Into the Deep...

Into The Deep Has Moved!

2007-02-27T22:46:00.000-07:00

Please come visit us at our new home!

http://deepcast.blogspot.com

My, how they grow up....

2006-07-21T10:00:00.000-06:00

It's too bad, really. I remember watching her in concert a few years ago on TV. Now it appears that Charolette Church has pulled a Sinead O'Connor on British Television.

Link and story via Ignatius Press who have stopped carrying her CD's.

"Some discipline is necessary"...

2006-07-19T02:57:00.000-06:00

Every day, the archbishop disclosed, the Congregation for Divine Worship receives new complaints about serious liturgical abuses, and complaints that local bishops have failed to correct them. ... Liturgical guidelines are set forth clearly, he observed, in the Roman Missal and in Church documents. Now "some discipline is necessary regarding what we do at the altar."

And there was much rejoicing.

(For the record, I think we have pretty good liturgy at our parish. I might disagree with song selection occasionally... nothing abusive, however. But I have been to some masses in the valley with...uh, unusual... features.)

T-shirt philosophizing continues...

2006-07-19T02:35:00.000-06:00

You know, I think Brent's right, that guy's shirt was full of deep profundity. Peace IS there, if you want it - and if "there" is properly defined. It's not found in money or power or in diplomatic solutions to complex geopolitical crises. It's found in becoming what we were created to be... in joining ourselves to Jesus.

And last week, the Holy Father discussed another condition for peace: "...respect for the dignity of the human person is an essential condition for peace within the human family."

He was specifically speaking of the theme of the World Day of Peace, and as Brent noted, he formulates "peace" as a positive action rather than a passive state. Continuing (my emphases):

Propaganda and the growing acceptance of disordered lifestyles contrary to human dignity are weakening the hearts and minds of people to the point of extinguishing the desire for ordered and peaceful coexistence. All this represents a threat to humanity, because peace is in danger when human dignity is not respected and when social coexistence does nor seek the common good."

(snip)

Only through an awareness of the transcendent dignity of each man and woman can the human family follow the path that leads to peace and to communion with God," said the note. It concluded saying "any offence to the person is a threat to peace; any threat to peace is an offence to the truth of the person: 'The human person is the heart of peace'

Andrew Sullivan, Teddy Kennedy, and Maureen Dowd will surely not be pleased.

The continuing saga...

2006-07-19T02:17:00.000-06:00

Often when you talk to someone who is supportive of same-sex marriage, they will wonder how it is that those who oppose it can say "it will hurt the institution of marriage" or something similar. I've been asked many times why I think that allowing SSM would damage my own or anyone's marriage. This is a bit of either dishonest debating, or poor listening comprehension skills. Of course, no one seriously thinks that if SSM is allowed a bunch of straight people will suddenly get divorced. It's a matter of what it does to the IDEA of marriage - to what marriage is.

For example... we have this post by Stanley Kurtz, describing a plan to more or less abolish "marriage" in favor of "civil commitments" whatever that might mean.

For all this talk about abolishing marriage, I’ve never actually seen a legislative proposal that would do it. Now we’ve got one. In the wake of New York’s highest court’s refusal to find a right to same-sex marriage in New York’s constitution, Barbara Lifton, a New York State Assemblywoman (D-125th District), is proposing to eliminate marriage as a legal status, in favor of “civil commitments” for all. No doubt, that would allow same-sex couples to have “civil commitments.” And as we’ve seen with Kinsley and Turley, if we’re no longer talking about “marriage,” multi-partner “civil commitments” will surely follow. In any case, it wouldn’t take multi-partner unions to make the abolition of civil marriage a disaster. Just removing public support for marriage as an institution would be damaging enough.

rut-roh!

An Independence Day Reflection...

2006-07-19T02:05:00.000-06:00

by James V. Schall, S.J. can be found at the Ignatius website. The Nearly-Departed Michael Lee pointed it out to me. It is a fine piece of writing and an excellent reminder of where we came from. I especially liked this...

That is to say, [The United States] was founded by men who knew well the English and Western Christian tradition, themselves thinking with principles formulated in that tradition. These men who signed the Declaration also knew their Cicero and Aristotle, their Bible. They were presenting before mankind an argument that explained the validity of their political action. They did not intend to act unwisely or unreasonably. They knew it was a delicate situation that merited rational statement. They did not know whether they would succeed or not. No small part of their eventual success was in fact the persuasive force of their principles. But we know that rightness of cause does not, in world history, always assure political success. They had to risk, as they said at the end of the Declaration, their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred honor." Not all men are so willing. Men who have no conception of what this "risk" means have no grounds for freedom or to the truth on which it is based. Nor should they really live in regimes based on "sacred honor."

and this...

A number of years ago I wrote an essay in Modern Age (Spring, 1975) on teaching ancient and medieval political philosophy. There I argued, perhaps rashly, that one of the dangers involved in not taking religion seriously was the inability to understand other religions and what motivates them. At the time, I think I had more confidence in Christians understanding this importance than seculars. Sometimes I think modern liberalism and ecumenism have actually made other religions less--not more--intelligible to us.

The second excerpt reminds me of another Chesteron (?) truism... something along the lines of "the study of comparative religion is the quickest way to become comparatively religious"

Anyway, the essay is not long and I heartily recommend it.

Tour de Brent...

2006-07-19T02:02:00.000-06:00

Brent has been doing such a fine job, I hate to horn in on his blog-groove...

But I will anyway, if only to say that I've been enjoying your work Brent, and that there's no shame in randomly shouting "DIE EVIL WEEDS, DIE" as long as you are in your own back yard!

Peace is there. If you want it.

2006-07-15T00:15:00.000-06:00

So there I was... at a local buffet restaurant with my family. While we were eating, a middle-aged couple came in and set down in the booth next to us. While the gentleman was sitting down, I noticed that he had a big "peace sign" printed on the back of his t-shirt. Also printed on the shirt was "Peace is there. If you want it."

My initial reaction to the declarations of his garment could be described as negative. This reaction was exasperated by the fact that the front of his t-shirt had a close up image of the face of some hippie (probably some famous musician that I am blissfully unaware of) with "peace signs" in the place of the eyes.

I felt an instinctual dislike for the man, his shirt, his companion and the car he drove in on. I didn't even really care for his buffet selection... Who eats cherry jello with a green salad?! Freakin hippie...

Anyway, all of these things, I initially thought, were an unwelcome harshing of my dinnertime mellow. As time progressed, I had the opportunity to get over this initial reaction and contemplate the situation a bit deeper. Not much deeper, as I was also preventing my two-year-old from spreading his mashed potatoes all over the nearby window. But a bit deeper anyway...

My first realization was that I was, myself, wearing a Jesus t-shirt with the Apostles Creed printed on the back. So I couldn't credibly justify my negative reaction on the sole basis of garment-based-advertising.

Next, I recognized that the text of his message was not something that I disagreed with. In fact, that simple message is one that I enthusiastically endorse and regularly disseminate myself. Peace is, in fact, there if you want it.

I determined that the source of my reaction was the "peace sign." In my mind, this symbol is associated with immoral drug use and sexual behavior, discredited economic and political systems, obnoxious music and a vicious attack on God, human dignity and truth.

However the text, in-and-of itself, I very much agree with. Peace is there. If you want it. If the "peace sign" on the shirt were replaced with a cross or crucifix, I would buy such a shirt and wear it proudly. Well... we'd have to do something about the hippie on the front. Perhaps replace it with a nice, elegant monstrance or something...

So both I and the ex-hippie want peace. Great. We're finding some common ground here... That's me, a uniter, not a divider...

The open questions then remaining are the definition of peace and the source of that peace. Is peace defined in the negative? Does "peace" simply mean the absence of political and economic strife? Or is peace defined in the positive? Does peace exist and is it something that can be obtained? And if it can be obtained, how do we go about obtaining it?

The answer to the first part of these questions can be found in CCC #2304:

Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquility of order." Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.

So we see that peace is not merely the absence of strife. The catechism describes peace as something positive, namely "the tranquility of order."

We also see, in the footnote, that this definition is sourced from St. Augustine in City of God, Book 19, Chapter 13. It is always beneficial to look up these sources when you are trying to understand something. The catechism is designed to be a beginning, not an end. We affirm everything that is in the catechism as true, and then use the tools it provides to go even deeper:

Peace between man and God is the well-ordered obedience of faith to eternal law. Peace between man and man is well-ordered concord. Domestic peace is the well-ordered concord between those of the family who rule and those who obey. Civil peace is a similar concord among the citizens. The peace of the celestial city is the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. The peace of all things is the tranquility of order.

So we see here that peace is not merely the tranquility of order, but a well-ordered tranquility of order (concord). Therefore we cannot say that the murder of Jews in the holocaust was "peaceful" just because it was orderly and they went tranquilly. Nor can we say that the murder of millions of babies in the abortion holocaust is peaceful for the same reasons.

St. Thomas provides us with confirmation of this understanding in Summa Theologiae II q.29

There can be concord in evil between wicked men. But "there is no peace to the wicked" (Isaiah 48:22). Therefore peace is not the same as concord.
...
Peace includes concord and adds something thereto. Hence wherever peace is, there is concord, but there is not peace, wherever there is concord, if we give peace its proper meaning.
...
Augustine is speaking there of that peace which is between one man and another, and he says that this peace is concord, not indeed any kind of concord, but that which is well ordered, through one man agreeing with another in respect of something befitting to both of them.

