow darkness around within ourselves, ending with the weeping and grinding of teeth that signify regret. Jesus tells the parable because He wants us at the Wedding Feast, not alienated from Him. He echoes the Father’s invitation: “Come to the Wedding Feast!” The Father gives us all we need for our wedding garments to glisten with Christ’s own glory.
With the king in the parable, the Church longs for you to return to Mass, the Wedding Feast of God’s Son. And please come back to Confession, which restores the baptismal robe of Christ’s love, making our faces shine with the light of His glory. In these holy sacraments, the Father delights in us.
In living out these sacraments, we return to the Father what is His: we give Him ourselves, ourselves in Christ His Son. The Father recognizes Christ His Son in our personalities, in our lives, in our love. Our vocation is nothing less than Christ’s love: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ!” That’s the wedding garment of greatest joy.
Friday, October 9, 2026
Thursday, October 8, 2026
Wednesday, October 7, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Twenty-Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time - Guest Post
The Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge once spanned the Niagara River, connecting Canada and the United States. There is a story about how the bridge was built. First, a kite was flown across the river. Attached to the kite was a piece of string. The string was then connected to a rope, the rope to a steel cable, and that cable was eventually used to help construct the rest of the bridge.
Why do I tell you this story? Because great things often comes from humble beginnings.
Storytelling has been popular since we humans first learned to form sentences. Jesus probably told more stories than anyone. We call His stories parables. Someone cleverly described a parable as “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.”
For all practical purposes, Jesus’ parables fall into two categories: window parables and mirror parables. A window parable teaches us about the Kingdom of God, giving us insight into what Heaven is like. A mirror parable, on the other hand, gives us insight into ourselves. Jesus told these stories so that His listeners might see themselves in the characters.
Today’s Gospel is a good example of a mirror parable. The vineyard owner represents God. As the first reading shows us, the vineyard represents the people of Israel, while the tenant farmers represent the leaders of Israel.
The first servants sent by the owner represent the early prophets God sent to Israel. The second group represents the later prophets. The owner’s son, who is killed, represents Jesus. And the new tenants, to whom the vineyard is leased, represent the Apostles, the new leaders of God’s people.
The chief priests and Pharisees knew Jesus was talking about them. They looked into the mirror of the parable and saw themselves. But rather than change their ways, they continued down the same path.
So, did Jesus intend this parable only for the chief priests and Pharisees of His time? Not at all. He told this story for us, here and now.
The parable speaks to us in several ways. It tells us about salvation and the relationship between the old and new covenants. It affirms that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Apostles are the new leaders of God’s people. And it teaches us about God’s patience with us – and our accountability before Him.
The vineyard owner made repeated efforts to get the tenant farmers to change their ways. When it became clear that their hearts were not going to change, he passed judgment and held them accountable for their actions.
God is the same way with us. His patience is immense, and His mercy is abundant. But there will come a day when we will stand before Him and be held accountable for how we have lived our lives.
When I think about this Gospel, I remember the words of a poem written many years ago:
“Jesus was the storytelling kind. He painted pictures in the mind. It was the way he showed people, like you and me, the way things are supposed to be.”
Through His stories, Jesus invites us to look through the window and see the Kingdom of God – and to look in the mirror and see ourselves.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Why the Rosary Can Feel So Hard – Ascension
Why the Rosary Can Feel So Hard – Ascension
SHOWNOTES
The Rosary can be difficult: Distractions, tiredness, restlessness, and busy schedules are common struggles—even among priests, religious, and bishops.
God sees our intention: St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the intention to pray is foundational. God isn't primarily evaluating how perfectly we concentrated; He sees our desire to give Him our time and ourselves.
Don't pray from discouragement: A distracted or imperfect Rosary is still a beautiful prayer. The Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be are sacred, biblical prayers.
You don't have to pray the whole Rosary at once: Try praying one decade at different points throughout the day—in the car, while walking, between meetings, while waiting in line, or before bed.
The Rosary is a “portable chapel”: The beads can become a simple way to turn to Jesus in moments of stress, sorrow, decision-making, or need.
Meditate on the mysteries: Pause before each decade and picture a scene from Christ's life. Scripture can help bring the mysteries to life.
