Weekly Roundup, September 27 Edition

Archepiscopal parrhesia; usury revisited; chant recordings; papal shenanigans; liturgical matters; a priest on dancing; and more

Welcome, new readers! Glad to have you on board. Tradition & Sanity is just about to round the corner of 8,000 readers, about 10% of whom are paying subscribers.

If you value the content you find here, please take out a paid subscription. That is literally the only thing that enables us (Julian and me) to keep giving you our best here, week after week. We have no advertising revenue, no kick-backs, no government funding, no ecclesiastical patronage (ha!).

Just you, the readers.

Thank you for your support. We have a lot to cover in this roundup, so let’s dive right in!

A great American bishop of plain talk

Can you believe that a sitting American archbishop actually wrote the following words?

The great mistake of the Council Fathers was to allow the implementation of the Constitution to fall into the hands of men who were either unscrupulous or incompetent. This is the so-called Liturgical Establishment, a Sacred Cow which acts more like a white elephant as it tramples the shards of a shattered liturgy with ponderous abandon.

And:

Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory fading into the middle distance? The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off.

Well, it’s true: these are the words of Robert Joseph Dwyer (1908-76), second bishop of Reno, Nevada from 1952-66 (and as such, who participated in all four sessions of the Council) and fifth Archbishop of Portland, Oregon from 1966 to 1974.

At NLM the past two weeks, I have shared, for the first time, the full texts of 1971 and 1973 newspaper articles in which he lets loose:

• “The Liturgy Has Been Dismantled”: Portland Archbishop Robert Dwyer’s Assessment in 1971

• “Ten Years That Shook the Church”: Archbishop Dwyer’s 1973 Critique of the Reform and the Post-Council

It so happens that a good friend of mine, Allen from Minneapolis, was friends with Archbishop Dwyer. When he saw my NLM articles, he excitedly called me to say he had handwritten letters from the good bishop, and one in which the old Mass was mentioned. I asked him to send me a picture.

Note the last sentence of the first paragraph: My private Mass is always the “old Mass.” This was written in 1975.

Is usury immoral? What is usury anyway?

Very excited to announce the latest release from Os Justi Press — one we’ve been working on for quite some time, and hands down the best treatment of its subject I’ve ever seen.

In Something for Nothing? An Explanation and Defence of the Scholastic Position on Usury, David Hunt deftly argues the traditional view that usury is a charge for something that does not exist and is therefore a form of theft. Indeed, usury begets a form of chattel slavery, since charging interest on a mutuum (that is, a loan of such things as are estimated by weight, number, or measure) is an attempt to profit by treating the borrower as the lender’s property.

Not only does Hunt present and clarify the classic arguments (as seen above all in St. Thomas Aquinas), he also carefully distinguishes usury from morally legitimate ways in which rent and fees may be charged and lenders may be compensated. He shows how modern economists from the late seventeenth century onward misconstrue the issues at hand, leading not so much to the refutation of the old view as to a distortion and neglect of it that persists to this day.

This book has dynamite implications for how we think about and conduct financial transactions and contracts. It vindicates the wisdom of the Catholic Church as seen in Hunt’s generous appendix of texts spanning many centuries, from Justinian’s Institutes to Benedict XVI’s Vix Pervenit.

The book has received glowing praise. Fr. Thomas Crean, OP:

There are few books of which one can say that they are required reading for both theologians and economists, but Something for Nothing? is surely one of them.

The major commentator on Catholic social teaching Thomas Storck writes:

The chief strength of this work is the author’s defense of the full rigor of the illicitness of usury, i.e., not “too high a rate of interest” but any interest based simply on the fact of a loan contract.

Dr. Alan Fimister:

Treatments of usury are frequently burdened with garbled definitions and serious misunderstandings. David Hunt has done us a great service by providing a brilliant and lucid treatment of a practice that was branded sinful by the Council of Vienne and, in fact, can be known to be evil by the light of natural reason.

Available in paperback, hardcover, and ebook, either from Os Justi or from any Amazon site. (It’s been the #1 bestseller in the category “Ethics in Christian Theology” for the past week. A review by Frank Wright already appeared at LifeSiteNews.)

