This page has three parts: Independent Biblical Identification, Cross-Entry Synthesis, and Observation Notes.
10-1911-06-07 Biblical Resonance Analysis
Volume 10 — June 7, 1911 “Sorrow of Jesus because of the priests. Love that is hidden – woe!”
STAGE ONE — Independent Biblical Identification
”Love that is Hidden — Woe!” — The Imperative of Love’s Expression
“Love that is hidden – woe!”
Jeremiah 20:9 — “If I say that I will not make mention of him, or speak any more in his name, then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones. I am weary with holding it in. I can’t.” The prophetic type for the woe of hidden love: Jeremiah’s attempt to suppress the divine word produces a burning torment that cannot be sustained. The same structure governs Christ’s declaration — love concealed becomes suffering, a fire shut up rather than communicated. Affective/meditative
Matthew 5:14–16 — “You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can’t be hidden. … let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” Love and light operate by the same logic of necessary visibility: the nature of both is to illuminate, and concealment contradicts the nature. The woe of hidden love is the woe of light covered. Direct doctrinal parallel
Luke 8:16–17 — “No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, that those who enter in may see the light. For nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” The cosmic order does not permit permanent concealment: what is hidden will be made manifest, and to hide what should be seen is to work against the grain of reality. Direct doctrinal parallel
2 Corinthians 5:14 — “For the love of Christ compels us; because we judge thus: that one died for all, therefore all died.” The constraining, impelling character of love: it cannot remain still and hidden but presses outward. Love that is concealed is love that has lost its operative nature. Direct doctrinal parallel
Song of Songs 8:6–7 — “Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm; for love is strong as death. Jealousy is as cruel as Sheol. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a very flame of the LORD. Many waters can’t quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man would give all the wealth of his house for love, he would be utterly scorned.” Love is inextinguishable and irresistible; the “woe” of its concealment is the woe of an irresistible force imprisoned — the fire of love contained produces anguish rather than heat and light. Affective/meditative
Enemies as Purifiers — Virtue as Light, Both Saved
“It is necessary that the enemies purge my Church; and after they have purged Her, the patience, the virtues of the good will be light for the enemies, and both one and the other will be saved.”
Matthew 5:14–16 — “You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can’t be hidden. Neither do you light a lamp and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house. Even so, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” The patience and virtues of the good become light for the enemies by the mechanism Christ himself names: visible holy endurance draws the witness who persecutes to glory given to God. The enemies are saved through seeing what they cannot extinguish. Direct doctrinal parallel
Acts 7:59–60; 9:1–19 (paraphrase) — Stephen’s dying prayer (“Lord, do not hold this sin against them”) and Saul’s subsequent conversion. The martyr’s intercession and witness become the decisive instrument of the persecutor’s salvation — both one and the other are saved: Stephen through martyrdom, Paul through the conversion that martyrdom’s prayer obtained. Hogan identifies this connection explicitly. Typological
1 Timothy 2:4 — “who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.” The universal salvific will is the theological ground for “both one and the other will be saved”: the divine purpose encompasses enemies and persecutors, using their own actions as the instrument of their redemption. Direct doctrinal parallel
Romans 5:3–5 — “Not only this, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope doesn’t disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” The patience of the persecuted good is not passive resignation but the active production of the virtue-quality that becomes light: endurance producing character producing hope — a visible arc that draws observers. Direct doctrinal parallel
Matthew 5:44 — “But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,” The intercessory structure that enables the mutual salvation: the persecuted good pray for those who persecute them, and the prayer obtains the enemies’ conversion. Direct doctrinal parallel
John 12:32 — “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” The universal drawing that underlies the “both one and the other will be saved”: Christ lifted up in the witness of the persecuted draws even the persecutors to himself. Christological/Trinitarian
Divine Indignation at Concealment — “I Want This Matter to Come Out”
“My daughter, do not pray Me, for I become indignant. I want this matter to come out – I can take no more, I can take no more. The sacrileges are enormous; by covering them, I would give them the field to commit greater evils.”