Let Jesus be the focus: When deeper meditation feels difficult, simply focus on the words of the Hail Mary—especially the name of Jesus: “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”
Don't let the ideal keep you from the good: While there are beautiful and ideal ways to pray the Rosary, perfection shouldn't prevent us from praying it in the circumstances of our actual lives.
Start small: One decade takes about two and a half minutes. Consider praying one decade a day for 30 days as an “on-ramp” to a deeper devotion to the Rosary.
The goal is Jesus: At the heart of every Hail Mary and every mystery is Christ, the Prince of Peace.
Tuesday, October 6, 2026
[Salon] Iraq’s militia deadline is losing its leverage - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Iraq’s militia deadline is losing its leverage
Summary: Baghdad has backed down from its efforts to disarm Popular Mobilisation Forces pushing the deadline back to 2027 thus sending a clear signal that for now at least it has neither the political clout or the hard power to bring the militias under its control.
We thank a regional contributor for today’s newsletter.
Iraq’s deadline for bringing armed factions under state control has moved from September 30 to June 2027. The extension gives Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi more time to negotiate with groups that rejected his original timetable. But it also creates a difficult contradiction. The US-coalition whose presence some militias cited as a reason to remain armed left Iraq at the end of September while the government has yet to establish full control over the groups themselves.
The US withdrawal removes one of the main arguments that hardline factions have used to justify their weapons. Zaidi had argued that there would be no justification for a separate armed “resistance” role once foreign forces left. That condition has now been met. On September 30, Kataib Hezbollah, one of the Iran-backed armed militias, announced a suspension of its military activities in Iraq following the US withdrawal. But it retained the right to target aircraft it considers hostile while other groups said they were not bound by any government disarmament timetable.
Iran-backed militias, funded by the Iraqi state, celebrate National Day in the streets of Baghdad, Saturday 3rd October.
The responses raise questions over the new deadline. Some factions have indicated that they are willing to place weapons under state authority and Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein says the government has been negotiating with seven armed groups. He says several have already begun handing over weapons. But several powerful factions continue to resist the process. Baghdad therefore needs to negotiate a settlement with groups that are simultaneously armed actors, political organisations and, in many cases, formally part of Iraq’s security architecture.
The distinction between formal state custody and operational control will be important. Iraq has spent years incorporating former militia fighters into the Popular Mobilisation Forces and other state structures. Bringing weapons under government authority does not necessarily mean that the factions controlling those weapons have lost their political or military autonomy. Zaidi’s challenge is to establish that armed groups cannot independently decide when and where force is used.
That problem has already acquired a regional and economic dimension. In September, Saudi Arabia said drones launched from Iraqi territory had struck its East-West oil pipeline. Baghdad subsequently confirmed that the attack originated in Iraq and launched an investigation. The Iraqi foreign minister said on October 1 that the attack had taken place only 13km from the Iranian border and that Iraq was in contact with both Saudi Arabia and Iran over the incident. He also said Baghdad wanted to reassure Gulf states that armed groups operating from Iraq would no longer be able to attack neighbouring countries. But Zaidi promised the same back in July, when Saudi Arabia, in coordination with the US, hit Iraqi militias that were said to be responsible for drone strikes against Saudi oil facilities and energy infrastructure.
Baghdad is trying to deepen economic and political ties with the Gulf while reassuring its Gulf neighbours that Iraqi territory will not be used for attacks against them. The government's ability to control armed groups is therefore becoming part of its broader effort to protect those relationships and attract investment.
The problem is also domestic. The Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq has been repeatedly targeted by both Iran and Iran-backed Iraqi militias during the current conflict between the United States and Iran, with Kurdish officials reporting more than 1,000 drone and missile attacks since February. Kurdish leaders have expressed concern over the withdrawal of the US forces, leaving them without sufficient air defence.
The US withdrawal also changes the security environment in which Zaidi must pursue the process. While Washington has ended its Iraq-based military mission, it will continue targeted training and intelligence support. Iraqi forces will now carry primary responsibility for internal security including the remaining Islamic State threat. Hussein said Iraqi forces can handle ISIS themselves but warned that fighters operating in Syria could still cross into Iraq.
The June 2027 disarmament deadline is a test of whether Baghdad can consolidate authority during a difficult transition. The government has more time to negotiate but the US military presence that provided intelligence, surveillance and other capabilities has ended. The remaining US role is also less direct.