Huge new library of chant recordings

This past August 2024, the Church Music Association of America (CMAA) contracted with Nicholas Lemme and the schola at St. Francis of Assisi Oratory to record the 270+ tracks (over 500 minutes!) of plainchant that can be found in its wonderful publication The Parish Book of Chant. I was happy to be a part of this project, singing all the way along, with my fellow schola members Jacob Bauer, Chris Hattrup, Matt Rauert, and Adam Schwend.

Thus, for example, every one of the Gregorian Ordinaries is available: you can get the score as a PDF, and listen to the recording — all for free, thanks to generous donors of the CMAA. Here’s a screenshot of what you’ll find:

Access this vast visual and sonic library of Gregorian chant here. Use it to help your choirs (or your children!) learn the great repertoire that spans the first thirteen centuries of our Western heritage.

Papal shenanigans

Traditionalists should concentrate above all on calmly restoring the Catholic religion, brick by brick (in Fr. Z’s immortal phrase). So, in a sense, the fact that we have a wildly heresy-spewing, criminal-protecting, chaos-multiplying Peronist dictator pope should not throw us off our balance; on the contrary it should galvanize us to a greater dedication to the task of rebuilding. Life goes on; true Catholics will believe what Catholics have always believed, will worship as Catholics have always worshiped, that is, in continuity with tradition; and this storm will blow itself out as the generations pass.

Be that as it may, I do think it is important, to some extent, to be aware of, and to document the (by now almost innumerable) deviations of the present pontificate, because they are like warnings and signposts: this is what modernism leads to; this is what progressivism leads to; this is what hyperpapalism or ultramontanism on steroids leads to. That is why I continue to pay attention and to report on the shenanigans.

1. I’m wondering, truly, how the popesplainers will manage to argue that, in fact, Pius XI and Francis are NOT saying exactly contradictory things. See “Francis in Asia: ‘All Religions Lead to God.’ - Pius XI: That is a ‘false opinion.’” Don’t the popesplainers realize that people out there in the world are not listening to THEM, but simply going off of what they hear from the pope, in the “natural meaning” anyone would give to it? In that sense it hardly matters if some extremely improbable “correct meaning” might be given to something, if you perform enough hermeneutical somersaults. What matters is the immediate and worldwide impact of what the pope actually says. This is why those who object to this pope’s way of talking—such as this Australian broadcaster, a non-Catholic conservative—will always hold the high ground in argumentation with anyone who has not lost his bearings in reality:

2. After the spate of comments in Southeast Asia — brilliantly analyzed by “Vigilius,” a German theologian and priest who is by far the deepest commentator on Bergoglio that I have ever come across, and whose article last week at Rorate is a must-read — there can be no doubt that Francis is a religious indifferentist.

   1. Remember, it’s possible for someone to think Christianity is a valid path but still think there are other valid paths too, all (more or less) leading to God, who, on this view, wants the manyness of the paths; and this is precisely to embrace the error of religious indifferentism.

   2. Need it be added that indifferentism is an error that has been frequently condemned by the Catholic Church? This is not about “prudence” or “strategies,” it is about the basics of Catholicism 101. God has revealed Himself to the human race not only in conscience and in natural law, but above all to Israel and then in Christ, the Son of God, the only Savior of mankind. Most religions either deny this revelation outright, or else interpose innumerable manmade barriers between the true God and the soul He has redeemed with His Precious Blood.

   3. Let’s not forget, too, that Joseph Ratzinger constantly emphasized the inseparability of praxis and dogma. There is no such thing as “just a (new) policy” having no doctrinal implications. It’s analogous to the relationship between lex orandi and lex credendi. The former is not “merely disciplinary”; it embodies and transmits doctrine.

3. Timothy Flanders: “The Pope’s Italian statement ‘Tutte le religioni sono un cammino per arrivare a Dio’ [means] ‘every religion is way to arrive at God.’ In English, this phrase is heresy, pure and simple. The word ‘way’ in English means a ‘possibility whereby’ and ‘arrive’ in English means to achieve a destination. This phrase in English means that idolatry is a way to God. In other words, the 1st commandment of the Ten Commandments is null and void.” I would add, “arriving at God” means achieving salvation. So the divine revelation that “there is salvation in no one else” than Jesus Christ is set aside. Even Archbishop Chaput seems to agree that this is the upshot of the pope’s remarks.

4. Roberto de Mattei: “Our answer is immediate: no, Holy Father, we have not understood and cannot understand it. Our religion and also the history of the Society of Jesus, to which you belong, teach us otherwise.”