Matthew 10:26 — “Therefore don’t be afraid of them, for there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.” The cosmic order of disclosure: concealment is not a stable state but a delay of the inevitable. Christ’s “I want this matter to come out” aligns with the created order’s own trajectory — disclosure is not a pastoral choice but the direction of reality itself. Direct doctrinal parallel
Luke 12:2–3 — “But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light. What you have spoken in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.” The inevitability and amplification of disclosure: what is hidden not only comes out but comes out at a larger scale than the original concealment. Direct doctrinal parallel
Ezekiel 3:18–20 — “When I tell the wicked, ‘You will surely die;’ and you give him no warning, … iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand.” The watchman principle: concealment of known sin makes the concealer complicit in the sin’s continuing expansion. “By covering them, I would give them the field to commit greater evils” is the exact Ezekiel structure — the non-warning is itself an enabling of further harm, and its guilt attaches to the one who did not warn. Direct doctrinal parallel
1 Corinthians 5:1–5 — “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you… and you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” The apostolic precedent: Paul’s condemnation of the Corinthian community for tolerating known ministerial immorality with institutional pride rather than disciplinary grief. The refusal to cover priestly sin corresponds to Paul’s demand for removal rather than arrogant concealment. Direct doctrinal parallel
Proverbs 28:13 — “He who conceals his sins doesn’t prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” Concealment blocks the mercy that disclosure opens: the very act of covering the sacrileges would prevent the priests from accessing the mercy that exposure and correction would bring. Direct doctrinal parallel
Mark 3:1–6 — “He entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there whose hand was withered. They watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him. He said to the man whose hand was withered, “Stand up.” He said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good or to do harm? To save a life or to kill?” But they were silent. When he had looked around at them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored as healthy as the other. The Pharisees went out, and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.” The Markan precedent for divine indignation combined with grief: Christ’s anger in the synagogue is at the institutional obstruction of healing, not at the sick man. The same structure governs the June 7 indignation: Christ’s anger is at the institutional obstruction of the healing that disclosure would initiate. Typological
Luisa Commissioned as Heroine — Scourges Prepared for Secular and Priests
“You will have patience in bearing my absence – you will do this as a heroine. I want to trust you, who are my daughter, while I occupy Myself with preparing the scourges for the secular and for the priests.”
2 Timothy 2:3–4 — “You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on duty entangles himself in the affairs of life, that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier.” The heroine-soldier metaphor: the heroine commissioned to bear the absence is the spiritual soldier who does not permit the demands of the present to entangle her in complaint or distraction from her post. Affective/meditative
Hebrews 12:1 — “Therefore let’s also, seeing we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let’s run with perseverance the race that is set before us,” The heroine’s call is the call to athletic endurance — bearing the absence as one who runs the race that has been set, not the race she would have chosen. Affective/meditative
Hebrews 12:5–11 — “You have forgotten the exhortation which reasons with you as with children, “My son, don’t take lightly the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by him; for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you endure. God deals with you as with children, for what son is there whom his father doesn’t discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have been made partakers, then you are illegitimate, and not children. Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days disciplined us as seemed good to them, but he for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness. All chastening seems for the present to be not joyous but grievous; yet afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” The scourges Christ prepares are the form of divine discipline for both secular and priests; Luisa is commissioned to hold the interior space of trust while the discipline is administered. Direct doctrinal parallel
Lamentations 3:26–28 (translation pending) — “It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD… Let him sit alone in silence when it is laid on him.” The posture of heroic waiting under deprivation: alone, in silence, bearing what is laid on her. The PHD-1 operational-withdrawal-during-chastisement register governs this; the heroine-commission is the positive face of the divine absence. Affective/meditative
Revelation 6:9–11 — “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been killed for the Word of God, and for the testimony of the Lamb which they had. They cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, Master, the holy and true, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” A long white robe was given to each of them. They were told that they should rest yet for a while, until their fellow servants and their brothers, who would also be killed even as they were, should complete their course.” The souls under the altar commissioned to wait while the divine judgment proceeds: Luisa’s commission to bear the absence while scourges are prepared is the living form of this waiting-under-martyrdom posture. Typological
STAGE TWO — Comparison with Hogan’s Commentary
CORRESPONDENCES
Matthew 5:14–16 (virtue as light for enemies) — Hogan cites this movement correctly in substance, applying it to Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, and the Atlas monks as the historical type for how the virtues of the persecuted become light for enemies. Stage One cites Matthew 5:14–16 independently as the governing anchor. Note: Hogan cites “Matthew 5:17” for this content — see citation correction below.