I believe that my hippie dining companion and I will be parting company at this point. So much for my career as a uniter.

Since peace requires that the tranquility be well ordered, peace necessitates an acknowledgment of God. Without a creator there is no such thing as "well ordered." To be well ordered requires an objective "order" to which an action or situation can be compared. When driving a car, one knows if he is going the right way by measuring his distance from a known (objective) destination. If his destination does not exist, there is no way of telling whether he is getting closer. All directions would be equally valid, as there is no goal to be getting closer to. Without God, there is no objective difference between feeding a million hungry people or killing them. Only God has the competence to define such a moral compass.

With that background, the next paragraph of the catechism comes into context:

Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace." By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility," he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace." He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Given the context that we examined from St. Augustine and St. Thomas, we can see why the catechism makes this apparently sudden turn to discuss Christ. In Christ we see the perfect self revelation of God (even if we understand it imperfectly). To study the actions of Christ is to study the reality of the moral order which mirrors God's own nature. And we learn that our own efforts at peace must mirror the peace of Christ. This is the way that we go about discovering what is well ordered and what is not.

Now I'm certain that my hippie friend, upon reading the Creed on my own t-shirt, spent his dinner time ruminating on all of this. Hopefully he figured it all out and is currently enrolled in RCIA. But on the off chance that he's not...

I would like to conclude with the observation that the Christian understanding of peace is the only one that has ever worked. Notions of humanistic "peace" apart from God and based solely on politics and economics are an intellectual fantasy. There has never been a single example of prolonged social peace in the world. No matter how mankind has tinkered with political, economic and justice systems, we have had war, poverty and crime. Secondly, even small scale experiments of utopia creation have been short lived failures. Even with the protections of the United States Constitution, justice system, economy and military; communes such as those of the 1960s quickly die out. Imagine if they had been forced to go it completely on their own...

But there has been peace in the heart of man. People such as Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul the Great, St. Francis and the Little Flower show us that a deeply profound peace may be obtained, even in the midst of suffering and deprivation.

It is not the "order of tranquility" of society that is necessary to obtain peace. We've never had that, and never will this side of heaven. It is the well-ordered tranquility of a life of prayer and obedience that allows us to experience peace. That peace is not only possible, but guaranteed and eternal.

Peace is there. If you want it.

The hardest part

2006-07-12T23:02:00.000-06:00

So there I was... taking to someone about parenting. I made the comment that I think that we may be in the hardest part currently, as we have three kids, five years old and younger.

This person assured that this wasn't true, and that the hardest part was yet to come. When I asked why, she said that young kids can easily be made happy. A trip to the park or and ice cream cone will sooth all their hurts. However when they get older, they get emotionally hurt, and there's nothing that you can do about that.

Now this person is an accomplished parent, having raised three good kids. She may be right in some ways, but I also believe she is in error is some ways as well. This comment demonstrates an unhealthy level of self-reliance, and a danger of raising children to be overly reliant on their parents rather than Christ.

My job as a parent is not to eliminate the suffering of my children. Those are brave words that I often fail to live up to. Of course when my children are suffering, I suffer terribly along with them. I can't even imagine the suffering of parents whose children have terrible diseases or injuries.

However these cases show us our extreme limitations. It is not within our power as parents to eliminate the suffering of our children, whether they be big or small. Our job as parents is to teach our children how to suffer well. We teach them to unite their sufferings with the Passion of Christ, so that their suffering is not in vain, but powerful and redemptive. To eliminate suffering, if it were even possible, would be to eliminate one of the post powerful tools that the Holy Spirit uses to form their character and save their souls.

Of course the opposite extreme would also be untrue. We do not need to heap additional suffering on our children so that good may result. The world will provide plenty of this raw material on it's own. And when it comes, we need to have already prepared a foundation of prayer and virtue into which the suffering may fall, so that it may accomplish the end for which it was allowed.

And the suffering we experience at seeing them suffer, will do the same for us.

On the theology of eating...

2006-07-08T15:49:00.000-06:00

I've had a difficultly that has troubled me since I came into the Church. Why did God design us in such a way that our natural survival depends upon the destruction (often with suffering) of other creatures. Or to but it bluntly, why do we have to eat? I've asked this question to a bunch of different folks, and haven't really had a completely satisfying answer.

1. It has been argued that eating provides us with a type (foreshadowing) of the Eucharist. But with the Eucharist, we are not destroyed when we eat it. Quite the contrary, the Eucharist takes us up into the life of God and makes us who we truly are. When I eat a chicken, that chicken is completely assimilated into me and ceases to be a chicken.

2. It could be argued that animals preying on each other is not a bad thing. It is simply the way that God has designed the world and we should view it as natural and good... or at least neutral. The world exists to be ruled by us, and animals fulfill their purpose when they are eaten by man. However there's something about all the fear, pain and death that still strikes me as more demonic than divine, if there isn't a good reason for it. And it is that good reason which has eluded me.

3. Eating could be a result of the fallen world. However if an old earth theory is correct, animals were killing and devouring each other long before we came onto the scene. Thus it might have been part of the natural order as God created it. I have no idea if the old earth theory is correct. I've vacillated wildly on the question of evolution over the years, until I finally reached a conclusion that it would be proper for my to cultivate humility by not establishing opinions about things that I really know nothing about. Currently I would say that I'm an evolution agnostic. I don't need evolution to be false in the same way that an atheist needs evolution to be true.

4. C.S. Lewis speculates in The Problem of Pain that perhaps animals eating each other is the result of the activity of Satan before The Fall. The world was created in the midst of a spiritual civil war, and Satan was certainly present in the Garden before we fell. He could have been degrading and mutating the natural order for some time before we were created. This is the theory that I've tended towards.

A synthesis of these theories occurred to be today, that might together provide a satisfying resolution to the difficulty.

Reason #1 is correct in that eating is indeed a type of the Eucharist. But #4 may also be correct as it is also a warning of damnation. The Scripture speaks of Satan as a beast who devours everyone he can. In our fallen state, we often mirror the demonic as well as the divine. If we embrace the divine, we mirror the Trinity and embrace that which eating prefigures, which is our assumption into God. When we eat natural food we turn it into ourselves. When we eat the Eucharist, God instead turns us into Him. In this we are not destroyed but fulfilled. This is the positive prefigurement of eating.

But if we embrace the demonic through sin, it is us who are devoured. This is the completion of the negative warning of eating. We abandon God who is the source of what makes us more than mere animals. When we descend to this bestial level we, like the animals, are not fulfilled but destroyed. Note that "destroyed" in this sense does not mean cease to exist as it would for the chicken that I eat. We are still created in God's image which necessitates immortality. Destroyed in this sense means ruined and disgraced. However this is still much closer to the bestial side of eating and our own eating warns us of our own potential fate. Our physical hunger also warns us of the ravenousness of the demonic desire to consume us.

Theory #2 is correct in that man was placed in a position of kingship of the natural order. However we know through Christ that the leader is the servant of those in his charge. It would therefore be the mission and responsibility of man to deliver the fallen world back to God. This is part of the reason for the Incarnation. It was proper for a man to deliver the world back to God, but only God had the power to do so. Therefore the God-man came to accomplish this mission. It is therefore our mission to emulate Christ and, with his constant grace, to continue this ministry of the deliverance of the world.

As we consume the world, it is assimilated into us as we are being assumed into God. In this sense we are constantly fulfilling our mission of redeeming the world. Yes, there is fear, pain and death involved for the animals that we eat. However the Passion shows us that these are necessary elements of any work of redemption. I am not speaking of the “redemption” of an individual animal, but of the natural world as a whole. Animals are part of nature, in much the way that a tree or a cloud or beautiful sunsets are part of nature. However they are the apex of nature as they posses the dignity of a limited animal mind and natural soul. Nature, through the animals, undergoes a death which unites it to us and through us is redeemed to new life.

In retrospect, it is difficult to conceive of another way for nature, which is irrational, to be redemned. It cannot make a decision for itself. It would require the action of a rational being to unite itself to nature and then bring nature along with it in its own decision to accept redemption. In this sense, there is a strong analogy between Christ's saving acts to us, and our saving acts towards nature. Actually it goes beyond mere analogy, since it is Jesus under the form of the Eucharist that is the means of our assumption. It is therefore through Christ that we are accomplishing our work of the redemption of the natural order.

Finally, we are still fallen and need reminders of our kingly mission. If we did not need to eat, we would have a much greater degree of independence from the world. The need to eat constantly reminds us that if we do not pay attention to our mission of protecting and ruling the world, we will not long survive ourselves. It is also possible that our need to eat was greatly exasperated by the fall, as we were disgraced and descended into the bestial order. Thus theory #3 is correct in that much of the grittier aspects of our eating could indeed have been a result of the fall.

More thought and refinement of all of this is necessary. But I have some hope that a long standing question may be soon resolved.

That little thing called life...

2006-07-07T12:40:00.000-06:00

There's a nice piece in the WSJ today about the difficultity that geneticists have when they try to divine behavioral profiles out of genetic profiles.

The difficulty is that it usually doesn't work:

Geneticists on the trail of genes for human behavior have a 15-year record of finding DNA that increases the likelihood that a person will be neurotic, depressed, schizophrenic, a thrill seeker ... only to see other scientists claim their research shows that the gene is no more common in people with that trait than in anyone else.
...
Contrary to traditional understanding, genes don't lead inevitably to traits. Instead, says Darlene Francis of the University of California, Berkeley, scientists are discovering that "there is this intervening variable called life"...