5. De Mattei reminds us that St. Francis Xavier founded what is now the diocese of Singapore, where Pope Francis made the worst of his comments. Here’s a prayer written by St. Francis Xavier for the Conversion of Infidels, which we could pray as an act of reparation:

   “O Eternal God, Creator of all things, remember the souls of infidels, whom Thou hast created and made to Thine own image and likeness. Behold, O Lord, how to Thy dishonor, with these same souls, hell is being filled. Remember that Jesus, Thy Son, for their salvation, suffered a most cruel death. I beseech Thee, O Lord, do not permit Thy Son to be despised by the infidels any longer, but, appeased by the prayers of the Saints and of the Church, the spouse of Thy most holy Son, be mindful of Thy mercy. Forgetting their idolatry and unbelief, make the infidels to know Him, the Lord Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent, who is our salvation, our life and our resurrection, through whom we have been saved and redeemed, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

   Indulgence of fifty days. Plenary Indulgence on usual conditions when recited daily for one month. (Dec. 6, 1918. Oct. 23, 1925. Preces et Pia Opera, 1937.)

6. Speaking of de Mattei… Roberto has a major new article on the vexed and vexing topic of what to do about, or what can be done about, a heretical pope. I have to say that the WM Review does a good job poking some holes in it, but I am not persuaded by them, either, since I do not accept their sedevacantist premise that we have been without a valid pope for some 66 years. The entire situation we are dealing with is wretchedly confusing, since it is possible to see reasons for and against all of the theological positions that have been taken on the question of how a heretical pope is known to be/declared to be a heretic and how he loses his office. I am particularly wary of those who state with overweening confidence that they KNOW the correct answer, without any doubts or hesitations. These are treacherous waters and we must swim as best we can by remaining faithful to what we do know for certain, without thinking we, on the ground level, can “solve” a problem that has never occurred in just this way before.

7. Two other good pieces: Carina Benton, “Pope Francis’ ‘All Religions’ Discourse Was an Attack on Christ’s Divinity”; Robert Greving, “Dishonest Agreement.”

8. I’ve written extensively on the topic of male-female symbolism in the liturgy and how it affects the question of service in the sanctuary (my book Ministers of Christ heavily drills into this). A recent piece at OnePeterFive by James Bogle, “Pope Francis: Sexual Revolutionary,” is an excellent overview of the issues involved, most of which are absurdly neglected in mainstream commentary.

9. In proof of this: a large new slate of appointments to the DDF has just been announced — and many of the theologians are from the extreme progressive side of moral theology: dissenters from Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor, big proponents of Amoris Laetitia, wishing to revise LGBT teaching, etc. See Stefano Fontana, “Fernandez appoints progressive theologians to change Church teaching on morality.”

10. Betcha didn’t know there was such a thing as a “sin against synodality.” Better add it to your preparation for Confession (sorry, “Reconciliation”). As Eccles is Saved formulates it: “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I have not practised kenotic decentering, nor have I enlarged the space of my tent. Worse, I do not breathe synodality into every component of academic theology, and I do not embrace the principle of circularity that animates the whole synodal process.”

I shared a chart online that attempts to lay out the logical possibilities on the current situation. I am firmly planted in the green box:

Those who are on Facebook might want to check out the intense discussion in the comments on this post.

I have often said that hyperpapalism and sedevacantism are two sides of the same coin. Another friend has made an illustration to convey this point:

Words from Melchior Cano to recall in dark times

The following graphic was recently making the rounds (again):

A Facebook friend challenged me to provide the source (and not unreasonably, as there are fake quotes that circulate). Here is how it reads in the original:

Nunc illud breviter dici potest, qui summi pontificis omne de re quacunque iudicium temerè ac sine delectu defendunt: hos sedis Apostolicae auctoritatem labefactare, non fovere: evertere non firmare. Nam ut ea praetereamus, quae paulò antè in hoc capite explicata sunt, quid tandem adversum haereticos disputando ille proficiet, quem viderint non iudicio, sed affectu patrocinium auctoritatis pontificiae suscipere, nec id agere ut disputationis suae vi lucem ac veritatem eliciat, sed ut se ad alterius sensum voluntatemque convertat? Non eget Petrus mendacio nostro, nostra adulatione non eget.

