I'm back........

I'm back, so look for some posts later in the week dealing with the question I first raised upon my departure.

Pax on this Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul,

CDW

Pope Benedict XVI: On Christian Unity in 2009

N.B. This piece is worthy of your attention for many reasons, first and foremost because Christian unity is a serious matter, and secondly because I wonder what Pope Benedict means when he addresses the Anglican Communion....

On Christian Unity in 2009
"When He Wishes and When We Are Prepared, [God] Will Create Unity"
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 20, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave today during the general audience in Paul VI Hall.* * *Dear brothers and sisters, We are in the middle of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, an ecumenical initiative, which has been in the making now for more than a century, and which every year attracts attention to a topic: that of the visible unity between Christians, which calls to consciences and stimulates to commitment for all those who believe in Christ. And it does so above all with the invitation to prayer, in imitation of Jesus himself, who prays to the Father for his disciples: "That they may all be one ... so that the world may believe" (John 17:21). The persistent call to prayer for full communion among the followers of the Lord manifests the most authentic and profound orientation of the whole ecumenical quest, because unity, before anything else, is a gift of God. In fact, as the Second Vatican Council affirms: "Human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective -- the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ" (Unitatis Redintegratio, 24). Hence, what is necessary, beyond our effort to carry out fraternal relations and to promote dialogue to clarify and resolve the differences that separate the Churches and ecclesial communities, is confident and concordant invocation of the Lord. The theme of this year is taken from the Gospel of St. Luke, from the last words of the Risen One to his disciples: "You are witnesses of these things" (Luke 24:48). The proposal of the theme was requested by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in agreement with the Faith and Order Commission of the Ecumenical [World] Council of Churches, from an ecumenical group of Scotland. A century ago, the World Mission Conference for the consideration of problems in reference to the non-Christian world took place in fact in Edinburgh, in Scotland, June 13-24, 1910. Among the problems discussed then was that of the objective difficulty of Christians divided among themselves credibly proposing the evangelical proclamation to the non-Christian world. If Christians present themselves disunited, moreover, often in opposition, will the proclamation of Christ as the only Savior of the world and our peace be credible to a world that does not know Christ or that has distanced itself from him, or that appears indifferent to the Gospel? The relation between unity and mission since that moment has been an essential dimension of the whole ecumenical effort and its point of departure. And it is because of this specific contribution that the Edinburgh Conference remains as one of the firm points of modern ecumenism. At Vatican II, the Catholic Church took up and reaffirmed vigorously this perspective, affirming that the division between the disciples of Jesus "openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature" (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1). Situated in this theological and spiritual context is the theme proposed in this week for meditation and prayer: the need of a common witness of Christ. The brief text proposed as theme, "You are witnesses of these things," must be read in the context of the whole of Chapter 24 of the Gospel according to Luke. Let us recall briefly the content of this chapter. First the women go to the sepulcher, see the signs of the resurrection of Jesus and announce what they have seen to the apostles and to the other disciples (verse 8); then the Risen One himself appears to the disciples of Emmaus along the road, he appears to Simon Peter and, successively, to "the Eleven and those with them" (verse 33). He opens the mind to the understanding of Scriptures on his redeeming death and his resurrection, affirming that "repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations" (verse 47). To the disciples who are "gathered" together and who have been witnesses of his mission, the Risen Lord promises the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. verse 49), so that together they will give witness of him to all peoples. From this imperative -- "of these things" you are witnesses (cf. Luke 24:48), which is the theme of this Week for Christian Unity -- two questions arise for us. The first: What are "these things"? The second: How can we be witnesses of "these things"? If we look at the context of the chapter, "these things" means above all the cross and resurrection: The disciples have seen the Lord's crucifixion, they see the Risen One and thus begin to understand all the Scriptures that speak of the mystery of the passion and of the gift of the resurrection. "These things," therefore, is the mystery of Christ, of the Son of God made man, who died for us and was resurrected, is alive forever and thus the guarantee of our eternal life. However, by knowing Christ -- this is the essential point -- we know the face of God. Christ is above all the revelation of God. In all times, men have perceived the existence of God, an only God, but who is far away and does not show himself. In Christ this God shows himself; the distant God becomes close. "These things," therefore, above all with the mystery of Christ, is that God has become close to us. This implies another dimension: Christ is never alone; he came in our midst, died alone, but resurrected to attract everyone to himself. As Scripture says, Christ created a body for himself, gathers the whole of humanity in his reality of immortal life. And thus, in Christ who gathers humanity, we know the future of humanity: eternal life. All this, therefore, is very simple, in the last instance: We know God by knowing Christ, his body, the mystery of the Church and the promise of eternal life. We now come to the second question: How can we be witnesses of "these things"? We can be witnesses only by knowing Christ and, knowing Christ, also knowing God. But to know Christ certainly implies an intellectual dimension -- to learn what we know of Christ -- but it is always much more than an intellectual process: It is an existential process, it is a process of an opening of my "I," of my transformation because of the presence and strength of Christ, and thus it is also a process of openness to all others, who must be body of Christ. In this way, it is evident that knowing Christ, as an intellectual and above all an existential process, is a process that makes us witnesses. In other words, we can be witnesses only if we know Christ first hand, and not only through others -- from our own life, from our personal encounter with Christ. Finding him really in our life of faith, we become witnesses and can contribute to the novelty of the world, to eternal life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives us an indication for the content of "these things." The Church has gathered and summarized the essential of what the Lord has given us in