1 Timothy 2:4 — Both identified. Hogan cites it explicitly (“God wants everyone to be saved”) as the ground for “both one and the other will be saved.” Stage One includes it for the same movement.
Mark 3:1–6 — Hogan cites this explicitly for the divine indignation movement (“I become indignant… I can take no more”). Stage One independently identifies it as the Markan precedent for Christ’s anger-combined-with-grief at institutional obstruction of healing.
Matthew 10:26 — Both identified. Hogan cites it explicitly for the disclosure-imperative. Stage One includes it for the same movement.
DEVIATIONS
For virtue as light for enemies: Hogan develops this through hagiographical catena — Maximilian Kolbe at Auschwitz, Edith Stein and Rosa, the Atlas monks (see annotation below), Stephen and Paul. Stage One engages the same movement through Acts 7:59–60/9:1–19 (the Stephen-Paul conversion as the canonical type Hogan invokes) and John 12:32 (the universal drawing). Hogan’s hagiographical approach instantiates the principle in concrete historical examples; Stage One’s citations name the canonical structure that the examples illustrate.
For the disclosure-imperative: Stage One extends beyond Matthew 10:26 and Mark 3:1–6 into Ezekiel 3:18–20 (the watchman principle — concealment as complicity in enabling further sin), 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 (Paul’s apostolic precedent for refusing institutional concealment), and Proverbs 28:13 (concealment blocking mercy). These illuminate the theological architecture behind Christ’s “by covering them, I would give them the field” — the complicity dimension Hogan does not address scripturally.
For “Love that is hidden — woe!”: Stage One identifies Jeremiah 20:9, 2 Corinthians 5:14, and Song of Songs 8:6–7. Hogan treats this pastorally (“love demands an expression”; “love that is unrequited is agony”) but supplies no scripture for this movement.
ADDITIONS — MINE
- Jeremiah 20:9 — the prophet’s woe at suppressing the divine word; type for the woe of hidden love
- Luke 8:16–17 — lamp not put under a bed; concealment contradicts the nature of light
- 2 Corinthians 5:14 — love of Christ controls/impels; cannot remain hidden
- Song of Songs 8:6–7 — love inextinguishable; fire imprisoned produces anguish
- Acts 7:59–60; 9:1–19 — Stephen’s martyrdom and prayer as the direct canonical type for Hogan’s Stephen-Paul hagiographical reference
- Romans 5:3–5 — suffering produces endurance, endurance character, character hope; the virtue-as-light arc in its Pauline form
- Matthew 5:44 — love enemies, pray for persecutors; the intercessory structure enabling mutual salvation
- John 12:32 — drawing all people when lifted up; universal drawing as the ground of both-saved
- Luke 12:2–3 — shouted from housetops; amplification of disclosure
- Ezekiel 3:18–20 — watchman principle; concealment as complicity in further evil
- 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 — Paul’s apostolic refusal to cover ministerial immorality
- Proverbs 28:13 — concealment blocking mercy; disclosure opening it
- 2 Timothy 2:3–4 — good soldier; heroine-commission as soldier’s post
- Hebrews 12:1 — run with endurance the race that is set
- Hebrews 12:5–11 — Lord disciplines the one he loves; scourges as divine discipline
- Lamentations 3:26–28 — wait quietly; sit alone in silence
- Revelation 6:9–11 — souls under the altar told to wait; waiting-under-judgment posture
ADDITIONS — HERS
Hagiographical catena — martyrs as light for enemies: Maximilian Kolbe (Auschwitz commandant’s deathbed conversion), Edith Stein and Rosa Stein (Auschwitz), the Atlas monks of Tibhirine (beheaded in Algeria, 1996 — Hogan identifies as Morocco; the community was in Algeria, not Morocco), Stephen’s prayer for Paul. These are historically specific instantiations of the virtue-as-light principle. The Atlas monks’ abbot wrote that the community would “wait for you at the gates of heaven” — Hogan presents this as the living form of the entry’s “both one and the other will be saved.”
