The Gravely Mower

Do you ever have a day when you should just not do anything? I had such a day last week Friday. From not fully sealing the container of berries I put on my oatmeal and then getting berry juice over the floor, wall and fridge as I flung it around to put in the fridge, to mower  issues. The biggest issue is with a brand new Gravely zero-turn mower, most specifically its Kawasaki engine. 

I mow property my sister owns, and it has been a trail this spring. Nothing ever seems to go easily and that was exacerbated on Friday. First, will be the Gravely, which issues should give pause to anyone looking to purchase such a piece of equipment with a Kawasaki engine. Next, will be other issues that arose.

How I wish it would be this easy. 

My sister brought down to Sun Prairie from La Crosse a new Gravely a few weeks ago. One garden tractor mower (2004 Legacy Simplicity) was in need of repair to the mower deck (sourcing a discontinued part 5" long spindle for the blades which got bent was difficult but my sister found one in Ohio), another 2019 Legacy had a broken wire that led to the mower height not being adjustable. I thought I would try to mow with the brand new Gravely mower.  Well, just under two weeks ago it took a bit to get started. My sister had to use starting fluid to get it started, which should have been her first clue as to what a piece of S#@t the Kawasaki engine on the machine is. I mean a brand new engine and machine and you have to use starting fluid? Well, after trying, and trying, and then having to wait several minutes for it to sound decent I started mowing. I was able to mow about 1 hour and 30 min until the machine stopped, for no reason at all. I could not get it restarted, so for the last few minutes I pulled out the 2019 Simplicity Legacy tractor that had the issue with the broken wire (I did not know the wire was broken two weeks ago, but my electrician brother in  law noticed it later that day). I finished mowing with the 2019 Simplicity, and then was able to get the Gravely started and promptly put it away.

I thought, perhaps it was getting some use and would finally work. Wow, was I wrong!  This past Friday I tried to start it, as my wife used the 2019 Simplicity and I would use the Gravely. Well, it took a long time to get it started and keep running. It would start and quit, start and quit and repeat several times. It is a brand new machine with just over 2 some hours of operation time. When the engine sounded like it was finally running well,  after several tries and carefully moving the choke in very gradually, I turned on the mower only to find the engine bogged down and quit. Several minutes later I let it run losing precious minutes mowing due to the Japanese engine. My wife in the meantime is easily mowing with the 2019 Simplicity and its Briggs and Stratton engine which has electronic choke so need to worry about a choke. I finally get the mower running and within 10 minutes it stops. I get off figure I should check the oil because who knows how much oil a the Japanese engine might use with only 2 hours on it, and find the oil fine. After about 15 minutes it starts and I start to mow again, and within about 35 minutes it stopped. It would not start after sitting 15 minutes, and later 45 minutes. I finally got it going and when putting it away, it, of course stopped again. Once again I had to wait to move it the 30 feet into the garage.

The Gravely and its Japanese engine are supposed to be good equipment. I will believe it when I see that it can promptly start, engage mower shortly after starting without the engine stopping and mow five acres without stopping, It could not run for a few minutes even to put it away. I have filled it with 91 octane premium gas, and the last fill was with gas only a week old. Perhaps this shows how tender Japanese made products really are. 

From Gravely website
False advertising? Maybe if you can get the engine running

I am sure my when my sister bought it she thought it would ease the pain of mowing but it only has made it worse. Any savings she had when she bought it last year, she got a deal when a friend also bought a Gravely, has now quickly disappeared. I told her not to buy it as it would be just another machine to maintain. Perhaps I need to rig something up so I can put a blast of starter fluid in the Japanese engine every five minutes to keep it running, although I am not sure that would work. A brand new machine and engine should work, and this one does not. I am thinking it is a LEMON!!  If this was an American badged engine, people would forever complain, and not buy it again. Well, I told my brother in law not to buy a Gravely because its Japanese engine cannot be counted on. 

As my wife finished mowing with the 2019 Simplicity and I fumed using a variety of cuss words over a piece of crap red colored Gravely mower that cannot be relied on to get started, or stay running, my brother in law and sister arrived. He then spent three hours trying to fix the wire, without taking the deck off the 2019 Simplicity as that is quite a chore. Hey, at least it works. He eventually got the mower deck fixed after using a wago connector from the wires on a trailer. This trailer was needed for yet another chore. The connector was borrowed after completing the chore of getting the mower deck for the 2003 Simplicity. This leads to the story of the trailer and wago connector.