Revelation, in the "creed called Niceno-Constantinopolitan, (which) draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two Ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381)" (CCC, No. 195). The Catechism specifies that this Symbol "remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day" (ibid.) Hence, in this Symbol are found the truths of the faith which Christians can profess and witness together, so that the world will believe, manifesting, with the desire and commitment to overcome existing differences, the will to walk toward full communion, the unity of the Body of Christ. The celebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity leads us to consider other important aspects for ecumenism -- above all, the great progress made in relations between Churches and ecclesial communities after the Edinburgh Conference of a century ago. The modern ecumenical movement has developed so significantly that, over the last century, it has become an important element in the life of the Church, recalling the problem of union among all Christians and also supporting the growth of communion among them. This not only favors fraternal relations between the Churches and ecclesial communities in response to the commandment of love, but it also stimulates theological research. Moreover, it involves the concrete life of the Churches and of the ecclesial communities with topics that touch upon pastoral care and the sacramental life as, for example, the mutual recognition of baptism, the issues relating to mixed marriages, the partial cases of comunicatio in sacris in well-defined particular situations. In the wake of this ecumenical spirit, contacts have spread also to Pentecostal, evangelical and charismatic movements, for greater reciprocal knowledge, though serious problems are not lacking in this sector. Since Vatican II and thereafter, the Catholic Church has entered into fraternal relations with all the Churches of the East and the ecclesial communities of the West, organizing, in particular, with the majority of them, bilateral theological dialogues, which have led to the finding of convergences and even consensus on several points, thus deepening the bonds of communion. In the year that just ended, these dialogues have achieved positive steps. With the Orthodox Churches, the Mixed International Commission for Theological Dialogue has begun, in the 11th Plenary Session held in Paphos (Cyprus) in October of 2009, the study of a crucial topic in the dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox: the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium, that is to say, at the time in which Christians of the East and West lived in full communion. This study will be extended later to the second millennium. I have already asked Catholics many times for prayer for this delicate and essential dialogue for the whole ecumenical movement. Also with the Ancient Orthodox Churches of the East (Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Armenian), the similar Mixed Commission met from the 26th to the 30th of January of last year. These important initiatives attest that at present there is a profound dialogue rich in hopes with all the Churches of the East not in full communion with Rome, in their own specificity. Examined during last year, with the ecclesial communities of the West, were the results reached in the different dialogues over the past 40 years, reflecting in particular on those held with the Anglican Communion, with the World Lutheran Federation, with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and with the World Methodist Council. In this regard, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity made a study to see the points of convergence that have been reached in the respective bilateral dialogues, and to point out, at the same time, the remaining problems, about which a new phase of meeting will have to be initiated. Among the recent events, I would like to mention the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, celebrated by Catholics and Lutherans together on Oct. 31, 2009; to stimulate the continuation of dialogue, as well as the visit to Rome of the archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor Rowan Williams, who has also held conversations on the particular situation in which the Anglican Communion finds itself. The common commitment to continue relations and dialogue are a positive sign, which manifest how intense the desire for unity is, despite all the problems that oppose it. Thus we see that there is a dimension of our responsibility to do everything possible to really attain unity, but that there is another dimension, that of divine action, because only God can give unity to the Church. A "self-made" unity would be human, but we want the Church of God, made by God, who -- when he wishes and when we are prepared -- will create unity. We must also keep in mind the real progress reached in collaboration and fraternity in all these years, [and] in these last 50 years. At the same time, we must know that the ecumenical endeavor is not a lineal process. In fact, old problems, born in the context of another time, lose their weight, while in the present context new problems and new difficulties arise. Therefore, we must always be ready for a process of purification, in which the Lord will make us capable of being united. Dear brothers and sisters, because of the complex ecumenical reality, because of the promotion of dialogue, and also so that Christians of our time can give a new common witness of fidelity to Christ before this world of ours, I ask for everyone's prayer. May the Lord hear our invocation and that of all Christians, which in this week is raised to him with particular intensity.[Translation by ZENIT] [At the end of the audience, the Pope greeted the people in several languages. In English, he said:] Dear Brothers and Sisters, Today's Audience takes place during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, when the Lord's followers are asked to reflect on the tragedy of their divisions and to pray with him "that they may all be one ... that the world may believe" (cf. Jn 17:21). The theme chosen for this year -- "You are witnesses of these things" (Lk 24:48) -- brings out this close bond between Christian unity and evangelization. This was a major concern of the Edinburgh Conference, which marked the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement one hundred years ago. Today's increasingly secularized society urgently requires a united witness to Jesus Christ grounded in a common profession of faith, as well as fraternal cooperation between separated Christians, dialogue and deeper reflection on the points of continuing divergence. During this Week I ask all of you to join me in praying for these intentions, in thanking God for the ecumenical progress made in the past year, and in asking that Christians of our time, by growing in unity, may offer an ever more convincing witness to the Risen Lord. I extend warm greetings to all the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors here today, especially to the groups from Sweden, South Korea and the United States of America. In this Week of Prayer for Christian Unity it is a particular joy to welcome the members of the Continuation Committee of Ecumenism in the Twenty-first Century. Upon all of you and your families I cordially invoke God's abundant blessings.©Copyright 2010 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