Retrospective ecclesiastical annotation: Hogan connects “the sacrileges are enormous” to the communist infiltration of the priesthood and introduction of homosexuality she has identified in prior entries, naming this as the historical content of the sacrileges Christ cannot tolerate. This extends the CEA-1 historical-annotation pattern consistently maintained since November 9, 1910.
VIP / SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
No VIP designation in this entry.
STAGE TWO SYNTHESIS
The entry’s dominant biblical imagination is the prophetic-disclosure tradition — the imperative of making visible what is hidden, whether love (Jeremiah 20:9; Song of Songs 8:6–7) or sin (Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2–3; Ezekiel 3:18–20) — held in tension with the universal-salvation tradition (1 Timothy 2:4; Acts 7–9; John 12:32) that governs why both enemies and faithful are ultimately saved through the purging process. Stage One and Hogan share the four primary anchors (Matthew 5:14–16, 1 Timothy 2:4, Mark 3:1–6, Matthew 10:26). Stage One extends the disclosure-imperative into the Ezekiel watchman principle and the 1 Corinthians 5 apostolic precedent, and the heroine-commission into the Hebrews discipline complex and Lamentations waiting.
Hogan’s hagiographical catena — Kolbe, Edith Stein, the Atlas monks, Stephen and Paul — is the entry’s most distinctive contribution: the abstract principle (virtue as light for enemies, both saved) is instantiated in five historically verifiable instances. The combined analysis confirms that the June 7 entry is a doctrinal node connecting the CEA-1 purging arc (continued from May 16), the love-imperative of expression, the cosmic disclosure principle, and the PHD-1 operational-withdrawal register.
Cross-Entry Synthesis
Volume 10 — June 7, 1911 “Sorrow of Jesus because of the priests. Love that is hidden – woe!"
"Love that is Hidden — Woe!” — The Imperative of Expression
The entry opens with a declaration delivered in a flash — Christ comes, speaks, and withdraws — whose brevity is inversely proportional to its theological weight. “Love that is hidden — woe” condenses a principle that Scripture develops across multiple registers. Jeremiah 20:9 provides the prophetic type: the prophet who attempts to suppress the divine word finds a burning fire shut up in his bones, unable to be contained. The woe is not an external punishment but the internal consequence of imprisoning what is constitutively outward. Song of Songs 8:6–7 gives the ontological ground: love is “the very flame of the LORD” — fire by nature illuminates and spreads; confined fire produces torment.
Matthew 5:14–16 and Luke 8:16–17 apply the same logic at the level of the soul’s visible witness: the nature of light is to illuminate, and the concealment of light contradicts its nature as directly as the concealment of love contradicts love’s. 2 Corinthians 5:14 supplies the Pauline form: the love of Christ controls and impels — it is not a disposition that can be withheld but a force that expresses itself or becomes suffering. The flash-declaration governs everything that follows: the entry is about what happens when love is hidden — in the soul (woe), in the Church’s ministers (sacrileges), in the institution (greater evils enabled).