In between attempts to fix the wire, I decided to go get the mower deck for the 2003 Simplicity that was being repaired. I went to hook it to my Jeep, but it did not fit the ball. That trailer uses a 1-7/8" ball, and the one on my Jeep is a 2". My brother in law said to use his Chevrolet truck, but he had 2". But, he was prepared as he had a second receiver with three different sized balls. So, we take off his 2", put on the multi-ball receiver hitch with the 1 7/8" ball for the trailer, only to find wire harness plug would not reach the trucks four pin connector. I then took my hitch tightener and receiver hitch with the two inch ball out and put on my relative's multi-ball receiver hitch. Well, the connector still did not reach on my Jeep. My brother in law then rigged up extensions on the trailer to allow it to work and off we finally went to get the repaired mower deck from Prairie Power. We also stopped at Menards to get some wago connectors, but the type Menards carried did not work to repair the broken wire on the 2019 mower deck, so a variety of other methods were attempted. Then my brother in law borrowed the wago from the trailer and it was done within a few minutes, showing that the right connector is important. I did not know there were different types of wago connectors, but leave it to Menards to sell insufficient electrical connectors. Maybe Menards should team with Kawasaki. 

It is not much good when a brand new mower fails to work and that Gravely, with its Kawasaki engine fits the bill of a unit simply taking up space and not available for its intended purpose. Perhaps it only requires a quick fix, but as the situation has devolved over two weeks, that seems unlikely. Luckily there are two Simplicity tractors available for use. The thing is, would it have been better to go with an electric mower where one no longer needs to worry the likely issues related to a Kawasaki internal combustion engine that does not work? There are manufacturers who make a 60" zero turn mowers that run on battery power. Get extra batteries and more than likely be able to fully cover the acreage mowed.

Gravely is made by Ariens, and I own an Ariens snowblower with an Ariens engine. Too bad they cannot develop their own engine for the Gravely. Maybe Kawasaki was the low bid to supply engines. If so, it shows.

In the end, a zero turn machine that was supposed to make mowing easier, and perhaps quicker, is in fact a piece of equipment that has led to a great number of swear words used due to the inability of the Kawasaki engine being unable to start timely, run timely, and not even mow without stopping.  In other words, it is not performing its due function. At least something went well that day, we de-winterized our small camper, and had no issues. But the Gravely and the other mower issues, offset the good occurrence. With the Gravely raising blood pressure, the Gravely may be wanting to send me to an early grave.

13 May

Two events sixty-four years apart occurred on 13 May. While these events are separated by three generations, they are interconnected due to the person involved in the latter. It was a Sunday in 1917 when three children were shepherding in the hills of Fatima, Portugal when one of the three, a ten year old girl, saw a shining figure in an oak tree, which she claimed was the Virgin Mary. The apparition on that date told the children to come to this area on the 13th day of each of the next five months; hence making six total appearances. 

Fatima, 13 Oct 1917
Univ of Dayton

The children received, so it is said, three statements, two of which were made public many years ago. The two initially made public were (1) a vision of hell, and (2) that WWI would soon end, but it would be followed by a worse war (WWII) if humanity did not stop offending God. The third secret was kept hidden from most all eyes (only popes and close associates saw it) until 2000, and predicted the martyrdom of a "bishop dressed in white" (the pope), and is often connected to the assassination attempt on John Paul II which occurred on 13 May 1981. This is the second historical event on this rather odd day. I refer to it as odd since one event was supernatural and spectacular, an apparition, and the other sinister and calculated--attempt at killing a person. There exist few diametrically opposed occurrences than an apparition of the Virgin Mary and an attempt at murder. On the other hand, would she have appeared on Friday the thirteenth? 

Lúcia de Jesus Rosa dos Santos, abt age 10
Google images

John Paul II was shot twice two into his body and an additional two deflected shots that hit other persons. One bullet hit him within an inch or so of his heart and aorta. Picking up on the extremes of this day, John Paul believed that "one hand fired the bullet, another guided it." The bullet removed from his body rests inside the crown of the main statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima; it was placed there in 1982. Information found in the former East Germany laid the planning of the attempt on JPII's life with the Soviet Union, which of course Russia denied. 

13 May 1981, JPII one moment after being shot
Vatican News Service

There was no denying that some celestial event occurred on 13 Oct 1917 on the sixth and final appearance of the Virgin Mary to the three children. A large crowd, said to number over 50,000 persons by an anti-religious Portuguese news reporter who was in the crowd. It is termed the miracle of the sun. In 1992, the BBC, in an interview with Rosa, who was at that October 1917 event, quotes one woman as saying:  "All I saw was the planets in the sky in many colours. It was a miracle." Going on the person said-- "Then there seemed to be a shower of flowers falling from the sky. It was like a snowfall. And then the Sun started spinning faster and faster like a wheel of fire. It lasted for about half a minute. By the end, it was going very fast." In a 11 May 2026 article on Fatima, the BBC further provided this which included another quote from Rosa who witnessed the "miracle of the Sun":

Whether it was a miracle or a mass hallucination – or a meteorological event – is debated. But it seemed to have had a profound effect on some of the people who were present. "Everyone knows I already had faith. But after that, I began to believe even more strongly," Rosa told the BBC in 1992. "I wasn't afraid, but many people, when they saw the Sun spinning like that, they were afraid. When something like that happens, you have to believe and have faith."