"Train a child in the way he should go..."

Ok, so I hacked in to Charleston's blog to post a few pictures of my own. Charleston, we miss you and can not wait to see you tomorrow night! Here are some pictures of Gus praying for your safe trip home. love, malacy

War: Democratization's Friend or Formidable Foe?

Who could forget Edwin Starr's intense Motown hit War, with its refrain "War...good god y'all, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, nothing! Say it again y'all?"

A large focus of our course was to ask the question of how wars actually created the modern British State, especially its welfare system. Of course, Britain is not alone; wars have shaped all modern nations. I'd like to share with you just a little overview of how wars, not the Church, have shaped the British State since the so called "Glorious Revolution," the point in history when the Church's influence began to be suppressed.

War: Democratization's Friend or Formidable Foe?

The annals of history are replete (ad nauseam) with, as St. Matthew would have it, "wars and rumors of wars," and indeed, albeit surprisingly and perhaps lamentably, most modern social systems (i.e., democratic nations) are to a large degree direct bi-products of warmongering. This is what Charles Tilly, the late sociologist, means when he claims that "war made the state, and state made the war." That is, many democratic ideals, often ignored as inalienable rights to the modern citizen's mind, were born in and from conflict and prolonged strife. Over the last four hundred years Great Britain, with her ever-broadening government and struggle for democratic socialism, is certainly no exception, for she has been at war more than a dozen times since 1689.[1] These wars, predictably of course, produced sweeping changes in the everyday lives of her citizens; however, some were actually exceptionally efficacious. "One consequence of European warfare from the Renaissance to World War II was an increase in the size and power of the central governments," says Bruce Porter.[2] And with this "size and power" governments can, when properly developed, swiftly come to the aid of her citizenry. After all, who can deny that healthcare, education, defense, and clean water are bad things, no matter how they emerged?