Enemies as Purifiers — Virtue as Light, Both Saved
The May 16 enemies-as-purifiers disclosure is here advanced with a new structural element: the mechanism by which the purging produces salvation for both parties. The enemies purge the Church; the patience and virtues of the good become light for the enemies; both are saved. Stage One’s Matthew 5:14–16, Acts 7–9, and John 12:32 together establish the canonical architecture: holy endurance is visible light; the witness of the martyrs draws the persecutors; the universal salvific will (1 Timothy 2:4) ensures that the drawing reaches even those who inflict the persecution.
Hogan’s hagiographical catena instantiates this with precision. Maximilian Kolbe’s presence in Auschwitz and the commandant’s deathbed conversion; Edith Stein giving her fellow prisoners a motive for their deaths; the Atlas monks’ abbot writing to their executioners “we will wait for you at the gates of heaven.” Each case exemplifies the entry’s “both one and the other will be saved” — the martyr’s virtue becomes light, and the persecutor, confronted by what he cannot extinguish, follows the light into the mercy it opens. Stage One’s Acts 7:59–60/9:1–19 is the canonical type for all of Hogan’s examples: Stephen’s dying prayer for Paul is the apostolic template for every subsequent martyrdom-that-converts-a-persecutor.
The entry also introduces a note of pastoral tenderness at the movement’s close: the enemies will be saved. The purging is not punitive but redemptive at both ends. Those who persist in opposing the Church are not abandoned to their opposition but are drawn through it to the mercy their actions inadvertently served.
Divine Indignation at Concealment — The Covenant Demand for Disclosure
The entry’s most structurally significant movement is Christ’s explicit rejection of Luisa’s intercessory petition. She asks Christ not to permit the ministers’ faults to become known; Christ responds with indignation: “do not pray Me, for I become indignant. I want this matter to come out.” The divine anger is not at Luisa but at the logic of the petition — the institutional instinct toward concealment as pastoral protection.
Both citation streams converge on Matthew 10:26 and Mark 3:1–6. The Matthew text establishes the cosmic principle: nothing covered will remain covered; disclosure is the direction of reality. The Mark text provides the tonal key: Christ’s anger combined with grief at the hardness of heart that uses institutional authority to obstruct healing — the same structure as the indignation here, where the priests’ institutional authority is being used to obstruct the mercy that correction would bring.
Stage One extends the disclosure-imperative into two further dimensions. Ezekiel 3:18–20 (the watchman principle) provides the theological mechanism behind “by covering them, I would give them the field to commit greater evils”: concealment of known sin makes the concealer complicit in the sin’s continuation, and the guilt of the enabled further harm attaches to the concealer. 1 Corinthians 5:1–5 is the apostolic precedent: Paul’s condemnation of Corinthian complacency about ministerial immorality establishes that institutional cover-up is not humility or prudence but the arrogance of a community that has failed to mourn and act. Proverbs 28:13 adds the mercy dimension: the covering of transgression closes the path to the mercy that confession opens.
The indignation is therefore not arbitrary severity but the logic of love applied to institutional corruption: love that is hidden produces woe; sacrileges that are covered enable greater evils; the wound that is not lanced festers to a worse end. The cosmic disclosure principle and the Ezekiel complicity principle together explain why “I can take no more” is the response to a petition that Christ identifies as working against the very mercy Luisa intends to protect.
Luisa Commissioned as Heroine — PHD-1 Confirmed, CEA-1 Extended
The entry closes with the heroine-commission and the dual-target scourge announcement. Both movements connect to established tracking arcs. For PHD-1 (Operational-Withdrawal-During-Chastisement, register 12): the pattern established at November 1, 1910 — Christ withdrawing from Luisa to be free to execute justice without the mercy-triggering effect of her presence — is here confirmed. The heroine-commission is the positive form of the withdrawal: not merely the absence but the active trust — “I want to trust you, who are my daughter” — in her capacity to hold the interior space while the scourge is prepared.