It seems that even if a person has a particular genetic profile, it is actually life experience that is the determining factor. For example, people who carry an infamous mutation in the MAOA gene were thought to much more inclined to violent behavior. There was even talk of mandatory screening for the general population to identify carriers. However a recent study of 531 men in the United States concluded that this "violence gene" didn't live up to its reputation:

When psychologist Stephen Manuck of the University of Pittsburgh analyzed men carrying the short form of the MAOA gene, he told the ICN meeting, only those who held antisocial attitudes, who received little parental affection as kids and whose fathers had low levels of education also had a history of aggression.

It seems that life is indeed very likely to be the determining factor. And "life" is just another way of saying our actions and the actions of those around us, both good and evil. The article concludes by saying that:

Figuring out how experiences reach down into the double helix is this field's next big challenge.

This will doubtless come as depressing news for those who would use genetic determinism to rationalize their actions. I wonder if there are any brave geneticists, who are willing to end their careers, and apply this research to the question of the alleged genetic component in homosexuality. That would make for some very interesting reading indeed...

I said the wrong thing...

2006-07-07T01:19:00.000-06:00

So there I was... moving a couple cords of chopped fire wood away from the house, to a new pile at the other side of the yard. As we were nearing completion of the task, my five year old son really wanted to use the hose to clean up the site of the old wood pile. Sadly I had also just sprayed a small fortune in herbicide in the area. Needless to say, I didn't want him playing out there for his own safety, and I definitely didn't want him messing up my beautiful, beautiful poison..

Die Filthy Weeds!! DIIIIIIEEEEEeeeeeee!!!!...

Uh... hmmmm... any way...

He ended up being quite upset by this turn of events. I tried to explain my reasoning, but he kept coming up with counter arguments in that adorable way that only a five year old can. He also went above my head and tried to reason with my wife (the boy knows how the house works), but ultimately I had stop all the chatter by telling him that my answer was "no" and that was that. He would be allowed to do it first thing in the morning.

He hates to be seen crying, so he ran in the house holding in the tears in best he could. When we finished up the work and went inside, he was still pretty upset. He announced that he was "never going outside again!!!"

Note to my parents and siblings: I believe this proves my innocence of the charge that I, myself, was a five-year-old drama queen. Well, not really my innocence, but my lack of culpability. It's obviously genetic.

Anyway, I helped him reason through ramifications of this declaration, including the logical conclusion that we would no longer be needing the trampoline or the swing set (yes, I'm a very mean Daddy). He went away for a while, ate some food quietly, then eventuality came back and announced that "I said the wrong thing." When my wife asked what he had meant to say, he replied "I meant to say that I was sad."

Now I consider this to be a very mature and impressive act of introspection. I know many 40 year old (and just as many 60 year olds) who are incapable of objectively analyzing their actions, understanding the emotions that motivated their actions, and then have the ability and humility to verbalize what they have discovered. Granted he was likely very motivated by the fact that his Dad might just be crazy enough to hall off his trampoline... but that motivation uncovered the seeds of something very important (and noble) in my son.

While putting him to bed, we prayed for each other (if you aren't praying with your kids, you have no idea what you're missing) and he went to sleep... leaving me with additional time to ponder what this five year old had taught me.

How often I "say the wrong things" to my Father in heaven. How often my words and actions are temper tantrums because things aren't going the way I want them, right when I want them. How often my sins are really just me saying the wrong things.

I believe that I need to follow the example of my son, and go to my Father and admit that I said the wrong things...

Dear Heavenly Father.

When I was in the grips of worry about the future, I said the wrong thing. What I meant to say was that I was scared and I needed your comfort.

When I was envious of others, I said the wrong thing. What I meant to say was that I had a longing in my heart and that I needed you to fill it.

When I was lustful, I said the wrong thing. What I meant to say was that I needed to be accepted and loved.

When I was wrathful, I said the wrong thing. What I meant to say was that I needed to know that you had forgiven me.

When I was slothful, I said the wrong thing. What I meant to say was that I was that I needed you to renew me.

When I was prideful, I said the wrong thing. What I meant to say was that I felt small and I needed you to remind me that I am your beloved son.

Lord, please help me to say the right things the first time. Help me to recognize my needs, and always turn to you, the only one who can give me what I truly need.

The link to the removed link

2006-07-05T12:46:00.000-06:00

While ruminating on the bitter-sweet fact of the departure of the Lee family, I took a little trip down memory lane. This is a little story that I don't think I ever shared with Mr. Lee, so I'm sure he'll be thrilled to read it for the first time on a public blog... :P

A number of years back, I was deeply frustrated with my parish. There had been a change of pastor and I began to notice a steady erosion of orthodox teaching and liturgical faithfulness. I was younger and more innocent back then and this took me by surprise. I had experienced Catholic dissent before, but I had not consciously realized the scope of the problem, especially in our diocese. My experience of coming into the faith had been a holy nun who was my campus minister, EWTN and Catholic Answers. I just assumed (subconsciously) that most Catholics had the same world view, and that the dissenters were a sad, strange aberration at a couple rogue parishes.

Despite the changes at the parish, I kept on trying to do my best to work at the parish and do my part to keep things going in a positive direction. One of the tasks that I was volunteered for was to write a web site for the parish. On the completed site, I naively posted a link to EWTN on the links page.

Shortly thereafter, I was informed via email that the pastor did not "support Mother Angelica" and that the link was to be removed. I was dumbstruck. It was much like being informed that my beloved Grandmother, who I blindly assumed that everyone else loved as well, was not invited to the family reunion for some unknown reason.

I politely replied with an inquiry as to why he did not "support Mother Angelica." Just to give scope to the level of my innocence, I even defended EWTN by stating that "I've never seen anything on TV or heard anything on the radio that wasn't 100% orthodox." I'm sure that really helped my case with this pastor. I never received a reply.

Anyway, with that background, I dragged my discouraged self over to check out a parish in a nearby suburb. It had (and has) a reputation for orthodoxy. It also has the reputation as the fastest growing parish in the diocese... but that, I'm told, is complete coincidence [rolls eyes].

One of the first activities I went to was a teaching by our every own Mike Lee. It won't come as a surprise to anyone who has listened to our Into The Deep podcast that I was very impressed by Mike's teaching. But what I remember most was a list of recommended articles that he put up on a whiteboard. On the list was a link to EWTN.

I probably would have switched parishes eventually anyway. But seeing a simple link to EWTN sealed the deal and made the move immediate (the following Sunday). It was like discovering that it is only one, jealous uncle and his kids that didn't care for my saintly Grandmother. There was a whole other side of the family that knew what I knew, and saw what I saw.

Of course Mike had no idea where I was at spiritually at the time, or that simply seeing "EWTN" on a parish whiteboard would be water to my parched soul. But I'm glad that the Holy Spirit knew what I needed. And I'm glad that Mike isn't the sort of guy who would be afraid to recommend a good site, even knowing that it is opposed by so many in the diocese that employs him.

But mostly I'm grateful that it got me moving faster (a miracle in-and-of itself) and that I got an extra year-or-so of friendship with Mike Lee before he moves away. Looking back, it would have been a long shot for anyone to be seriously helped by that removed link to EWTN. But the removal of the link did me a world of good, though I could never have recognized it at the time.

Thank you Holy Spirit for always directing all things to good, for always bringing good out of evil, and for directing our lives with a sublime plan so much greater than that which we could ever dream to ask for.

Proximity

2006-07-04T23:38:00.000-06:00

So there I was... driving home from the grocery store, when a car full of chronologically challenged Americans (teen agers) pull up behind me. Now, I have nothing against teen agers. But I do have something against 180 decibel, acid rock shaking my car off the ground.

Rolling up the windows and turning to a Christian radio station provided me with a bit of an insight. The station was playing Sometimes By Step by Rich Mullens. Which, apart from being the "walk down the isle" song at our wedding, is a beautiful, symphonic melody. It was a striking counter point to the discordant and clashing acid rock "music".

This made me reflect on the order, design and symmetry of beauty, and the harsh disharmony of ugliness. I recall the words of Uncle Screwtape, that hell is a place of constant noise with absolutely no periods of silence. I would expect that the "song" those teens were listening to is on the Infernal Top 40 countdown.

But it also made me recognize that I got to choose what was close to me. Objectively, my factory installed, six inch speakers couldn't hope to compete with the earth shattering noise of the teens sub-woofers. But I could roll up my windows and with a modest increase in volume, Rich Mullen's melody pushed back the cacophony and made my little car a place of refuge.

The world can be a noisy, discordant and ugly place. But we get to choose what has proximity to us. Fill your homes, cars and (most importantly) your hearts with beauty. Think about the things of God, and the loud raging of the world fades into the background.

I think that the Saints are people who always have the beautiful music of God in their minds and hearts, to such an extent that even the worst ugliness fails to harm their peace. They battle evil as mighty warriors, but they truly are innocent as doves.

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night...