Couple Moments after being shot
Vintag.es

If it was not a miracle it certainly was very coincidental with date and time, and perhaps location. I am not sure if others in the region reported the same type of event. if limited to small area that says something, too.

Two of the three children died a few years later during the flu epidemic. Lucia, who first saw the Virgin Mary died in 2005 at the age of 97. She became a discalced Carmelite sister. If Trump thinks Pope Leo is political it makes me wonder what he thinks of the political nature of Fatima appearance and its call for the conversion of Russia. The appearance became to be coveted in political terms in the 1920's, and hit its zenith during the pontificate of John Paul II. The political nature of John Paul II cannot be denied: he favored the Solidarity labor rights movement in Poland, and helped the west in order to bring down the Soviet Union. These two events of 13 May are intertwined and show a connection between faith and politics that has occurred in the past. 

As an aside, some Protestant ministers have said that Donald Trump understands the bible better than Pope Leo. That is not only an insult to the pope, but also to his teachers. One of his teachers was Sr Dianne Bergant, now of Fond du Lac, who taught Robert Prevost as part of Master's of Divinity studies at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Her specialty was the bible. I suspect the pope respects the words in Romans, referenced by the minister, but the Leo has been clear saying he is following the Gospel. Blessed are the Peace Makers. 

The Severe Penalty

The most severe penalty known to humans is the death penalty. Recently the wife and I were watching a show on Netflix that takes place in California called The Closer, in which a person said he would confess, but wanted the death penalty off the table. The series stars a female deputy police chief in LA. I am not sure what season, much less episode we are in, but the series seems to have started over twenty years ago in 2005. I knew it was dated by the vehicles used in the episodes. The series predates the 2019 executive order of Governor Gavin Newsom in which he placed a moratorium on the death penalty for California.

On April 24, the Department of Justice announced it will allow firing squads as a method of execution. In a situation of reality is stranger than fiction, on that same day Pope Leo XIV appeared via video to a Chicago conference which was regarding the 25th anniversary of Illinois ending its death penalty; legislation was signed by then Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, on March 9, 2011. 

Pope Leo Video appearance at DePaul Univ
ABC 7

As with the "Just War" theory in the prior blog post, the Pope was not creating new church teaching but was reiterating teaching in the Catholic Catechism. The Catechism was amended by Pope Francis in August 2018 to put church teaching firmly against the use of the death penalty. Hence, now the Catechism reads: 

         The death penalty

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Previously, the Catechism had left a small window open where the 1992 edition allowed it in rare circumstances, but noted such “cas­es in which the exe­cu­tion of the offend­er is an absolute neces­si­ty are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” St. John Paul II while under his pontificate crafted the above language which left a bit if wiggle room, he personally spoke against the death penalty and often pleaded to the proper authority for clemency of those sentenced to death. In a 1995 encyclical he argued that punishment should be focused on rehabilitation and not on revenge. The more traditional-oriented Benedict often preached the same message. Hence, Francis' movement was consistent with the recent  magisterial teachings of the church.

With Pope Leo's comments upholding the Church's current thought, I was amazed to see varied far right Catholic websites popping on my Facebook page (probably since I had read a few articles on this conference and the algorithm provided them to me) quoting the 1992 edition of the Catechism and saying Pope Leo did not know what he was talking about. We today have a new set of Cafeteria Catholics, who may be against abortion, but do not favor the church teaching on the death penalty being inadmissible. Many years ago, in the 1980's, Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago promoted what he called the Seamless Garment Theory. This is  a holistic and moral approach for all aspects of life from conception to natural death. The theory, first noted by Eileen Egan in 1971, but further developed and popularized by Bernardin, is inspired by the fourth Gospel, John 19:23, where Jesus' tunic was woven in one piece and not torn, which symbolized a unified approach to life. Both ends of the political spectrum tend to run counter to the Seamless Garment theory. Some conservatives support the death penalty and question the just war theory, and some liberals support euthanasia and abortion. Hence, there exist cafeteria Catholics on both ends of the US political spectrum.

I think the far right Catholics purposefully failed to quote the revised Catechism, not because they did not know about the change, but that they do not believe Francis was a legitimate heir to the throne of Peter. One can see it in other writings were they go to pains not to name him, almost as if he is Tom Marvolo Riddle, also known as "He who should not be named", or Lord Voldemort of the Harry Potter series. Hence, they can no longer complain about liberal cafeteria Catholics as they now are part of the salad/pasta/potato bar crowd too. In fact, they may be worse, as in not recognizing Pope Francis they are essentially modern day sedevacantists. 

The reason for the Church positions from abortion to natural death relates to the dignity of the human person, and that even the most heinous act cannot take away the dignity of a human. The death penalty also cuts short the ability of a person to convert and repent, in other words to ask forgiveness and mercy. Further, current penal systems are such that the common good is not put at risk. There are also other practical considerations, such as wrongful convictions. 

At least the US is not in competition, yet, with China on this matter.  A couple years ago Amnesty International reported that China executes more individuals a year than all other 54 countries combined. This includes Iran where the executions were in the hundreds, although today may be higher.