The scourges prepared for “the secular and for the priests” is the first dual-target CEA-1 formulation. Prior CEA-1 entries have addressed either secular catastrophes or ecclesiastical strippings; this entry names both simultaneously as objects of the single divine preparation. The January 17 civil-compulsion register and the May 16 causal-rationale disclosure together explain the dual target: the internal wound induces the secular to rail, and both require the purging fire.
Hebrews 12:5–11 grounds the scourge as paternal discipline rather than punitive destruction: the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and every son he receives is chastised. The heroine’s commission to wait quietly (Lamentations 3:26–28) is the posture of the one who understands the discipline’s purpose while bearing its absence. 2 Timothy 2:3–4 names the commission in its military form: the good soldier who does not entangle herself in complaint but remains at her post. The heroine-language is the strongest vocation-confirmation language Christ uses of Luisa in the Volume 10 corpus to this point.
Synthesis
The dominant biblical imagination of this entry is the prophetic-disclosure tradition in its dual form: love must be expressed (Jeremiah 20:9; Song of Songs 8:6–7) and sin must be brought to light (Matthew 10:26; Ezekiel 3:18–20). Both imperatives are rooted in the same ontological principle: concealment is not a stable state but a violence against the nature of what is concealed, whether love or sin. Hidden love produces woe; covered sacrilege produces greater sacrilege.
The scriptural traditions most load-bearing for the entry are: Matthew 5:14–16 and Acts 7–9 (the virtue-as-light-for-enemies mechanism, confirmed hagiographically by Hogan), Ezekiel 3:18–20 (the watchman-complicity principle underlying Christ’s indignation), and the PHD-1 Hebrews 12/Lamentations 3 complex (the heroine-waiting as the positive form of operative withdrawal).
The three findings of highest theological significance: first, the divine indignation at Luisa’s petition to conceal is a rare instance of Christ correcting Luisa’s intercessory instinct directly, establishing that the institutional instinct toward concealment of priestly scandal operates against the divine will and against the mercy it intends to serve — the Ezekiel watchman principle makes concealment not prudential but formally complicit. Second, the both-saved structure — enemies purge the Church, virtues of the good become light for enemies, both are saved — completes the CEA-1 purging arc with an eschatological positive: the chastisement is not merely corrective but salvifically productive for the very instruments of chastisement. Third, the heroine-commission with dual-target scourge announcement advances CEA-1 to its broadest scope: secular and priestly alike are named as objects of the preparation, while Luisa holds the interior trust that the simultaneously executed divine operations require.
Observation Notes
See this note in volume context →
10-1911-06-07
CEA-1 — dual-target scourge formulation: “While I occupy Myself with preparing the scourges for the secular and for the priests” is the first explicit dual-target CEA-1 announcement in the corpus. Prior entries address secular catastrophes (natural and political) or ecclesiastical strippings separately; this entry names both simultaneously as the objects of a single divine preparation. The May 16 causal-rationale disclosure (internal wounds induce the secular to rail) supplies the explanatory link. Governing anchors: Hebrews 12:5–11; Isaiah 10:5–6.
PHD-1 — operational-withdrawal-during-chastisement confirmed: “While I occupy Myself with preparing the scourges” confirms the PHD-1 register 12 (opened November 1, 1910): Christ’s withdrawal from Luisa enables unimpeded preparation and administration of the scourge. The heroine-commission is the positive form of this withdrawal — active divine trust in Luisa’s capacity to hold the interior space without complaint. No new register added; existing register confirmed and strengthened.
Geographical annotation error — Hogan: Hogan identifies the Atlas martyrs (1996) as “French monks in Morocco.” The Tibhirine community was located in Algeria (Tibhirine is a village in the Atlas Mountains of Algeria), not Morocco. This is a factual error in Hogan’s historical annotation, not a scriptural citation error; not counted in the citation correction total.