War and its emotional baggage is no stranger to the British state. It can even be said that if there is any cohesive binding that truly encapsulates modern British history, then warfare must be that agent. Wars, historically speaking, are ubiquitous to the British psyche. The pressing question, however, is not whether or not war is a fundamental part of British cultural identity, but whether these wars are actually, as Deborah Dwork's capricious title suggests, "Good for Babies and Other Young Children?" Could it be that one of life's most dreaded events, one that has notoriously been called "hell" by its most vehement detractors and even claimed millions of innocent lives, actually be a viable raison d'être for the polity of the modern democratic state?

Despite what Porter calls, "a reluctance to confront the military lineage of the modern state,"[3] there are more than a few reasons why Dwork's hypothesis may in fact be the case.

Consider the rise of the modern British State, its social services and ever-growing government sector. At the dawn of the sixteenth century, English citizenry were only somewhat, that is loosely, entitled to one state-sponsored benefice: some kind of protection from invading armies. Even this "protection" often failed to actually secure the English people from being at risk from invading forces within and outside the realm. Otherwise, to speak of the state per se was to speak of the monarch and his or her political grip upon the their supposed and oft flaunted "god-given" dominion. It was not until the latter half of the eighteenth century that "the state" was "shorthand for the three branches of the central government - King, Lords, and Commons."[4] Even then, the state was restricted to what Phillip Harling calls a "Fiscal-Military State," which was characterized by "an age of imperial rivalry [that] ensured the traditional military function of the state would dominate all others."[5] Today, however, people speak of the British state not so much as a military empire in the strictest sense, but as a global, predictable, and democratic social unit providing a vast array of goods and services to all, even the "least", of her citizens. Bruce Porter describes a modern state as:
an apparatus of power, a set of institutions - the central government, the armed forces, the regulatory and police agencies - whose most important functions involve the use of force: the control of territory and the maintenance of internal order.[6]

To speak of the British State in modern parlance is to ponder state provided social security, national health care, education, and a host of other goods and services and simultaneously ask from whence it all came.[7] What a difference a few centuries makes! Though there are dozens of examples to accentuate the rise of the modern British state as one born out of the trenches of modern warfare, one way to make sense of it all is to consider the longterm consequences of just three hinge points of British history: the so called "Glorious Revolution," World War I, invariably dubbed The Great War that would end all wars, and World War II's Beveridge Report. Consider these epochs as proper litmus tests for Dwork's claim. Was war, despite its crude reputation, really good for democratization?

The so called "Glorious Revolution" was not a "bloodless revolution" as some history books would have it. This is a minor, but telling point. It was a deadly militaristic episode from its inception; William of Orange set sail for England with 15,000 men, who if need be would instantly kill at their leader's command.[8] Skirmishes in Scotland were deadly, and some rioting in rural hamlets saw bloodletting between acrimonious Catholics and Protestants as well. History would be foolish to forget that the militaristic overthrow of Catholic King James II was due only to Parliamentary support of the invading Dutch army, led by William of Orange. The entire episode, an effective coup de tête to be sure, is redolent with events, primarily armed in nature, that paved the way for the modern democratic British state to come into life. For it was in the seventeenth century that Parliament's ability to use force to get its way sowed the seeds for subsequent state services. And these services, ableit paltry in comparison to modern times, really first emerge in the form of militaristic means, or what Harling calls the "Fiscal-Military State." It was Parliament, after all, (say Parliament three times until it sticks) that actually invited, even begged, William to invade and usurp their own king's "god-given" power.