Literal translation:

Now one can say briefly what [those do] who temerariously and without discrimination defend the supreme pontiff’s judgment concerning everything whatsoever: these people unsteady the authority of the Apostolic See rather than fostering it; they overturn it rather than shoring it up. For . . . what profit does he gain in arguing against heretics if they perceive him as defending papal authority not with judgment but with emotion, nor as doing so in order to draw forth light and truth by the force of his argument but in order to convert another to his own thought and will? Peter does not need our lie; he does not need our adulation.

Source: Reverendissimi D. Domini Melchioris Cani Episcopi Canariensis, Ordinis Praedicatorum, & sacrae theologiae professoris, ac primariae cathedrae in Academia Salmanticensi olim praefecti, De locis theologicis libri duodecim (Salamanca: Mathias Gastius, 1563), 197.

The abbreviated paraphrase in the graphic seems to have a life of its own. It appears thus, for example, on page 15 of George Weigel’s Witness to Hope: The Biography of John Paul II (New York: HarperCollins, 1999).

It’s good to keep this in mind, as Cano is one of our great theologians of the Counter-Reformation period, and played a not insignificant part as an expert at the Council of Trent.

As for rebuilding…

Josué Luis Hernández, “the founder of The Pascua Project, which seeks the integration of New Urbanism, Agrarianism, Distributism, the Liberal Arts, Historical Rootedness and the Liturgical Year in order to rebuild an authentic traditional Catholic life and culture” (gosh, sign me up for that!!!) writes in an article at OnePeterFive:

Let us begin by stating what ought to be obvious: community is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for culture. The musical symphony that is culture (to say nothing of civilization) requires a diversity of musicians harmoniously united in a grand unity of purpose. It is never something that can be produced by a mere individual or even a single family. And rightly so, for we are by nature, as our entire tradition teaches, political animals who can only find their true purpose and flourishing within the context of community.

However, and perhaps less obvious to us uprooted, placeless moderns is the fact that — despite what we may have naively been fooled into believing through the influence of our increasingly displaced and ephemeral modes of life — we cannot have, or hope to ever build, real community without the actual physical proximity and fixity of place through which those relationships that form community are able to be cultivated and nurtured.

A newly-published, peer-reviewed study by sociologist Natalie A. Lindemann lends scientific support to what we all already knew: “Parish Practices Predict Belief in the Real Presence: Adoration, Genuflection, and the Traditional Latin Mass,” Catholic Social Science Review 29 (2024): 85-100. Download here.

Suzy Weiss tells us about “an emergent coalition of Catholics, preppers, localists, Luddites, and farmers…determined to resist modernity. They call themselves Doomer Optimists.” As usual, take the journalist’s take cum grano salis. Ashley Fitzgerald replies here.

Fr. John Perricone tells us why we are on the cusp of a resurrection, in “The Beginning of the End of Recreational Catholicism.”

If you need a dose of good news, here you are — read and rejoice! This is how Catholic culture is rebuilt.

Certainly hunting will continue to be a part of a healthy culture — and a healthy environmentalism, as Julian explains here.

I took part in a round-table discussion with Joseph Shaw, Robert Keim, Brian McCall, Timothy Flanders, and Murray Rundus, on the topic: “What happened to Catholic art and culture?”

Robert Keim describes the secret ingredient of all revival:

Monasticism was so central to medieval culture that to study one without the other is simply impossible. The spiritual, architectural, agricultural, intellectual, and artistic achievements of the Middle Ages were inseparable from the lives of men and women from all over Europe who chose to own nothing, renounce self-will, subdue the flesh, exalt the spirit, and give themselves entirely to God. They sought to build for themselves a peaceful, secluded, sanctifying world of prayer, study, and manual labor. In so doing, they built up an entire civilization.

Meanwhile, Denise Trull sings the praises of faithful remnants:

I HAVE seen remnants do amazing things. Even William Byrd wrote his most exquisite music for remnants of faithful Catholics in secret because he knew they were worth it — to be comforted in a time of persecution in Elizabethan England. All the bells and incense and candles and the finest vestments in the sacristy closet should be worn, even for the remnant. There should be singing of every sort of hymn and heartening processions even if there are only five people to do so.