In my mind, Cardinal Bernardin had it correct in promoting the seamless garment theory. We see it in our society today, from both the right and the left, where personal beliefs are voiced and supported above the common good. Putting a person to death is the most severe penalty, and is one whose time has come to completely end.

Just War

Unless a person has been living underground the past several weeks, you would not have missed the verbal exchange between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV regarding the US-Israel War with Iran. Much of the discussion has focused on what is and is not a "Just War." More importantly, there is the question of who makes the call on whether or not a war is just.

The Just War theory has been around for a great deal of time. In the western tradition, Cicero, was one of the first to note that war should have some legal basis. He of the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire would know a great deal about war, assassinations and power grabs. However, it was left to St Augustine, in the fifth century, to set forth the basic principles of what is known as the Just War Theory (it really should be a paradigm). Augustine noted the following are required for a a just war: a legitimate authority; just cause; right intention; and an ultimate goal to establish peace. This was later expanded upon by a few different persons, most notably St Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas reiterated many of Augustine's points, but also further developed the paradigm. For example, he noted that violence was to be the last resort and he began to develop the concept of what we know today as proportionality. Other Catholic thinkers, such Erasmus were critical of the Just War Theory, noting that a disadvantaged peace is better than a just war. Thinking about war is not new to the world, and it is rather odd that policy makers go back to a paradigm established in the fifth century. 

St Augustine (US Catholic)

Hence, in the western world, it can be said that the Just War paradigm arises from, and has been developed by and through Catholic theology. In fact, the idea of a just war is still under going revision in Catholic Church teaching. Pope Francis, in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti (3 Oct 2020) (see linked document starting at paragraph 255), stated: "We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!" (Francis provided a footnote, number 242 which is provided in a note, below.) Francis and other pontiffs have come to this conclusion mainly based on technology and weaponry now available, and its impact on innocent persons. On the one hand there exists more precision in killing devices, but on the other they are much more destructive.

Pope Leo XIV (AP)

For the current Iran war, and proving Francis' point, Pope Leo has received a letter of from parents who lost their children to a US bomb in Minab, Iran. The letter expresses appreciation for Leo speaking out on the war and asking that he continue to be a voice for the voiceless. Leo also carries a photo of a young Muslim boy in Lebanon welcoming him to that country. Leo noted that the boy was killed by an Israeli strike in Lebanon. Leo further went on to say, on his way back from Africa, that "as a pastor I cannot support war." On 26 April he described those who wage wars as thieves who rob the earth of a peaceful future.

Iranian Parent letter to Pope Leo (Catholic connect)

Many consider the approach by Francis and Leo as Pollyannish, not rooted in reality. Dialogue, per the two popes, is the key to understanding and meaningful exchange. Peace negotiation is not like doing a real estate transaction. Leo is upset that peace talks are once again off. To this end, he has faced criticism for his calls for an end to the Iran war and the parties to engage in dialogue. If there is one person who is the competent authority on the Just War Theory it is the Pope, since the paradigm is rooted in Catholic theology. However, as pointed out with Pope Francis' Fratelli Tutti encyclical it still developing. Francis says that that risks of war seem to outweigh any benefits. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in response to criticisms Leo has received in speaking against the war: 

For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war. A constant tenet of that thousand-year tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword ‘in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2308). That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: ‘He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.’

Thomas Aquinas (Catholic Social Thought)

With the USCCB having weighed in, one would think the whole hierarchy in the US Church would align. But, that is too much to ask of Bishop Robert Barron. He of the "Word on Fire" media empire, and a member of President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission. Barron pointed to the last sentence of section 2309 of the Catholic Catechism which reads: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."  This led Barron to conclude on 20 April the following: 

The role of the Church, therefore, is to call for peace and to urge that any conflict be strictly circumscribed by the moral constraints of the just war criteria. But it is not the role of the Church to evaluate whether a particular war is just or unjust. That appraisal belongs to the civil authorities, who, one presumes, have requisite knowledge of conditions on the ground.

Pope Francis (silsilahdialogue.com)

If what Barron says is true, that would then hold to other judgements made by civil authorities on moral teachings. But, I think Barron is wrong. The statement in the Catechism "...belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." (bold by author) does not necessarily put the full onus on civil authorities as he states. Given the UN Charter, it could apply to that body. If it was meant to apply to civic government I think the Catechism would have used the term "public authorities" which is used in two subsequent paragraphs in the Catechism:

2310 Public authorities,(bold by author)  in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
2311 Public authorities (bold by author) should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way. 108

Instead, in 2309 it is the broad in those who have "responsibility for the common good." If the church were to cede authority for what is the common good, than it may as well not speak on anything, because almost all issues are political. I may not know much about theology, but I had written ordinances, rules, policies and regulations for over thirty years, so I know something about construction of regulations and guidance documents. If the church meant for civil authorities to have the final say in what is a just war, as claimed by Barron, then it would simply have used: "...belongs to the prudential judgment of the responsible public authorities."  Clearly, as used in 2310 and 2311 public authorities relates to civil authorities. 