After William and Mary's ascendency to the throne, Parliament, by a host of measures, gained incredible strength and vigor, and that momentum, though it has been tested, has yet to be reversed in any real sense. Parliament, from the first days of its tangible strength, knew that wars were costly not only in terms of human losses, but also by all monetary measures. The most important aspect of Parliamentary strength of the era was the ability to levy taxes, which of course allowed the British to create the most nascent phases of what would later be the war machine of Great Britain's colonial expansion. Similarly, at the same time power quickly shifted from the King to King and Parliament assembled. No longer was one man making decisions and legislating solely from the vicissitudes of the crown, but now many, mostly landed gentry, could shape public policy and opinion. Harling reminds us, "by 1690, the only discretionary power that the king still enjoyed over the legislative actions of Parliament was the royal veto."[9] This is the birth of the modern British State. Without the Glorious Revolution, true democratic ideals (i.e., a sturdy and functioning Parliament heeding the vox populi) could have never been born on the British Isles.

Later, functioning again as that effecient "wartime bureaucracy," Parliament, according to Bruce Porter, would:
[Direct] the whole of [the] vast effort, using extraordinary, and often extralegal, wartime authority to tax, regulate, confiscate, ration, conscript, and otherwise mobilize the resources to wage the contest.[10]

World War I was such a time, yet when the war ended, the state's power and sway did not revert to pre-war levels. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The state, largely out of guilt for the thousands of widows and orphans that were a direct consequence of the war, felt, as Harling posits, "that social security was a right to which the state owed to its patriotic and longsuffering citizens" (italics mine).[11] After all, more than 1.6 million British soldiers were killed or wounded, and even simple logic dictates that someone must take care of them.[12] The state was to become that caretaker. More than caring for the "least among" them, the Great War tested the ceiling of government expenditure and involvement in the daily lives of its citizens. The citizens, by way of taxation no less, witnessed a four-fold increase in government spending during the war.[13] But after the war, British citizens did not abandon many of the government's grips on them. The Prime Minister of the day, controversial Lloyd George, saw fit to create four new government bureaus, "the Ministries of Labour, Shipping, Pensions, and Health."[14] Many average citizens saw that the government, those elected by them (well, at least most of them), could serve their interests, and they were subsequently willing to pay for it in the form of some of the highest taxes in Europe.

World War II, examined in terms of a slow march towards a welfare state, is World War I simply writ large. Harling reminds us:
By the late 1930s, the social services provided by central and local government in Britain were arguably more extensive than anywhere else in the world. But they were not nearly as extensive as they would become after World War II.[15]

Thanks largely to the ubiquitousness of the Beveridge Report coupled with the fact it was the polar opposite approach to government than the opposing nations, the social services provided to British citizens after World War II were certainly "more extensive" than ever before. Harling describes the Report as:
calling for full employment, a free national health service, family allowances, and the abolition of poverty through comprehensive social insurance with benefits to be paid as a statutory right.[16]

These clarion calls for "rights" were juxtapositioned amidst the backdrop of a nation's enquiries into how to deal with the consequences of economic turmoil and yet another long and painful war. The British answer was clear: give the state more power to provide social services, not just the ability to wage war effectively. And directly as a consequence of war, provide it did. Harling writes:
the goal [of post World War II governments] was to establish a decent minimum for all Britons that was more or less in line with the rising standard of living. Generally speaking the welfare state met that goal, and in doing so provided more services to far more citizens that the British state had ever done before.[17]

At the dawn of a new decade in the twenty-first century, Britain, perhaps more than ever and thanks chiefly to the hostility and fallout of wars, continues to extend its grip into the public sector. The image of the government reaching down is perhaps appropriate at this juncture.
All of this analysis leaves an obvious question lingering: can the modern British State and its apparent "march to utopia" be stopped, or at least slowed? Can it be rolled back in some fashion sans another full-blown war? Who would really want to reduce the state's place in modern Britain, save a few token Tories? Is it even fair to compose these queries? Alas, these are all very valid questions to ask as post-modernity, especially as more socialist nations continue to demand more goods and services from their governments. But can the state really continue to grow, or has it reached its apex? Some, of course, would say it certainly has. Nevertheless in the end analysis, make no mistake, Tilly's claim coupled with Dwork's conjecture, stands with solid fortitude and great might, much like the social democracy of the United Kingdom itself. The state does, after all, offer British citizens a good shot at becoming and staying "healthy, wealthy, and wise." And this, even it means an occasional war or two, could never be a bad thing.
[1] Harling, Phillip 41
[2] Porter 2
[3] Porter XIX
[4] Harling 11
[5] Harling 218
[6] Porter, p. 6
[7] Harling, p. 222
[8] Harling, p. 14
[9] Harling, p. 13
[10] Porter, p. 2
[11] Harling, p. 220
[12] Harling, p. 134
[13] Harling, p. 134
[14] Harling, p. 138
[15] Harling, p. 154
[16] Harling, p. 155
[17] Harling, p. 174