Liturgical Matters

• Unam Sanctam Catholicam published a moving essay contrasting the ethos or spirit of the old Requiem Mass and that of the new funeral Mass. As to what I think of that, here’s a magazine cover that never existed, but could well have (h/t Shawn Tribe):

In sharp contrast, there is Jesse Romero’s new book from Sophia Institute Press:

I endorsed the book in the following terms:

The statistics do not lie: men have abandoned the practice of the Catholic faith in droves since the liturgical reform of the 1960s—but they pack the pews of churches that offer the traditional Latin Mass. Is this just a coincidence, or are there deeper reasons for it? In this no-holds-barred apologia, Jesse Romero, with the help of other men who share their experiences, explains what it is that draws men into church and keeps them there—such things as the power of mystery, the engagement of the intellect, the strength of tradition, the importance of reverence, the call to sacrifice, regimen and order, introspection over outward expression. Here is a treasure-trove of insights that all Catholics, especially the clergy, must take seriously if they do not wish to be nailing boards onto closed churches as the lights go out on religion in the West.

Robert Lazu Kmita has much to offer in “Sacred Gestures and Symbols: Why Communion in the Hand is Unacceptable.”

Jimmy Akin over at Catholic World Report defended that attending Mass with the SSPX fulfills the Sunday obligation. I’ll admit that I didn’t see that coming in 2024. Of course, I don’t make up my mind about what is and is not Catholic based on what Jimmy Akin (or John Salza or any other individual) says, but it’s a pleasant surprise nonetheless when common sense prevails.

Follow-up on dancing: a priest sets his flock straight

A priest friend of mine, one with long pastoral experience, has had to deal with anti-terpsichoreans (Catholics who condemn dancing as an unavoidable near occasion of sin) moving into his parish, and needed to exercise his pastoral office in correcting their errors. He has given me permission to share a letter he wrote on the topic, which I find admirably prudent and balanced:

Dear ____,

Thank you for the article from your former parish priest regarding social dancing. I have taken the time to read it carefully and wish now to offer you a clear response.

You perhaps noted my surprise when I began to mention the sort of dances that typically take place in our community and you interjected with the categorical statement, “Square dancing is condemned by the Church.” It was the first time I ever heard a Catholic make such a claim, and I have certainly never heard a priest do so. Moreover, I have never before been presented with the teaching that social dancing presents no moral difficulties for married couples, but is entirely unacceptable for the unmarried. I tried calling the parish in ____ in the hopes of obtaining some clarification from Fr. ____, but I was told that he is on sabbatical. I did speak with one of the other priests there. While I do not wish to quote him out of context, I can say that he did not seem to be in disagreement with any of the points that I made.

The disciplinary decrees which the article cites from the 19th and early 20th centuries prohibit clerics from promoting or attending dances organized by laypeople. They nevertheless recognize that such events are perhaps organized out of very worthy motives. It is especially noteworthy that the decrees do not place any sanctions on the faithful for participation in such dances; it does not say that they are to be regarded as public sinners, barred from Holy Communion, etc. The statement from the Archbishop of New York is also careful to specify that the concern is over certain dancing as it occurs in present circumstances, not dancing as such. The decrees cited are thus not examples of the irreformable teaching of the Universal Magisterium; they can be repealed or allowed to lapse into disuse. The article claims that other councils, even ecumenical ones, have prohibited the faithful from social dancing, but it does not cite any specific text. As for the one verse of Scripture which it quotes in support of the argument, Ecclesiasticus 9:4 cannot be construed to refer even remotely to social dancing.

The article teaches that social dancing is morally acceptable for married couples, but is always immoral for the unmarried. None of the councils or decrees which the article cites support this distinction. As for the saints it references, they make no mention of this distinction either. St. Francis de Sales stated to his general readership that social dances are “of their nature indifferent” and “lawful but dangerous” and expressed his low opinion of the balls that were held in his day (Introduction to the Devout Life III 33). The Curate of Ars took a much stricter stance and repeatedly warned his flock to shun all dancing. Neither saint took the stand that dancing should be restricted to married couples. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how such a dance could be organized without bringing with it all the purported dangers of unmarried dancing. How would one ensure that everyone limits his dancing to his own spouse? And what about the constant danger of someone else's spouse crossing one's eye? What about dancing with blood relations? If one insists on drawing this distinction between married and unmarried, a more consistent position would be, “It is morally acceptable for a married couple to dance together, as long as they do so alone and in the privacy of their own home.” Yet I have never heard a priest teach anything of the kind to his people.