2006-07-04T09:57:00.000-06:00

There's a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hall
And the bells in the steeple too
And up in the nursery an absurd little bird
Is popping out to say "cuckoo"

Regretfully they tell us Cuckoo, cuckoo
But firmly they compel us Cuckoo, cuckoo
To say goodbye . . . to you

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night
I hate to go and leave this pretty sight

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, adieu
Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu

So long, farewell, au revoir, auf wiedersehen
I'd like to stay and taste my first champagne

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye
I leave and heave a sigh and say goodbye -- Goodbye!
I'm glad to go, I cannot tell a lie
I flit, I float, I fleetly flee, I fly
The sun has gone to bed and so must I

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye

We leave for Gaming, Austria 30 days from today. It is time for me to say auf Wiedersehen to the blog for the time being. I hope to rejoin once we get settled. However, that won't be for some time, I expect.

Thanks to my blog and podcast partners and very dear friends - Mike and Brent. You guys have done so much to help me develop as a disciple and a student. I am indebted to you forever!

To those who read the blog...thanks for stopping by and putting up with me. I learned more from writing and posting than you ever did in reading. May God bless you as you grow in his Son.

Finally, to my Lord and my God. You are ever faithful and have shown forth your generosity and love in so many miraculous ways. I have absolutely no idea why you would ever call a sinner such as myself - but I am so grateful for your merciful love. Let me only do your will and bring glory to your holy Name.

May God bless you all. Please pray for me and my family - that we serve the Lord with courage, boldness, humility, and love...

Dogma and Freedom...

2006-07-04T09:39:00.000-06:00

I don't remember which it was, Chesterton or CS Lewis, who said that it is the atheist* who is the real dogmatist. His example is the case of some supposedly miraculous event. He writes that the Christian is free to examine the event, study the circumstances and accept or reject the miraculous claim. Based on observation, science, or other factors, the Christian might even say "I don't know" in answer.

The atheist on the other hand, because of his a priori rejection of the supernatural, does not even need to examine the event - his dogma prevents any answer other than "false" and so he does not even need to examine the circumstances to know his answer. Which is more free to think and examine the world?

I bring this up because the Church is still exercising this freedom. Two stories about "miracles" in Catholic media this week.

First, this report from Buenos Aires regarding some alleged appearances of the Blessed Virgin to a woman in the Archdiocese:

Archbishop Cargnello said the archdiocese, “cannot endorse the extraordinary events as objectively true,” and he invited the faithful to seek their spiritual growth through the ministries offered by the Church in Salta. Obeid’s invitation to come to the hill, and the messages that are given there, are, “outside the [Church’s] pastoral direction,” he went on, “and consequently, the Church cannot endorse nor promote participation in them.”

Second, we have an example of what happens when the desire to believe something overpowers the will to be obedient sons and daughters. It is another disturbing chapter out of Bosnia-Herzegovina - Medjugorje.

The Catholic bishop whose diocese includes the town of Medjugorje has warned that "something similar to a schism" has arisen at the parish church where apparitions of the Virgin Mary are alleged to take place.

In a homily delivered in Medjugorje on the feast of Corpus Christi, Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, said that both he and his predecessor have expressed severe misgivings about the reported apparitions. He added that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI backed the judgments of the local bishops.
(snip)

Bishop Peric reminded his people of the restrictions that he has imposed on activities in Medjugorje. The parish church is not formally a "shrine," he said, and should not be characterized as such. Pilgrimages to the church are discouraged. Priests there are "not authorized to express their private views contrary to the official position of the Church on the so-called 'apparitions' and 'messages,' during celebrations of the sacraments, nor during other common acts of piety, nor in the Catholic media."

The bishops urged the "seers" of Medjugorje to "demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish."

Some of the Franciscan priests assigned to the Medjugorje parish, he said, have been expelled from their order because of their refusal to accept Church authority. "They have not only been illegally active in these parishes, but they have also administered the sacraments profanely, while others invalidly," he said. As Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, he said, he felt obliged to warn the faithful "who invalidly confess their sins to these priests and participate in sacrilegious liturgies."

The Church, because she is free, chooses her belief after investigation. The atheist and the superstitious have no such luxury. We can therefore test our faith, examine our beliefs and be assured. The atheist can never test his unbelief, because it does not allow questioning. It requires the conclusion before the analysis to maintain its "strength" such as it is.

*I use the word "atheist" throughout here because that is the word used in the orginial work that prompted my writing. "Materialist" or "skeptic" would work as well.

The role of the Church...

2006-07-03T14:43:00.000-06:00

Via Christopher at Against the Grain (sort of a RatzingerFanClub blog)...

I found this piece on JPII and immigration. It's quite good. And it reminds us why we should read things like Centesimus Annus and The Annual Message for Migration Day. Really - we should. Otherwise we miss John Paul II writing things like (emphasis and definitions mine):

Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.

(snip)

The Church acts in continuity with Christ's mission. In particular, she asks herself how to meet the needs, while respecting the law, of those persons who are not allowed to remain in a national territory. She also asks what the right to emigration is worth without the corresponding right to immigrate.

(snip)

I urge the particular Churches to encourage reflection, to issue directives and to provide information to help pastoral and social workers to act with discernment in so delicate and complex a matter.

And after we read that, CA reminds us that

The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution. Her contribution to the political order is precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its fullness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word.

(snip)

[A] task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

It is sometimes hard to discern what "the Church" teaches, I know. But to pretend she teaches nothing, and substitute our own beliefs or preferences, is to flail about blindly, with no guide. As Mike said in his comment below, the idea of "thinking with the mind of the Church" is key. It does take time to learn, as it's not a tool to pick up, but a skill to be learned. Learned at prayer, at study, and at the Sacraments.

A Commenter had a couple of great questions concerning baptism...

2006-06-28T15:19:00.000-06:00

A commenter to this post asked a couple of excellent questions about baptism. I thought it would be helpful to pull the questions from the commenter's box and do a full post on them.

The commenter's questions were:

...why was my wife told when she was investigating the Catholic Church years ago, that her Lutheran Baptism she received when she was a kid was considered "good to go" for the Catholic Church?

What happened to "One Baptism" which Baptism would that be?

If the Catholic church claims to be the one true Church, having authority given by Christ, then how can a Lutheran Baptism even be considered a baptism if the individual conducting it does not have proper authority?

The commenter is correct to state that there is "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" (Nicean Creed). We find this in Scripture in Ephesians 4:4-6:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Thus, the excellent questions above.

First, let's see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says on the topic.

The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

The footnote #81 is from the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) #3. Here is the pertinent portion of that paragraph:

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

(snip)

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God...(Emphasis mine)

(snip)

Footnote #82 of CCC #1271 quotes subparagraph 2 of Paragraph 22 in Unitatis Redintegratio. I am going to quote a bit more of it because it is germane to the questions.

22. Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: "You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead".

Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism...(Emphasis mine)

(snip)

So it is clear that the Church teaches that one who receives baptism "duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions" is baptised and "a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life". In other words, if one is properly baptised, they are truly baptised, are incorporated into Christ, and have a real, though imperfect communion with the Church (see CCC #1271 above).

The question then becomes twofold:

What is a duly administered baptism as our Lord instituted it?
What are the right dispositions?

In Catholic Sacramental theology and praxis, there must be several things present for a sacrament to be confected.

Form - The prayer of the minister of the Sacrament united with the High-Priestly prayer of Christ that brings about the sacrament by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In the case of baptism, this is to baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19)

Matter - This is the "stuff" of the sacrament - the symbol.

In the case of baptism, it is pure water that is conferred by immersion or pouring (over the head). (Cf. CCC #1239 for the essential rite.)

Minister - This is a person who has the authority given by Christ and the Church to confect the sacrament. There are different valid ministers for different sacraments.

For baptism, this is ordinarily a bishop, priest, or deacon. However, the Church considers baptism so crucial, necessary for salvation, that even lay people can baptize in cases of emergency. This is due to a lay person's participation in the priestly, kingly, and prophetic missions of Christ through their own baptism.

Intention - The minister must intend to do what the Church intends to do.

The Catechism states:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

The description of the "right dispositions" is found in Canon Law:

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

§2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

Subparagraph 2 would be the one that would apply to folks getting baptized outside of the Catholic Church.

What all this says is a 'Christian' baptism, that is valid as detailed in the parameters above, is a Catholic baptism.

I hope this helps!

Why we blog, part n....

2006-06-27T11:35:00.000-06:00

Occasionally, we discuss here the reasons we started this blog. I was reading the other day, and this article reminded me again of one of the reasons we do this.

Mr. Scheske says:

I delivered a speech to the Lansing Guild of Catholic Lawyers two weeks ago, on the topic Deus Caritas Est and the Practice of Law.

(snip)

I’d read large swaths of it previously, but hadn’t sat down and read it front to back. Perhaps you have not yet gotten around to doing that either. If so, I recommend that you make time for it. It’s very good.

I especially liked these words from section 28: “[I]t is not the Church’s responsibility to make [its social] teaching prevail in political life.” “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible.” The Church has only an “indirect duty” in political areas.

(snip)

In a theocracy, God speaks and society follows. It’s a stark-naked form of ruling. God’s word sits on society like a fat man on a little chair. The fat man doesn’t yield, he doesn’t compromise. He just sits and, if need be, crushes.

By contrast, religious opinion merely informs. It’s one player. It sits on a big couch with others.

What this tells me is that while the Church (as an institution) has a role that is indirect and as he says, informing. We as individuals have a role in actually implementing this. What the Holy Father says or writes, or what a Bishop or even "The Bishops" say or write is only just so much more noise, if we Catholics don't listen, and then go do.