Hence, I think Barron is wrong on a few counts. First, ceding judgement to only a civil authority makes it their decision. This gets to Pope Francis' point, that today any war can be justified. By Barron's logic, the issues of policy would be left only to the judgement of the respective government. Second, Barron's discourse fails when the whole section on avoiding war in the Catechism is read. The judgement is left to those with responsibility for the common good, which is not just public authorities. If Joseph Ratzinger, when writing the Catechism, wanted the common good to be civil government he would have used the term he began the two subsequent sections with, Public authorities, but he did not. 

What is interesting is that neither the USCCB, or Barron made any mention of Fratelli Tutti. I realize that many in the US hierarchy did not like Pope Francis, but they should give his due for his encyclicals as much as they do those of popes they may like. One could say they are cafeteria Catholics the way they pick and choose. This is a good thing to know, since the term Cafeteria Catholic has been normally applied to less traditional members of the church by more conservative and traditional members. It is those latter members who are today's Cafeteria Catholics.

Barron and Leo (greydanus.substack)

Leo has been criticized by some who say he is too much a pacifist and ignores the Just War Theory, and hence needs to go back to Sunday school (Washington Post opinion column). But, as seen, the idea of war being just is becoming more restrictive in Catholic teaching; Fratelli Tutti reviews old and provided new thinking on war.  I suspect Leo is following in the views of modern time prior holders of the office from John XXIII to Francis. What they are saying is that there is another way, and that way is the Gospel. Leo, a son of Augustine, understands what he says. He understands that, as America Magazine put it, pacifism is not incidental but essential to St Augustine's Just War Theory.*

Many people who belong to an organization will have issues with some of the positions taken by that organization, which does not mean that one ridicules but that there should be sincere efforts at understanding. We are in a multifaceted world, where secular authorities and other faith traditions need not follow Christian, much less, Catholic teaching on war or any other matter. However, when it comes to the Just War Theory, which arises in the west out of Catholic theology more than any other philosophy, the pope is the most competent authority to speak. 

NOTE:  Footnote 242 of Fratelli Tutti reads: "Saint Augustine, who forged a concept of “just war” that we no longer uphold in our own day, also said that “it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war”  (Epistola 229, 2: PL 33, 1020)."

Fr Edward Sweeney (augustinian.org)

*Robert Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV is an Augustinian priest who was born and raised in the Chicago area. My first cousin once removed--Edward Sweeney, OSA, (1911-1984) was an Augustinian also from Chicago. Fr Edward, my mom's firsts cousin, served in schools and parishes in Chicago and Michigan. He developed Parkinson's disease and retired from service in 1979. I wondered on May 8, 2025, the day Robert Prevost was elected, whether Fr. Edward Sweeney ever crossed paths with the young Robert Prevost. 

Thomas, a Saint for our Times

On Sunday April 12, the week after Easter, the Catholic Church celebrated Divine Mercy Sunday, a recent addition to the Church calendar. Divine Mercy Sunday was proclaimed in 2000 by a Polish Pope to honor a request made by a Polish nun who is said to have recorded Jesus' request for a feast day dedicated to His mercy. Celebrated on the second Sunday of Easter, the Gospel reading for Divine Mercy Sunday is unique as it is one of the few, including Easter Sunday morning, where the same reading is used in each of the three liturgical year cycles. In this case it is John 20:19-31, which is about the apostle Thomas. I think that, given current times of AI, fake news, internet scams, over-hype, phone scams and the like, Thomas, who in this reading is a skeptic, is a saint for our times. 

The first part of the Gospel recounts Jesus' appearance to the disciples by entering a locked room. Thomas was not with the group.  I suspect Thomas was scrounging up some food for the group, actually doing something other than cowering in fear. I see this as logical explanation for a dutiful apostle. When informed of the encounter, Thomas expressed some disbelief. His famous words were grabbed on by almost all to give him the nickname "Doubting Thomas":  “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 

Source: Wikipedia

A week later, corresponding with the Second Sunday of Easter, Jesus appears again to the group in a locked room. Thomas had completed his chore as quartermaster, so he had time to join the other disciples in lounging or cowering in fear on this second Sunday. Jesus could have waited to appear on Easter Sunday evening when Thomas returned from gathering sustenance, or whatever he was doing, for the group of disciples. But, he did not. Jesus chose to make Thomas the fall guy to prove a point as the penultimate paragraph of the Gospel concludes with, "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” I guess, this shows mercy, even though it seems close to gaslighting Thomas, but is often referenced as a gentle rebuke and a nod to those who believe without being able to see him. 

