If I were to run the Big City Standard Zoo, it would become a whole lot smaller. Snakes and turtles, birds and bugs would stay. But there’d be no mammals except for “rescues,” and they’d be temporary guests only.

Pleased with my zoological reform, I’m emboldened to think big. What if only for a day I ran the political zoo? Here in California, because of the machinations of the Duopoly, the American Solidarity Party needs 75,000 signatures to gain ballot access. No wonder that this week the independent candidate Cornel West charged that “much of American politics is highly gangster-like activity.” So here’s my electoral mandate. Henceforth the bean-counters can require a mere 10,000 signatures. That’s enough to dissuade opportunists without stifling resolute reformers.

What next? Pleased with my California correction, I turn, barely missing a beat, to Vatican diplomacy. Of late, it seems to be lighting a lamp only to put it under a bushel basket. Pope Francis finds and applauds a spirit of tolerance in Indonesia. But what happens when Christians want to build a church in Indonesia? They, too, must gather signatures—from 60 people of other faiths in the neighborhood. Then they must win the approval of a largely Muslim interfaith council. A tepid tolerance, indeed.

Still, such lenience would be hard to imagine in China. Never mind the Great Wall. Think of a Huge Cage. This week China recognized 95-year-old Bishop Melchior Shi Honghzen, years after Francis named him to lead the Diocese Tianjin. Nonetheless, the Vatican takes the bait. Shall we have smiles all around?

Meanwhile, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) reports that religious freedom waned in China last year due to the “Sinicization of religion.” Regulations already prevented Chinese under 18 years from entering a place of worship. My redirection for Vatican policy? Simple: Call things by their names!

No doubt, gentle reader, the thought crosses your mind that I’ve had my say and said quite enough. Nay, friend, this blog affords me an open, if mini, mic. It occurs to me that I might double down and, not satisfied with California or the Vatican, use this opportunity to take history itself to task. Blimey! Of course, turnaround is fair play, so I’m open to correction. After all, it’s fair play that’s at issue. A common criticism of Christianity is that it’s irremediably exclusivist. Revelation comes at a particular time, through a particular people, and in a particular place. Our “salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte) understands history in light of God’s saving acts and the redemptive role of Jesus Christ. It begins with Adam and looks forward to the end of time.

But why, I’m tempted to ask, the delay in Revelation? And why its particularity? After all, the New Law of Revelation is the law of grace, given in the Holy Spirit. Ought not this grace be offered to all? And might we not find the exclusiveness of particularity to breed intolerance? Having made my complaint, I find correction in Thomas Aquinas. The Common Doctor takes such questions seriously. He asks, “Whether the New Law Should Have Been Given from the Beginning of the World?” (ST I-II, q. 106, art. 3) He answers that perfection is accomplished over time. The Old Law led us to recognize our weakness. Thus St. Paul writes, “The Law entered in, that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound” (Romans 5:20). Christ overcame the sin that is an obstacle to grace.

Yet St. Thomas tellingly adds that “at all times there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament.” Here Wisdom 7:27 comes into play. “Although she is one, she can do all things, and she renews everything while herself perduring; passing into holy souls from age to age, she produces friends of God and prophets.” The economy of grace transcends historical boundaries. Grace is God’s pure gift; nowhere does it allow intolerance. Not in Indonesia. Not in China. Not, surely, in our hearts.