It's great have Rome say that our immigration laws must be just; it is also meaningless if Catholics don't listen to that exhortation, learn what it means, and go into the process to make sure that really happens. Not everyone can be in the decision-makers role, but by voting, helping on campaigns, contributing their time/talent/treasure, we help make it happen. One way that I hope to make a contribution is through this blog. That whatever I've learned about, read about, heard about might be more widely known, so that more of us can participate in the business of informing the public square.

Determination in prayer

2006-06-25T22:52:00.000-06:00

Today's Meditation from Carmel is wonderful. There's many worse ways to spend five minutes than to give it a listen...

Popular Protestant Ecclesiology...

2006-06-22T20:47:00.000-06:00

I just got done reading a piece in First Things by Cardinal Avery Dulles. (Yeah, it is the February issue. But, hey, I am trying to move to Austria. Gimme a break 8^>). Anyhoo, Cardinal Dulles wrote a fantastic piece on the development and maturing of Pope Benedict's thought from immediately following the Second Vatican Council until recent years. I don't intend to comment on Pope Benedict's development since Cardinal Dulles did such a fine job.

I want to pull a particular paragraph out of the piece that struck me.

One of the most contentious issues in the interpretation of Lumen Gentium is the meaning of the statement that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Church. Some have interpreted it as an admission that the Church of Christ is found in many denominational churches, none of which can claim to be the one true Church. Ratzinger asserts the opposite. For him, "subsists" implies integral existence as a complete, self-contained subject. Thus the Catholic Church truly is the Church of Christ. But the term "subsists" is not exclusive; it allows for the possibility of ecclesial entities that are institutionally separate from the one Church. This dividedness, however, is not a desirable mutual complementarity of incomplete realizations but a deficiency that calls for healing.

There has been not a small amount of heat generated by the term "subsists in" in Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) #8. The explanation above is, as I understand, the intention of the Council Fathers.

The statement that really struck me was this: "This dividedness, however, is not a desirable mutual complementarity of incomplete realizations but a deficiency that calls for healing." What a mouthful!! Nevertheless, this one statement is an amazing summary of the state of the relationship between Christian denominations today.

The first section of the sentence, positively formulated, reads "This dividedness is a desirable mutual complementarity of incomplete realizations..." seems to be a very concise analysis of the typical Protestant view of denominational differences. These differences are seen as desirable because it is held that no one denomination has all of the truth or "incomplete realizations". It will only be in heaven that we will *really* know. Until then, we find a church that "fits" i.e., that makes us feel at home, has good preaching, music, take your pick...The "mutual complementarity" reflects the notion that, in essence, it takes all Protestant denominations (except ECUSA and PCUSA after this week) to encompass the totality of Christian revelation and praxis. We observe the many declarations and agreements between denominations that seem to be concerned with a unity bereft of a striving for a truth (certainly due to "incomplete realizations"). I have always been baffled that anyone could be comfortable with the thought that they are a part of a church that has incomplete truth! How do you know which part?!? Is it Eschatology? Justification? Predestination? Are you really sure there isn't something essential here? Are we obliged to search for truth? Doesn't God want us to worship him in spirit and TRUTH (cf. John 4:23-24)??? Didn't Jesus promise that the Spirit would lead us into the fullness of truth (John 16:13)?? Did he lie?? If not, we must assert and believe that there is a place where we can find the fullness of truth that Jesus came to reveal and the Holy Spirit was sent to preserve. We must worship in the fullness of truth in the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church views these divisions as "a deficiency that calls for healing." We remember clearly the prayer of Jesus in John 17:21-22 that beseeches the Father that we would be one as he and his Father are one, and St. Paul's clear teaching against divisions and dissensions. (1 Corinthians 1:10) How can the Body of Christ be divided? How can a body be rent asunder and remain a body? We must strive for UNITY in TRUTH as per the WILL of God, himself. Thus, we must seek the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church where we can be made one in the Eucharist as we worship in spirit and truth!

Response to a comment on marriage and priests...

2006-06-19T13:43:00.000-06:00

In response to my post about the Ten Principles of Marriage, which highlight the "Goodness" of marriage, a reader writes this:

I couldn't agree with this more, however, if marriage is such a wonderful thing, then why are catholic priests not allowed to marry? I am not trying to be captious, but actually looking for a better answer than ones I have been given in the past. Thanks.

Now first, I had to look up captious because I like new words, and I fully intend to use that word in the near future. Here's what I found:

cap·tious (kaep-shis) adj.
1. Marked by a disposition to find and point out trivial faults: a captious scholar.
2. Intended to entrap or confuse, as in an argument: a captious question.

I will assume the reader meant it in the second sense, and I have no doubt it is an honest question - it does seem contrary to talk about how good marriage is, and then ask our spiritual leaders to forego it.

In response, I guess first we have to make one thing clear. The celibacy requirement for Catholic clergy is not revelation or doctrine. It is a discipline. There is nothing inherent in ordination which disqualifies a man from marriage or sex; it is a lifestyle to which the Church requires a mans assent for ordination. It could be changed, and the Catholic Church could have married priests. We do not believe Jesus commanded celibacy. In fact, in the Eastern Church, married men may be ordained (though Bishops are celibate).

Okay, on to an explanation, and hopefully an answer to the question...

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, argues that it is easier to serve God in the single state than the married state - but he's careful not to make it obligatory. This bit of common sense has served the Church well. Can you imagine a priest with small children being called to administer the Sacaraments at 3AM in a hospital emergency room, or being called on his anniversary night to go sit with a crying woman who has just lost her husband? This is a argument from practicality.

For a more theological and, in my mind, complete explanation, Fr. William Saunders has a great column on celibacy and the priesthood. He quotes the Second Vatican Council:

The Second Vatican Council's "Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests" ("Presbyterorum Ordinis," 1965) asserted: "Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven was recommended by Christ our Lord. It has been freely accepted and laudably observed by many Christians down through the centuries as well as a feature of priestly life. For it is at once a sign of pastoral charity and an incentive to it as well as being in a special way a source of spiritual fruitfulness in the world" (No. 16).

While recognizing that the nature of the priesthood does not demand celibacy, the Council affirmed ways celibacy is in harmony with the priesthood: Through it, a priest, identifying himself with Christ, dedicates his whole life to the service of his Lord and the Church. Celibacy enables the priest to focus entirely on building up the kingdom of God here and now. Priests can "cling to Christ with undivided hearts and dedicate themselves more freely to Him and through Him to the service of God and men" (No. 16). They are a sign in this world of the Church's union with her spouse, Christ, and of the life in the world to come "in which the children of the resurrection shall neither be married nor take wives" (Lk 20:35-37).

... in the eschatalogical sense, the celibate life foreshadows a freedom we will have in heaven when perfectly united with God as His child...

Throughout the Church's teaching on celibacy, three important dimensions must be kept in mind. First, celibacy involves freedom. A man when called to Holy Orders freely accepts the obligation of celibacy, after prayerful reflection and consideration. Having made that decision, celibacy does grant the bishop, priest or deacon the freedom to identify with Christ and to serve Him and the Church without reservation, condition or hesitation.

Secondly, celibacy involves sacrifice, and a sacrifice is an act of love. For instance, when a man and a woman marry, they make a sacrifice to live "in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health until death." They sacrifice to live a faithful love, no longer dating others or giving into selfish pleasures. When they become father and mother, they sacrifice to support the raising of children. Decisions of love always entail sacrifice.

And so it is with the clergy. To be a priest means to make a sacrifice of oneself to Christ for the good of His Church. The priest sacrifices being married to a woman and having his own family to being "wedded" to Christ and His Church and serving their needs as "father."

Finally, celibacy requires the grace of God to be lived. Repeatedly, celibacy is seen as a gift of the Holy Spirit. However, this gift is not just to keep one's physical desires under control or to live as a bachelor; this gift is being able to say "yes" to our Lord each day and live His life.

Karl Keating (of CatholicAnswers) wrote something pretty similar:

Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

I hope this post, and the references within are a "better answer" than you've been given previously. If not, please feel free to use the comments box again, and thanks for reading.

The Need To Be Precise...

2006-06-16T22:59:00.000-06:00

The "I-Know-It-and-either-can't-explain-it-or-have-an-agenda" approach. This approach comes from either a) a person that cannot separate fact from theory, or "the new fad" from bedrock. They are very confusing as they attempt to resolve all modern contradictory theories into a coherent whole; or b) a wolf in sheepÂs clothing trying to lead people into their agenda.

Pope Benedict gives a great example of how NOT to do this in his book Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today. He steps away from mere theory and fad and teaches the truth from Magisterial teaching.

We are saying just now that it is necessary to remove from the dominant interpretations of a given epoch that the element that originates from contemporary ideology. We can now lay down the converse: compatibility with the base memory of the Church is the standard for judging what is to be considered historically and objectively accurate, as opposed to what does not come from the text of the bible but has its source in some private way of thinking. Both criteria - the negative criterion of ideology and the positive criterion of the basic ecclesial memory - compliment each other and can help us remain as close as possible to the biblical text without disregarding whatever real addition to knowledge the endeavor of the present can have in store for us. Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today pg. 20.

The person in a) above likely has uncritically accepted some form of subjectivism or relativism. We are circumspect to ever call an idea or theory ridiculous because all ideas have equal value since they are someone's opinion, idea of theory. That is simply subjectivism. When subjectivism weds itself to the culture of "nice", we lose and so does the truth. Precise thinking causes us to recognize errors in thinking (other's and our own) and moves us beyond subjective truth to objective truth.