Thomas, the skeptic, fits as a saint for our current times. With AI, fake news, and phishing scams in email or whatever, we all need to be skeptical. As a member of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Commission, I have a Madison Sewer District email account for which I have to do their mandated training for computer safety. I get nasty grams if I have not completed it, even before the prescribed times. A few of these sessions had as the trainer a tall thin young man with a German accent, which does not exude much confidence in me. He reminded me more of a young Nazi in "Downfall" than one in Hogan's Heroes; somewhat bias I know. I guess it could be worse, it could be a person with a Russian accent. He is the same guy that says a password should be a phrase, like: "I drink coffee in the morning". He says that would be hard to figure out. I am not sure how he fits the often required special character(s) in unless he uses "I drink coffee in the morning!"  He did not address if he uses that type of password with or without spaces, I guess it is without phrases.

We had a recent training on the use of AI, and where it was clear what not to put in the "cloud", i.e. server farm, and it explained the policies an organization should have. Well, the district is moving to a multi-million dollar Enterprise Resource Management System ($6.5). I inquired why not use our own servers, and was provided with several reasons, but now this training makes it seem as if some good amounts of that information the system plans for a data farm should not be in the proverbial cloud. I don't think the IT people have been thinking ahead. The district lacks policies on use of AI, and is planning to use the cloud contrary to what the training seemed to indicate. I asked for an agenda topic for staff to report on how the district is developing AI policies and mentioned that perhaps this ERM system is not the best for all of the data and financials we have to be in the cloud. Odd, how we had the training even before we have any policies. 

After completing the online training doing with attacks, like phishing, and usually a day or two later (as if that is not a clue), there is a test email trying to phish us. The past two were supposed to have been from the HR director. Given that you can read a bit of the email before opening, I could see that one, back in January, was about a delay in W2 forms. I had to think a bit about what I could read. I chose not to open it. I don't open emails from people I am not familiar with or usually get, but I send an email to a trusted staff at MMSD who lets me know if good to open or not. If not good, I delete. I am supposed to report it, but have not figured that out on the district I-Pad I use. If nothing else, the training does give you insights into the clever tricks scammers use.

With so much happening in the world, it also brings up how polite one should be when in public. Being polite today may get you into trouble. One has to go with their gut instinct, which is sometimes better than your mind. I have heard of situations where a person was robbed when they went to help someone. You could be nice and polite to someone who has a nefarious deed in mind. 

Artificial Intelligence, may have benefits, but also has downside for being used for activities that scam, or provide fake news.  It is a sad commentary on our world today, but it shows that being skeptical is not a bad thing. This is why Thomas is a saint for our times.

Jan 9

In a long, but somewhat narrow room, a crowd gathered in the Vatican's Apostolic Palace to hear words of Pope Leo XIV on the annual occasion of the Holy See's "State of the World" address. It was a first for the pontiff as he had been selected in May the prior year. This address was to the diplomats accredited to the Vatican. The 44 minute speech, on January 9, touched on a number of topics, but a few sentences in the speech seem to have set off a chain of events resonating into April. History is intractable, one never knows what will set off a chain of events that will resonate through the year, and beyond. This speech, or perhaps just a few sentences, triggered a series of events which are now, in mid-April, only coming to the public realm. 

Pope Leo Arriving to Speak to Diplomats

First, let us go back to January of this year. The speech was before the war in Iran, but after the US grabbed Nicholas Maduro, the then president of Venezuela. The US administration was also threatening to seize Greenland and make Canada the 51st state. He was making waves about the inadequacy of the NATO alliance, and the US abandoning its commitments. The NATO talk today is only worse after Europe has not become involved in the Iran conflict. The following seems to the part of the speech that has mostly drawn the ire of the US Administration.

In our time, the weakness of multilateralism is a particular cause for concern at the international level. A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies. War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading. The principle established after the Second World War, which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others, has been completely undermined. Peace is no longer sought as a gift and a desirable good in itself, or in the pursuit of “the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect form of justice among men and women.” [4] Instead, peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion. This gravely threatens the rule of law, which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence. (Bold by author)

I can only imagine the notes Brian Burch, the US Ambassador the Holy See was forming in his mind as he listened to the talk. It did not take him long to report back to his boss and how the words are counter to the Donroe doctrine. It is reported that the Pentagon took on a sentence by sentence analysis of the speech. On January 22, the then Vatican Nuncio, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, was summoned to the Pentagon. Pierre, 80 years of age, retired as nuncio in March. No notes exist for this meeting, and it is said to be highly unusual for the nuncio to be called to the Pentagon. It has been said this is likely the first visit of a nuncio to the Pentagon. This makes me wonder why the Pentagon and not the state department. Would the state department be too diplomatic? According to news reports, (following from National Catholic Reporter) "The cleric was, according to The Free Press, reportedly dressed down by officials, who insisted the Catholic Church take the U.S. government's side in military matters." It was more incendiary than that, according to "The New Republic" which quoted the original report  the US Undersecretary of War for Policy, Elbridge Colby said “The United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.” We now have the US engaged in yet another conflict in the Mid-East and after not asking, or building a coalition, Trump now complains that NATO countries have failed to help the US effort. Why the US needs help, if it can do whatever it wants militarily, is unanswered. 