Take the case of weddings. The time-honored practice which I learned from my earliest seminary days is that a priest may attend a wedding reception in order to bless the table and enjoy the dinner with the guests but should then politely excuse himself once the dancing begins, or least move to another area in order to continue conversation with those who are not dancing. I have never heard of a priest refusing to marry a couple unless they promised not to have any dancing between unmarried persons at their wedding reception. I can attest that I have members of my flock who first met by dancing at someone else's wedding and are now happily married.

Still, one might well object, even if social dancing between the unmarried is not intrinsically immoral, surely the safest course is to prohibit all the faithful from engaging in it, especially in our age of widespread immodesty. I can appreciate that a parish priest, based on his knowledge of the souls of his flock, might take a strong stand against dancing because of the evil that he perceives it bringing to his particular community. Based on the knowledge of my own flock, I believe I am well founded in not taking such a stand here.

Barn dances have been a part of local Catholic culture here in ____ for many generations. Some of our finest families take part in them regularly, people who have always brought up their children as devout Catholics and taught them to dress and behave with the utmost modesty. Square dancing and ballroom dancing also take place at gatherings of our institute’s nationwide young adult group as well as at gatherings of the traditional group Juventutem. I have also seen the SSPX advertise such events, sometimes even with the parish priest calling the dances. Such events are wholesome opportunities for Catholic families to get to know each other better and particularly for young men and women to meet in a proper way. Were it ever to become apparent to me that this was not the case, I would speak out against the abuses, and, if necessary, declare that these dances must be avoided. But I will not take the position that such dances are inherently wrong. That has never been the teaching of the Church.

In contrast, one issue where I believe current circumstances in our community necessitate an uncompromising stance is that of electronic devices with internet access. Again and again I preach from the pulpit that no parent is ever to allow his child open access to the internet, and that doing so is certainly matter for confession. It is not that the internet is intrinsically evil for children; it is that unrestricted access to it poses a grave danger to a child's innocence.

Such is not the case with the social dances that are frequented by young people in our community. If I had been a parish priest in an urban area in the 1990s, I would no doubt have found myself obliged to speak out clearly against people frequenting “raves” and the “clubbing” scene. As I understand it, such dancing venues are long gone, and it is not because society at large has recovered its sense of morality; current neo-pagan culture just seems to have little interest in dancing. Catholics who take part in barn dances or ballroom dancing today are not guilty of conforming to the spirit of the age; such an accusation completely misses the mark. On the contrary, the world is likely to mock them as quaint or absurdly old fashioned for taking part in such activities. I would much rather have them out doing that than staying home glued to their devices.

I appreciate that you have brought to me your concerns. I ask for your prayers as I continue to strive to guide my flock in the way of virtue.

This is how our clergy should handle the question of dancing.

Seeing the buzz generated by the dancing controversy, Brian McCall of Catholic Family News interviewed Dorothy Cummings McLean and me. We give a resounding defense of this universal human and Christian artform, which is a perfectly healthy and desirable social pastime in our TLM communities. I’m glad to say, from feedback, that the vast majority of trads agree with this point of view and that social dances are coming back all over, as they should.

Incidentally, this year’s (fifth annual) procession in St. Louis in honor of their kingly patron included dancing at the end in the square on Art Hill, as you can see at the end of this video! That was a great and very Catholic touch.

A college classmate sent me two pages from a forthcoming issue of a magazine for Catholic mothers called Rosie, and gave me permission to share them here. You will find them an expression of consummate sanity:

Requesting a small favor

If any of you have benefited from reading any of my books, would you consider heading over to Amazon and leaving a review and/or a rating? Though I am the last to be pleased (in the big picture) about Amazon’s domination, the fact is, that’s where most people do buy their books, and where a huge number of people look for reviews. So, please take a minute to offset “reviews” like this one, where someone admits he hasn’t even bought my book (!), and won’t, because:

Speaking of Amazon… I’ve just learned that the publisher, TAN, has bumped up the release date of my new book, Turned Around, to October 8th. However, Amazon has blown off the moratorium and is already delivering copies. So if you’d like to have it right away, here’s the link. Otherwise, order at TAN and you’ll receive the book in just a few weeks.

Thanks for reading and God bless you!