The person in b) uses a lack of precision to twist the truth to fit their agenda. They are sophists (someone who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning.) trying to sound Catholic while rejecting and teaching things in direct contradiction to the Church's teaching. An example is the push by some for the ordination of women. They couch their position in the language of "justice" and "equality". However, I have yet to read one of them carefully refute the Church's constant teaching as proposed in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. They appeal to emotion and the "slogans" of modernity rather than the constant teaching of the Church to get what they want. Since when is it about us??

Thus, for any catechist it is essential to recognize these approaches. Not recognizing the first approach means our catechesis is imbued with theory but little solidity. It is a fanciful catechesis that is never rooted in truth and only will lead to confusion. We must pass on the bedrock of the faith and not fall into the temptation to chase after the "new" and "exciting". We are called to a deep understanding not simply a shallow faith that chases each new fancy out of a "spiritual boredom". I submit that if we are bored with the faith then our prayer life is immature and inconsistent, at best. Furthermore, we have not understood that which we have learned. Love loves to learn about the beloved.

Failure to discern the second causes our catechesis to promote an ideology rather than the truth based on an emotional argument. The beauty of it is we have a Mother, in the Church, that will lead us into truth. To teach ideology rather than the Church is to put oneself in grave risk by causing intellectual scandal:

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. Mk 9:42

and

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. Jas 3:1

To be a catechist is a great challenge and a great blessing! We have a huge responsibility, given to us by the Lord, that we must take very seriously. Nevertheless, it the most amazing blessing to teach others about the greatness and love of God!!

Edited 6/17 by Michael Lee.

True Catechesis...

2006-06-16T15:24:00.000-06:00

From Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation On Catechesis in Our time (Catechesi Tradendae):

Transmitting Christ's Teaching

6. Christocentricity in catechesis also means the intention to transmit not one's own teaching or that of some other master, but the teaching of Jesus Christ, the Truth that He communicates or, to put it more precisely, the Truth that He is.

This means the whole Christ as St. Paul reminds us of what he did;

When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

This is Christ as he is rather than how we might wish him to be.

We must therefore say that in catechesis it is Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God, who is taught - everything else is taught with reference to Him - and it is Christ alone who teaches - anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ's spokesman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips. Whatever be the level of his responsibility in the Church, every catechist must constantly endeavor to transmit by his teaching and behavior the teaching and life of Jesus.

Again, this removes any notion that we teach what we think or feel about what Jesus taught. We find this teaching in the Deposit of Faith. Thus, we speak with Christ's voice as handed on through the living, teaching office of the Church - the Magisterium.

He will not seek to keep directed towards himself and his personal opinions and attitudes the attention and the consent of the mind and heart of the person he is catechizing. Above all, he will not try to inculcate his personal opinions and options as if they expressed Christ's teaching and the lessons of His life.

THIS AIN'T ABOUT US - SO WE NEED TO GET OVER OURSELVES!!! We are here to point to Christ and him alone. Everything we do must be oriented to this fact. We fail as catechists to the extent that we give ourselves rather than give the Lord. One of the foundations of being able to give Christ is a profound, intimate prayer life. Only in the death of self in prayer can the death of self in catechesis be possible!!

Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Jesus: "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me." St. Paul did this when he was dealing with a question of prime importance: "I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you."

Obedience, docility, and humility are required. To "put on the mind that was in Christ Jesus" (Phl 2:5) is to be obedient unto death and to make the Father's will your food (Jn 4:34). The Father's will is to make "disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I [Jesus] commanded you" (Mt 28:19-20a)

What assiduous study of the word of God transmitted by the Church's magisterium, what profound familiarity with Christ and with the Father, what a spirit of prayer, what detachment from self must a catechist have in order that he can say: "My teaching is not mine!"

Here is the Holy Father saying so beautifully what I struggled to convey above! Let us carefully list the attributes a catechist must have:

Assiduous study of the word of God transmitted by the Church's magisterium.
Profound familiarity with Christ and with the Father.
A spirit of prayer.
Detachment from self.

All these things come by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We can't do this alone and must fight the tendency to self-reliance (see here and here). It is with humility, surrender and courage that we can fulfill the Father's will to give Christ to the nations.

Marriage and the Public Good...

2006-06-15T16:17:00.000-06:00

The Witherspoon Institute has published Ten Principles on Marriage and Public Policy. Many of the signatories are names you'll likely recognize. Here they are...

Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good

1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
4. Marriage protects and promotes the wellbeing of children.
5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
9. The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
10. "Civil marriage" and "religious marriage" cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.

Hard to imagine that these prinicples wouldn't be laughed at by a big chunk of Americans, including many Catholics - largely because of divorce. We have a tendency of saying to ourselves that if a statement about a group we belong to doesn't apply to us, the statement is false. Which is, of course, false. But appealing. I know I've talked about the "indissolubility of marriage" and had women laugh right in my face, saying "right, tell that to my ex-husband and his new wife" or something less polite, but similar.

The damage that divorce has caused is really a catalyst for the support for 'alternative' forms of marriage and for the lack of support marriage has. People experience the pain of divorce either as one of the spouses, or as a child in a divorced family, and statements like #'s 3 and 4 above ring hollow - even as #1 is ignored and the cost (a la #7) is obscured by well-meaning attempts by the state to compensate for broken families. Soon, the idea of family as a good doesn't make sense to people who just want to stop hurting - and when arguments about how "good" marriage is are used, they don't resonate, and may even seem like weak reasons to deny "happiness" to a group of people who also claim to be hurting.

So, while I think there is built-in resistance to things like this project - I wholeheartedly support it. I think it is a very Good Thing that the pro-marriage movement is beginning to think like this, rather than couching it in slogans like "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" which I saw on a church sign a few years ago. That's just preaching to the choir.

I read that Princeton professor Robert George has said that the "right side" of the marriage issue has not really engaged the popular debate yet, where the "wrong side" has made some headway. I hope that's true. And I think this is a good step in that direction

An atheist 'gets' what many Christians do not...

2006-06-15T15:52:00.000-06:00

I think this Op-Ed by Nat Hentoff is excellent. Not just because I agree with it, but because he's thought about what he's saying, and said it well. The bit at the beginning is NOT emotionalism or an attempt at manipulation; it's an example of effective use of an anecdote to illustrate a truth, which is then supported by reason or philosophical argument, or a combination of those. And it's good.

Two things struck me...

First, his encounter with Jesse Jackson (yes, THAT Jesse Jackson, the Reverend...)

He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life.
"That," he continued, "was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore out of your right to be concerned." This passionate reverend used to warn: "Don't let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn't a human being. That's how the whites dehumanized us... The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do and not even feel they'd done anything wrong."

Also, he has evidence from one who knows about the effect of abortion on other issues

Around the time of my conversation with Mr. Jackson on the train, I attended a conference on euthanasia at Clark College in Worcester, Mass. There, I met Derek Humphrey, the founder of the Hemlock Society, and already known internationally as a key proponent of the "death with dignity" movement.
He told me that for some years in this country, he had considerable difficulty getting his views about assisted suicide and, as he sees it, compassionate euthanasia, into the American press.
"But then," Mr. Humphrey told me, "a wonderful thing happened. It opened all the doors for me." "What was that wonderful thing?" I asked.
"Roe v. Wade," he answered.
The devaluing of human life as the 9-year-old at the dinner table put it more vividly did not end with making abortion legal, and therefore, to some people, moral. The word "baby" does not appear in Roe v. Wade, let alone the word "killing." And so, the termination of "lives not worth living" goes on.

We have become blind to life, blind to Good itself, in our quest to be "fulfilled" right here and (especially) right now.

Via Mark Shea

life, death, and the certainty of doctors...

2006-06-14T17:17:00.000-06:00

A few years ago, one of my dad's brothers had an "episode" of some sort that left him hooked to machines in the ICU. No one knew how long his breathing had been stopped before they found him - so for four days, he lay there - the doctors cautioning everyone that "even if he wakes up, it won't be Greg" and other warnings about being a 'vegetable'.

Then he woke up, and rapidly went back to being the same guy he'd always been.

There's also this- a frankly miraculaous story about a similar situation.

Unfortunately, another of my dad's brothers is now in the same ICU. He went motorcycle riding with some friends. They found him laying purple on the side of the road. Again, no one has any idea how long his breathing had been stopped, and again, the doctors say he's been "gone" since whatever unknown event knocked him off his bike (the wreck was caused by the event, not vice versa). So the doctors are telling his wife and daughter they should take him off the ventilator. I think they will, though it's just been four days, and that's when his brother woke up - so maybe they'll wait a couple more days.

Sadly, my dad's family (other than my father himself) are non-religious - nearly to the point of being anti-religious, and there will be no anointing, like there was in the case I linked above.

As Stephen Hand says, the doctors in his son's case kept saying every tiny step out of his coma was "just a reaction" or something similar. How many times does that happen? How many are not given the basic care their family wishes to give them, and are left to die, or even killed by the counsel of men and women who dogmatically reject the possibility of miracles?

I don't know what will happen to this uncle - perhaps they will give him some time, and then let the physical consequences of what happened take their course. They won't starve him to death, I'm sure. If he keeps breathing, he'll be fed. Death before old age always seems tragic. And it is perhaps more tragic when someone who does not know, and never seemed to want to know, about the Gospel is afflicted this way.