One key point I picked up on is that on Saturday evening, April 11, Leo provided some remarks during the prayer vigil, he said two things that stand out to prove at least one aspect of the report. First, he said, Arrogance tramples upon others; second, "It is here that we find a bulwark against that delusion of omnipotence that surrounds us and is becoming increasingly unpredictable and aggressive." (bold by author). The bold portions, by author) are clearly a reference to Elbridge Colby's statement, “The United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.” 

Maybe the US is not as invincible as Colby said. After all, our military shoots down a few thousand dollar Iranian drone with multi-million dollar weapon systems. The US turned down Ukraine's offer for a system that will shoot them down that costs about $10,000. That sucking sound you hear is the military wasting money. Why be cost effective when a more expensive solution exists? Russia has been using Iranian drones in the Ukraine conflict, hence Ukraine saw the mother of invention. 

Pope Leo, 9 Jan 2026 arrives to speak to 
Diplomatic Corps

Yet, if the meeting of the Cardinal and the Undersecretary of War for Policy could get any worse, it did. One US attendee, not Colby, in what is said to be a calculated move referenced Avignon. Here is "The New Republic": 

One U.S. official present at the meeting brought up the Avignon papacy, a period in the fourteenth century in which the French monarchy bent the Catholic Church into submission, ordering an attack on Pope Boniface VIII that led to his downfall and subsequent death and forcing the papacy to relocate from Rome to Avignon, a region inside France.

Source: Chris Jansing Reports

The Avignon comment, according to the Financial Times quoted Francesco Sisci, co-founder of the Appia Institute — a geopolitical think-tank that closely tracks Vatican diplomacy, occurred after Cardinal Pierre said the Pope would be guided by his own course guided by Church values. 

Boniface, who was in office from 1294 to 1303, was in captivity for a time, and died a month later. After a short term of Benedict, the papacy moved to Avignon when Clement was elected due to machinations of the King of France. Newsweek reports the following: 

According to Mike Young, author of a newsletter on civic accountability, the mention of the “Avignon papacy” was a reference to “an implicit model for what happens to religious institutions that oppose state power.”

In a post on X, he wrote: “That’s not a slip of the tongue. That’s a studied historical reference deployed deliberately in a room with the Pope's senior diplomat. The message was not subtle.”

Christopher Hale, a former Obama campaign religion outreach official, had this quote in Newsweek: "The Vatican was so alarmed by the Pentagon’s warning that Pope Leo canceled his plans to visit the U.S. later in the year. Hale is further quoted as saying that "many in the Vatican saw the Pentagon’s reference to an Avignon papacy as a threat to use military force against the Holy See." A bit of hyperbole, perhaps, as the writer of the original article believes it absurd to think the US would use military force against the Vatican; although he thought it a clear signal from the US telling the Vatican what happens when a world power is crossed (see above comment from Mike Young). Yet, Sisci is further quoted in the Financial Times saying that the Vatican viewed this as the US setting up a rival pope as did France in the fourteenth century, if Leo did not follow the Trump line.  A Chicago News Station, NBC 5, reported that "A source close to Pope Leo XIV told NBC Chicago political reporter Mary Ann Ahern that the meeting between the Pentagon and Cardinal Christophe Pierre was 'most unpleasant and confrontational.'"  

I am not sure Trump is subtle on most anything. He is bombastic, and he likes it that way. The Pentagon dismisses the tense nature of the meeting and said it was a respectful and reasonable discussion. The US Ambassador to the Holy See said Pierre told him the meeting was frank. Pierre is a diplomat and asked now with the kerfuffle would be diplomatic about the whole situation. On Friday last week, the Vatican said the meeting was not fully as reported. I think Avignon was mentioned in the meeting, as I find it hard to believe a reporter make that reference up.  

Source: Chris Jansing Reports, quoting Vatican Official

Leo was invited to come to the US by the Trump Administration as part of the nation's 250th birthday celebration. On Feb 8, it was announced by the Vatican that he would not come to the US this year, and that on July 4 he would visit the island of Lampedusa, which was the first travel by Pope Francis. Lampedusa is an island off Sicily where many refugees arrive from Africa to get to Europe. I suspect it is a dig at the Trump Administration's immigration policies.

Whatever form this meeting took, Pierre is used to being marginalized and ignored, he and Francis' messages were often ignored by the USCCB, who had a kinder way of showing the two of them the middle finger than perhaps the DoW representatives. Many in the US episcopate were waiting out the Francis tenure. Thus, given the way Pierre was treated by US Bishops, his treatment by the Pentagon may not have seemed so bad. Francis, the US bishops said, "Did not understand the United States." I think Francis understood it better than the most US Bishops, many of whom helped create the man who sits in the oval office.