Time will tell whether the factions honour the initial suspension of attacks and whether negotiations produce changes in command as well as the formal custody of weapons. Given ongoing hostilities between the United States and Iran, Baghdad will need to be more effective in preventing armed groups from using Iraqi territory to attack neighbouring states or foreign interests. The Saudi pipeline incident suggests the issue will remain difficult even if the government can identify and punish individual perpetrators. Identifying assailants may be relatively straightforward. Bringing them to justice is altogether more challenging.
The extension of the disarmament plan to June may give Baghdad the time needed to reach a workable settlement with the factions. Alternatively, it may lead to yet another extension which will further diminish the credibility of the federal government. Progress requires a concentration over control in the use of force. While the US withdrawal has removed the principal justification some groups gave for maintaining an independent armed role, others have moved the goal line, calling for the expulsion of Turkish troops and Kurdish militias in Iraq.
For now Zaidi’s revised timeline appears designed to preserve US support while avoiding a wider domestic confrontation. But the space for delay is not unlimited. Washington can apply financial and political pressure and Gulf states could respond kinetically if attacks from Iraq continue. Iran may encourage the militias to escalate if they conclude that Baghdad intends to disarm them by force. Zaidi therefore faces pressure from all sides to turn the new announcement into a credible process before any one of them decides to act first.
Monday, October 5, 2026
Sunday, October 4, 2026
Saturday, October 3, 2026
Friday, October 2, 2026
Atomic Prime - From Heatmap
Atomic Prime - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
Another hyperscaler invests in large existing nuclear
Almost exactly two years ago, nuclear energy had its Big Tech glow-up. Amazon took an equity stake in X-energy, a developer of helium-cooled small modular reactors. Google invested in Kairos Power, another fourth-generation SMR designer that uses molten salt as a coolant. Microsoft, meanwhile, agreed to pay $16 billion to restart the functioning reactor at Constellation Energy’s Crane Clean Energy Center, formerly known as Three Mile Island. With electricity demand now surging, however, hyperscalers are increasingly following the more conservative Microsoft playbook. Google, as I previously told you, backed plans to bring Iowa’s lone nuclear plant, NextEra Energy’s Duane Arnold station, online again. Facebook-owner Meta — in addition to investments in two next-generation reactor companies, Oklo and TerraPower — inked a deal to buy nuclear electricity from two of utility Vistra’s plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania for the next 20 years.
Now Amazon is securing itself a chunk of the nation’s existing nuclear fleet. This week, the retail and web-hosting giant signed its own 20-year deal to buy power from Constellation’s Calvert Cliffs Clean Energy Center in Maryland, committing more than $3 billion in investments to upgrade the two-reactor facility that will allow the operators to squeeze out another 190 megawatts of capacity on top of the existing 1.8 gigawatts. “This agreement demonstrates how private investment can strengthen critical energy infrastructure,” Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez said in a statement. “Amazon’s commitment supports the long-term operation of Calvert Cliffs for generations to come.”
Thursday, October 1, 2026
[Salon] Saudi Arabia’s ‘Suez Moment’ - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Saudi Arabia’s ‘Suez Moment’
Summary: recent events have forced a recognition that the US hegemony in the Middle East is over. How the inevitable vacuum will be filled remains far from clear. But it is hard to be optimistic in the short to medium-term even though there is surely an opportunity for “a new beginning.”
We thank our regular contributor Alastair Newton for today’s newsletter. Alastair worked as a professional political analyst in the City of London from 2005 to 2015. Before that he spent 20 years as a career diplomat with the British Diplomatic Service. In 2015 he co-founded and is a director of Alavan Business Advisory Ltd. You can find Alastair’s latest AD podcast “Energy and a hard winter ahead” here.
I think this is a moment when Saudi and other Gulf countries will be looking at the United States and reconsidering just how much dependence and reliance they want to put in that country now.
Dr Elisabeth Kendall, Al Jazeera TV, 24 September 2026
In the 10 September Newsletter, I set out a scenario in which the US hegemony in the Middle East came to a rapid end. Thanks in significant part to Donald Trump’s refusal to join the Saudis in striking the Huthis in Yemen — the moment to which Dr Kendall was referring — that the end is nigh has suddenly become the conventional wisdom.