Either way- please pray for Jeremy Hand, and his continued recovery. And pray for my uncle and his family - a miracle at this point would probably induce some major worldview re-evaluations on the part of many of my fathers siblings.

And my aunt and cousin could use the help.

UPDATE: My uncle's ventilator was turned off, and he died yesterday afternoon. May God have mercy on his soul.

The Feast of Uncle Gilbert

2006-06-14T09:29:00.000-06:00

On this day 1936 G.K. Chesterton passed away. Which makes today a great opportunity to honor his memory through prayer and checking out his writtings.

Podcasting and Wednesday Audiences...

2006-06-13T23:57:00.000-06:00

I don't know if you've checked out our podcast page or not, but I'd invite you to take a look.

Currently, we're talking about Christ and his Church. Coincidentally, so is the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. In his regular Wednesday audience he's been discussing "the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the Church, considering it from the experience of the apostles in the light of the mission entrusted to them."

A few weeks ago he talked about the significance of the number of the apostles as it related historically to Israel. He even called the Church the "eschatalogical Israel" and "the living presence of the Risen Lord".

We've been using a book entitled "Called to Communion" about the nature of the Church as a basis for our discussions. Who wrote it? A guy named Ratzinger...

Salt and light

2006-06-13T11:59:00.000-06:00

Today's Gospel
Mt 5:13-16

Jesus said to his disciples:
"You are the salt of the earth.
But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned?
It is no longer good for anything
but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
You are the light of the world.
A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket;
it is set on a lampstand,
where it gives light to all in the house.
Just so, your light must shine before others,
that they may see your good deeds
and glorify your heavenly Father."

I'm a huge introvert. Really. And I think I would be a much better Protestant than a Catholic. Not just because of the (generally) less strident moral code. But also because the whole idea of "just Jesus 'n me" is really appealing....

Who wouldn't prefer to hang with Jesus instead of the so horribly fallen and broken members of humanity? On my bad days, I face an overwhelming tenancy to say "Hey! I've got mine. Best of luck to the rest of you."

But then there's these words of Christ. And built upon these words is the teaching of the Church on our unity of the people of God. They both make clear that to horde grace is to lose grace. Grace, like love, must be shared or it ceases to be what it is. It loses its flavor... and once that which gives flavor has lost its flavor, where else is there to go from there?

In addition to revelation, there's also common sense. If I were to attempt to remove the bonds of integration between myself and my neighbor, it would only damage and ultimately destroy me. To "disintegrate" something is just another way to say that it ceases to exist.

So, my dear Body of Christ, let's pick up our Rosaries and Bibles. The harvest is in, let's go work it.

Group photo

2006-06-13T11:56:00.000-06:00

In response to the many requests we've received for a group photo...

That's Mike Lee in the back seat.. I'm driving...

More on the Most Holy Trinity

2006-06-12T09:42:00.000-06:00

Pope Benedict spoke about the Trnity at the Angelus Adrress. Here is the text of his words from ZENIT:

On the Most Holy Trinity
"Lover, Beloved and Love"

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave today before praying the midday Angelus with the crowds gathered in St. Peter's Square.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

On this Sunday, following that of Pentecost, we celebrate the solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity.

Thanks to the Holy Spirit, who helps us to understand the words of Jesus and guides us into all the truth (John 14:26; 16:13), believers can know, so to speak, the intimacy of God himself, discovering that he is not infinite solitude, but communion of light and love, life given and received in an eternal dialogue between the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit -- lover, beloved and love, to recall St. Augustine.

So, no one can see God, but he himself has made himself known so that, with the Apostle John, we can affirm: "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16), "we know and believe the love God has for us" ("Deus Caritas Est," No. 1; cf. 1 John 4:16).

Whoever encounters Christ and enters into a relationship of friendship with him, receives the very Trinitarian communion in his own soul, in keeping with the promise of Jesus to his disciples: "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (John 14:23).

For him who has faith, the whole universe speaks of God one and triune. From interstellar space to microscopic particles, all that exists refers to a being who communicates himself in the multiplicity and variety of the elements, as in an immense symphony.

All beings are ordered according to a harmonic dynamism, which we can call, analogically, "love." But only in the human person, free and rational, this dynamism becomes spiritual, a responsible love, as response to God and to one's neighbor in a sincere gift of self. In this love the human being finds his truth and happiness.

Among the different analogies of the ineffable mystery of God one and triune, which believers have the capacity to perceive, I would like to mention the family. It is called to be a community of love and life, in which differences must come together to become a "parable of communion."

The masterpiece of the Most Holy Trinity among all creatures is the Virgin Mary: In her humble heart full of faith in God, he prepared a worthy dwelling for himself, to fulfill his mystery of salvation. Divine love found in her perfect correspondence, and the only-begotten Son was made man in her womb. With filial confidence let us turn to Mary, so that, with her help, we will be able to progress in love and make our lives songs of praise to the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

[Translation by ZENIT]

[At the end of the Angelus, the Pope greeted pilgrims in several languages. In English, he said:]

I greet all the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors present for this Angelus. Today we celebrate the great solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity.

In praising the Father who sent into the world the word who is truth and the Spirit who makes us holy, let us strengthen our commitment to bear witness to our faith, bringing Christ's "good news" to our families, our work places and all whom we meet.

Upon each of you and your loved ones at home, I invoke God's blessings of peace and joy!
ZE06061101

The Most Holy Trinity

2006-06-11T11:14:00.000-06:00

Today, in many parishes across the world, the homilies will follow the same pattern for this particular Solemnity.

Today we celebrate the feast of the Most Holy Trinity. The Trinity is a mystery, and as such we can understand very little about because the Trinity is totally beyond our comprehension. So since it is impossible to understand the Trinity, let's move onto other important practical matters.

Of course, it isn't exactly like that. However, in every homily about the Trinity I can remember, the take home message is "the Trinity is a mystery which means God is completely unknowable to us so don't even try". Everyone walks out with the notion re-enforced that we believe in some kind of myth that is relegated to the world of "blind-faith" and "subjectivism". No wonder people think, including many Catholics, that all religions are the same - based on a blind, unreasonable faith in something that has no grounding in objective reality. It only a matter of "faith", which means believing in something that is unreasonable and impossible in order to have some kind of comfort or explain some phenomena that science hasn't been able to explain, yet.

What a disservice we do the People of God when we speak in those terms!! THE TRINITY IS THE **CENTRAL** DOGMA OF CHRISTIANITY!!

Catechism of the Catholic Church #234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith". The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin". (Emphasis mine)

We, if we are saved, will spend eternity with the Triune God. Doesn't it then seem important to know as much about this Triune God of ours as possible? How can we love that which we do not know?

Yes, the Trinity is a mystery, no doubt. It is a theological mystery which means (this is even from Webster's online) :1 a : a religious truth that one can know only by revelation and cannot fully understand. So we can understand and know things about the Trinity through Divine Revelation. Our knowledge is deepened by applying reason, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to what is set forth by Revelation. Theology is faith seeking understanding. Yes, we will not fully understand. Here is an important point though, the Trinity is absolutely intelligible but not completely comprehensible. In other words, the Trinity makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable although we will never be able to fully comprehend the Trinity.

The Blessed Trinity is so important to know so we can love him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Furthermore, so many things about who we are become intelligible in the knowledge of God's inner life. We are created in his image and likeness. Again from the Catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church #236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.

So we can see God in his works and come to an understanding of God through his works. EVERYTHING flows from and ultimately returns to this awesome God of ours. Pope John Paul II described the Trinity as a family! "God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has in Himself fatherhood, sonship, and the essence of the family, which is love."

For an excellent explanation of the Trinity, I recommend Theology and Sanity or Theology for Beginners both by Frank Sheed.

Here is a link to a short piece on the Trinity at www.CatholicExchange.com.

Below is a fantastic short homily from the Papal Household Preacher on Trinity Sunday:

Code: ZE06060901

Date: 2006-06-09

Father Cantalamessa on Trinity Sunday

Pontifical Household Preacher on This Sunday's Gospel

ROME, JUNE 9, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Pontifical Household, on this Sunday's Gospel reading on the solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity.

* * *

A Close Mystery
Trinity Sunday

Christian life develops completely in the sign and presence of the Trinity. At the dawn of life, we were baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," and at the end, at our bedside, the words are recited: "Go forth from this world, O Christian soul, in the name of God, the Almighty Father who created you, in the name of Jesus Christ who redeemed you, and in the name of the Holy Spirit who sanctifies you."

Between these two extreme moments, there are others called of "transition" that, for a Christian, are marked by the invocation of the Trinity. In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, spouses are united in marriage and priests are consecrated by a bishop. In the past, contracts, sentences and all important acts of civil and religious life began in the name of the Trinity.

It is not true, therefore, that the Trinity is a remote mystery, irrelevant to everyday life. On the contrary, they are the three most "intimate" persons in life: They are not outside of us, as a wife or husband is, but within us. "They make their home in us" (John 14:23); we are their "temple."

But, why do Christians believe in the Trinity? Isn't it already difficult enough to believe that God exists, and then we add that he is "one and triune"? Christians believe that God is one and triune because they believe that God is love! The revelation of God as love, made by Jesus, has "obliged" one to admit the Trinity. It is not a human invention.