Christophe Pierre meeting with Eldridge Colby, 22 Jan 2026
It is supposed to show the cordiality between the two, but was likely 
taken before the meeting started. 
Source: The Pillar, via Dept of War

Perhaps, the Pentagon was a suitable location for the confrontation. Confrontation and war go together, and some wonder if that is what Secretary of War Hegseth is waging on the American Catholic Church. Two situations, beyond this, stand out. First, a Protestant Pastor and mentor to Hegseth said that ideally public Catholic processions, such as Marian and Eucharistic processions, should be banned as a public display of idolatry. Second, this past Good Friday, it was reported that for the first time in memory, the Pentagon did not have a Catholic Good Friday service. Invitations went out to Protestants for a Protestant service  and it said no Catholic mass (Good Friday is the only day there is not a mass, but there is a service, which was not held). This is of course after Pope Leo said that God does not listen to the prayers of persons who have blood on their hands. This statement has been refuted by some Protestant pastors, such as Franklin Graham.

While the report from Free Press may not be fully accurate, the fact that the meeting occurred, outside normal channels (Nunico to State Dept) says something about the meeting. Further, regardless of how it has been spun, the Avignon reference seems too implausible to be made up by a journalist. Further, Leo's statements about "arrogance tramples" and on "delusion of omnipotence" has a strong counter relationship to Colby's alleged comment that the US can militarily do what it wants. I think Leo is tipping is hand as to at least that part of the meeting.

Pope Leo after prayer vigil, 11 Apr 2026. Source: CNS via Vatican Media

The whole situation shows that reality is more bizarre than fiction. I don't think Dan Brown could even come up with such a scenario. Perhaps because in the end the Vatican looks like the adult in the room. Whatever the administration was hoping to accomplish with the Vatican they seemed not to have made many friends. Cardinal Parolin who this week is reported to have said that more voices are needed to back up Leo's comments on the injustice of war and the arms race and in favor the poor and marginalized. If the pope's voice is not supported, he said, it is simply a voice in the desert. A few words on January 9, to many, decent words, have set of a series of events that shows the intractability of history. History will be the judge. 

(Author Note: This post was written starting mid-last week, and completed Sunday afternoon, hence it does not capture the Trump Truth Social message or Pope Leo's response on way to Algeria.)

First two images from Vatican recorded broadcast of Leo's address on the State of the World, 9 Jan 2026. 

Dark Chocolate

Dark chocolate is said to have certain health benefits, from reducing blood pressure and stress, to improved brain function. This is due to its containing a high level of antioxidants (polyphenols/flavanols) that fight free radicals (unstable atoms produced through metabolic process). I tend to eat a decent amount of dark chocolate. The wife, who likes to grocery shop by herself, will buy me several bars, usually at Aldi's. I have, however, on occasion been known to snack on some chocolate chips, and this sometimes gets me in trouble, like last week.

"Trouble, starts with T, and rhymes with..." well you get it.  We were asked to bring a dessert for Easter dinner, and my wife found a gluten free recipe that called for several ounces of dark chocolate. I had gone to the cupboard to munch on some dark chocolate chips that were in the container apparently, in my wife's mind, they are set aside for baking and not eating. Over the course of week or so I grabbed a handful to eat. I know my wife does not like dark chocolate, but when she last made a molten cake dessert all she had on hand was dark chocolate chips. When I am allowed to grocery shop, I usually dump a few in the cart. I am not sure of the reason why we were out of regular dark chocolate chips, but they too may have found their way into my palm and by extension my mouth.

Alde Dark Chocolate usually purchased

Perhaps she picked out the dark chocolate dessert since she knew all we had were dark chocolate chips. After she told me she needed seven some ounces, I got out the scale and found that we only had a bit over four ounces. Knowing we would need more, I discreetly grabbed a few more, but then quickly made my way too the basement, our staple overflow storage, where I found we had a second bag of dark chocolate chips. Who knew that my dumping items in the grocery cart would save not only the day, but me. I would have been in a big pile of doo doo. If we did not have the extra bag, I am don't know what my wife could have used to bring down her blood pressure at that moment. She would have needed a whole dark chocolate candy bar to lower her blood pressure if we needed to source more dark chocolate chips, but she is not a fan of dark chocolate, her bp would raise even more. 

I generally have some dark chocolate candy bars down stairs during my forays to the cupboard, but for some reason the chips in the cupboard were calling my name. How long should a person expect chocolate chips to last in a cupboard? Apparently, the wife thinks they are for baking, as in use in  in baked goods, while I often have other thoughts. It has not been unusual for her to find the cupboard bare of chocolate chips when she goes to make cookies or some other treat. I get the blame. One year my sister gave me peanut butter and chocolate chips as a Christmas present, knowing that my wife did not like my peanut butter chocolate chip sandwiches used on sweet breads, like zucchini or banana breads.

So, it came to pass that I was saved by having had dark chocolate chips on hand, or throwing them in the cart when I am allowed to go grocery shopping. When this occurred last week, my wife said "There better be a blog post about this!" I do what the wife says, and this is the blog post.