Leading the charge is the latest edition of The Economist, carrying a front cover which read "When America Walks Away" and a first leader which argued that, however the war with Iran ends, it will mark “…the moment when America pulls back from the region — in the sense that it relinquishes its hegemony there.”
In its Insider webinar released at the same time, Deputy Editor Edward Carr described this as “a bold prediction.” It is, of course, easy to be wise after the event but I would describe it as belated rather than bold. After all, the last time the US successfully intervened militarily in the region is 36 years ago. Since then, we have seen a succession of failures to achieve objectives or even, on occasion, to act at all (including in support of allies in the region.)
Thus, the writing has been on the wall at least since Barack Obama told Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to step down (2011), formally announced the ‘pivot to Asia (2012) and, most signally, failed to enforce his ‘red line’ in Syria (2013). One might also point to Mr Trump’s not coming to Saudi Arabia’s aid after Huthis missiles struck the Abqaiq and Khurais refineries in 2019; or his failure to forewarn, let alone adequately forearm, Gulf allies in advance of the Israel/US attack on Iran earlier this year. However (and acknowledging that the ‘parallel’ is not exact), I think The Economist was correct to imply that the Saudis’ ‘Suez moment’ was the deal which the US struck with the Huthis behind Riyadh's back to protect its own ships, i.e. “…when a superpower does deals with an insurgent militia, everyone understands it wants to cut its commitments.”
Nevertheless, the realisation is one thing. Determining what best to do next is another altogether, as the divergent paths taken by France and the UK after the Suez crisis underline.
Riyadh's "Suez moment" arrives as Washington scales back its commitments, leaving the Gulf states to face regional rivals without an American shield.
If there is good-ish news it is that not only Riyadh but also the other GCC members have time to weigh options — individually if not (hopefully but improbably) collectively. Quite how long is far from clear. But we almost certainly will not see a retrenchment of US forces from bases in the Gulf before some sort of agreement has been reached between Washington and Tehran. And even then a complete pull-out in the short-term is unlikely, even though the experts at The Economist may be underestimating the possibility of the US seriously ratcheting back its support for Israel between now and the end of the decade irrespective of the outcome of the next US presidential election.
Related, Israel correspondent Anshel Pfeffer spoke very guardedly on the Insider webinar about prospects for the three non-Arab powers in the region — i.e. Iran, Israel and Türkiye — working together even though they had been “strategic allies” in the past. Middle East correspondent Greg Carlstrom added that Israel sees Türkiye and its increasing influence in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq as a major threat, strongly implying that even a change of prime minister in Israel was unlikely to see a major change of policy. And Middle East editor Josie Delap summed up as follows:
This is an opportunity for the region, America stepping back arguably giving the countries space…to take ownership of their region, of the security of their region, of the stability of their region. …but it feels like the triumph of hope over experience to imagine that they are going to do that anytime soon.”
Specifically on the GCC, Mr Carlstrom added as follows:
I wouldn’t bet on this being a moment of unity…. Take something foundational — integrating your defences…. They didn’t do it either because they didn’t take the threat seriously from Iran or because they didn’t trust each other…. They haven’t been able to do this most basic thing to ensure their security.
Reverting briefly to The Economist magazine its main article concluded as follows:
Even if Mr Trump had not rashly broken it, what America built over the past 35 years was not durable at all: too many of the region’s states were weak, divided or failed ones. Without their longtime guarantor to fall back on, perhaps they will now have to build something better themselves.
However, I agree with Ms Delap that, for starters, Saudi/UAE rivalry remains a huge barrier to overcome. As things stand it seems that, irrespective of what Riyadh does, Abu Dhabi is committed to a UK-like response of trying to hug the US — and Israel — ever closer, thereby potentially making an already bad situation even worse irrespective of how much, or little, substance there is to Saudi Arabia’s recently signed security pact with Pakistan and Türkiye.
After what The Economist’s leader described as the first time since the dismemberment of the Ottoman empire that “the Middle East’s overarching order will no longer be imposed from afar”, it is, perhaps, understandable that 50 percent of respondents to a survey thought that the end of the US hegemony would be ‘a good thing’. Maybe this will prove to be the case. But, to borrow Mr Carr’s words from the question he posed at the start of the webinar — and consistent with geopolitical theory around the end of a hegemony — a ‘best case’ scenario could all to easily be “an orgy of score-settling and violence” before we get to “a new beginning.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)