From the Daily Office

Psalm 31 In te, Domine, speravi
1
In you, O LORD, have I taken refuge;let me never be put to shame; *deliver me in your righteousness.
2
Incline your ear to me; *make haste to deliver me.
3
Be my strong rock, a castle to keep me safe,for you are my crag and my stronghold; *for the sake of your Name, lead me and guide me.
4
Take me out of the net that they have secretly set for me, *for you are my tower of strength.
5
Into your hands I commend my spirit, *for you have redeemed me,O LORD, O God of truth.
6
I hate those who cling to worthless idols, *and I put my trust in the LORD.
7
I will rejoice and be glad because of your mercy; *for you have seen my affliction;you know my distress.
8
You have not shut me up in the power of the enemy; *you have set my feet in an open place.
9
Have mercy on me, O LORD, for I am in trouble; *my eye is consumed with sorrow,and also my throat and my belly.
10
For my life is wasted with grief,and my years with sighing; *my strength fails me because of affliction,and my bones are consumed.
11
I have become a reproach to all my enemies and even to my neighbors,a dismay to those of my acquaintance; *when they see me in the street they avoid me.
12
I am forgotten like a dead man, out of mind; *I am as useless as a broken pot.
13
For I have heard the whispering of the crowd;fear is all around; *they put their heads together against me;they plot to take my life.
14
But as for me, I have trusted in you, O LORD. *I have said, "You are my God.
15
My times are in your hand; *rescue me from the hand of my enemies,and from those who persecute me.
16
Make your face to shine upon your servant, *and in your loving-kindness save me."
17
LORD, let me not be ashamed for having called upon you; *rather, let the wicked be put to shame;let them be silent in the grave.
18
Let the lying lips be silenced which speak against the righteous, *haughtily, disdainfully, and with contempt.
19
How great is your goodness, O LORD!which you have laid up for those who fear you; *which you have done in the sight of allfor those who put their trust in you.
20
You hide them in the covert of your presence from those who slander them; *you keep them in your shelter from the strife of tongues.
21
Blessed be the LORD! *for he has shown me the wonders of his love in a besieged city.
22
Yet I said in my alarm,"I have been cut off from the sight of your eyes." *Nevertheless, you heard the sound of my entreatywhen I cried out to you.
23
Love the LORD, all you who worship him; *the LORD protects the faithful,but repays to the full those who act haughtily.
24
Be strong and let your heart take courage, *all you who wait for the LORD.

All Souls Langham Place: Pulpit for the Protestant Pope

John Robert Walmsley Stott, rector emeritus, All Souls Langham Place, served here for over forty years. The New York Times famously ran a piece on his life back in 2004 and said, "If evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott is the person they would likely choose." A prolific author, Stott has penned more than fifty books, one in which he controversially breaks with his evangelical brethren and questions the traditional understanding of hell. In 2008 he published The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, which I'm told is the twenty-first century equivalent of J.C. Ryle's nineteenth century opus.

Amidst the turmoil in Haiti, say it ain't so!

A quote from Pat Robertson, host of the popular 700 Club:

"They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'OK it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another," Robertson said.

Well, that clears things up; the Haitians made a pact with Satan...cause we know colonialism was all good for Haiti. NOT!

I pray that people like Robertson will have their eyes opened, and be prompted to great acts of compassion instead of great acts of stupidity.