If God is love, he has to love someone. There is no love "in the void," without an object. But, whom does God love to be defined love. Men? But men have existed only for thousands of years, no more. The cosmos? The universe? The universe has existed only for billions of years. Before, whom did God love, to be able to define himself love? We cannot say that he loved himself, because this would not be love but egoism and narcissism.

This is the answer of Christian revelation: God is love because from eternity he has "in his bosom" a son, the Word, the one he loves with an infinite love, that is, with the Holy Spirit. In every love there are always three realities or subjects: one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them.

The Christian God is one and triune because he is communion of love. In love, unity and plurality are reconciled; love creates unity in diversity: unity of intentions, of thought, of will; diversity of subjects, of characteristics and, in the human realm, of sex. In this connection, the family is the least imperfect image of the Trinity. It was no accident that when creating the first human couple God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26-27).

According to modern atheists, God is no more than a projection that man makes of himself, as one who confuses with another person his own image reflected in a stream. This might be true in regard to any other idea of God, but not in regard to the Christian God. What need would man have to divide himself in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if God is really no more than the projection that man makes of his own image? The doctrine of the Trinity is, on its own, the best antidote to modern atheism.

Do you find all this too difficult? Have you understood little? I will tell you not to worry. When one is on the shore of a lake or a sea, and wishes to know what is on the other side, what is most important is not to sharpen one's sight and try to scan the horizon, but to get into the boat that takes one to that shore.

With the Trinity, what is most important is not to ruminate on the mystery, but to remain in the faith of the Church, which is the boat that takes one to the Trinity.

[Translation and adaptation from the Italian by ZENIT]

We worship you, O Blessed Trinity, undivided Unity. "To you, O blessed Trinity, be worship and honor, glory and power, praise and joyful adoration through eternal ages. Amen." (Antiphon 1; Morning Prayer, Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, Liturgy of the Hours.)

Shepherd Me, O God...

2006-06-07T10:58:00.000-06:00

There is much kerfuffle out there about sacred music. I am no expert and don't have any intention of getting into that here. However, there was a line to a song, commonly sung, that really struck me the other day.

Shepherd me, O God, beyond my wants, beyond my fears, from death into life.

We have all probably sung those lines a million times...but have we ever prayed and reflected on them?

Oh how often my wants and fears get in the way of me fulfilling God's will in my life! How often do we not even consider a prompting of the Holy Spirit. We dismiss it as impossible when the real reason we dismiss is that it scares us or would cost us too much. We don't want to give up our home, our comfort, our wealth, our stability for anything or anyone. Those things are our right! But these things are not what we as Catholics are about. We should be generous, docile, obedient. Ready to go at the slightest prompting of the Holy Spirit no matter the cost.

The second part of this refrain tells us why. Our surrender to God's will, that always takes us beyond ourselves, is what brings us from death into life! We have to let the Lord take us beyond our selfishness to live for him and him alone.

He is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Therefore, we can trust. We can take the risks of going beyond ourselves knowing that the Shepherd is there to catch, protect, and console.

It is hard to be taken beyond yourself. It is scary to let go. But we must stop looking at the waves (Mt 14:25-31) that make us sink away from God's will and keep our eyes locked on Jesus', the Good Shepherd. It is then that we live the supernatural life of a saint (that ALL of us are called to live), vibrating at the Spirit's touch, bringing HIS life into the world.

Today have the courage to say "yes" to what God is calling you to! Be brave! Be of courage! For the Lord our God is with us wherever we go!

The Need To Be Precise...

2006-06-05T16:15:00.000-06:00

Below I attempted to reflect on the need for precision, I reflected on some pretty obvious principles. We have to know Church teaching to be precise about Church teaching! Eureka! What an insight!! lol! 8^>

Anyway, today I want to explore an example of where imprecision affects the passing on of the faith.

The "Only Need To Love Jesus"approach. This approach asks "why-do-we-really-need-to-know-this-stuff-when-all-that-we-need-to-do-is-love-Jesus?". To this mind-set, the precise formulations of theology and philosophy are either a waste of time or at least unnecessary. All this thinking gets in the way of feeling, and the focus should be passing on God's love. This typically flows from a poorly catechized individual who doesn't care to know, minimizes the need to know out of guilt or embarrassment, or simply thinks that the only thing that matters is their conception of what God's love is. What folks don't understand is that they make those comments standing on 2000 years of "Catholic Capital". What I mean is that we have the possibility to think this way because of all the careful formulations that have been made over the centuries. Christ's divinity and humanity, the Blessed Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the parameters of justification etc, etc, etc, have been carefully argued, discerned, and described. We can just go to the Catechism and find these 'facts'. We have no idea of the conflict and difficulties that were inherent to these formulations.

People have a right to the truth. Not the truth as we conceive of it, but the truth. It is our responsibility to give that to them in its fullness to the best of our ability. "Catholic Capital" is disappearing rapidly as so-called scholars assail the teachings of the Church with Gnostic "gospels" (think the "gospel" of Judas) and wacky theology (think Da Vinci Code). Many, many Catholics can't defend themselves and so see no problem with Jesus being married, etc. That is a failure of passing on the truth about Jesus. We can hand on Christ's love while we teach the truth about him.

I posted this quote from the Latin American Bishops sometime ago:

"The enemies of the Church are drudging up old arguments, apocryphal writings in order to confuse the people, and if people do not study their faith, they will get confused," said Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara, Mexico. The cardinal said, "If Catholics adequately study their faith, nothing would be able to shake it, not even their enemies." He also called on the faithful to not be fooled by "apocryphal writings that only carry with them a host of lies and fables."

We must be the ones to lead the people to study their faith (even children!!). To do so, we must know it ourselves.

Polygamy - the nose under the tent?

2006-06-02T13:32:00.000-06:00

As I wrote before, understanding what is going on with current issues is important, even if we aren't directly involved in them. Once again, Stanley Kurtz is engaging difficult issues, and providing us with lots of great insight. His latest is in the Weekly Standard, or rather, on it - it's the cover story. It's titled Polygamy v. Democracy (you can't have both). It's long, but worth it, if you want to understand how culture is used to get things done.

He starts with some history of polygamy and the recent trend of some culturally left law professors who support "traditional" patriarchal polygamy.

Of course, liberal law professors aren't defending polygamy out of affection for patriarchy. Their goal is to establish the principle that individuals have the right to create and define their families as they see fit. Ultimately, that would put same-sex marriage, polyamory, nonsexual group partnerships, and even singlehood on a par with traditional marriage, resulting in the effective abolition of marriage itself as a legal status.

So there is increasing recognition among legal professionals that, along the way to achieving the full-fledged deconstruction of marriage promised by free-form polyamory, it is necessary to make a case for "patriarchal" polygamy as well. Big Love is a product of this line of thinking. As long as traditional polygamy is illegal, the way is also barred to postmodern polyamory. And although Lawrence v. Texas may have opened the door to polygamy, one great legal obstacle to the slide down the slippery slope remains: Reynolds v. United States, the 1878 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of antipolygamy laws. That is why Reynolds is target number one of the new wave of advocacy for legalized polygamy/polyamory. Reynolds has long been in the crosshairs of an older wave of polygamy advocacy as well. Harvard's Laurence Tribe is only the most prominent of a group of old-line liberal legal scholars who have long called for constitutional protection of polygamy on libertarian grounds.

He then gives a lot of history of Mormon polygamy in the US, and the long struggle to eliminate it in the Utah Territory before the granting of statehood. This part is very instructive on the incompatibility between democracy and polygamy. He also examines why so many non-Mormon Americans were opposed to the polygamous theocracy that was the Utah Territory.

Why were Americans outraged by polygamy? In a word, because of love. The idea of love as central to marriage, by no means common in the world at large, has a long history in the West, going back to the Bible, notably the letters of Paul. Even so, romantic love as the fundamental pillar of marriage (alongside parenthood, of course) truly came into its own in the mid-nineteenth century. Polygamy was an offense against love, the structural glue of American marriage. To those who valued companionate love, polygamy seemed little better than slavery.

Drawing up his world, US, French, and Canadian examples, he gets to the point...

More important, by training us to see marriage as a civil rights issue, gay marriage advocates have largely defanged all of these structural arguments. Redefining the family is increasingly seen as a fundamental right. And the courts are beginning to agree. In his prize-winning law review essay "Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy," Michael Myers argues that if the Supreme Court interprets Lawrence v. Texas the way the Massachusetts Supreme Court did in its decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the right to polygamy will logically follow.

The solution is to treat marriage as a social institution whose fundamental purpose is to encourage mothers and fathers to build stable families for the children they create. Same-sex marriage breaks this understanding, thus encouraging the sort of unstable parental cohabitation we see in Europe, where cohabiting parents break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. And polygamy undercuts companionate monogamy, the only form of marriage that can function in a modern liberal society. What's needed, then, is the revitalization of a richer understanding of marriage as a culturally specific social form--precisely the approach taken in Reynolds v. United States.

Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.

Print the article and read a page every night until you're through it.

Incoherent arguments...

2006-06-02T12:51:00.000-06:00

I've written many times here about gay marriage, and about where it leads.

Here is a story almost too unbelievable to be true. Yes, Dutch pedophiles are forming their own political party based on a plan to "push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals..."

What's the argument? Uh... "A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

Reading the article two things struck me.

First the article says that the announcement sparked "widespread outrage" and that "An opinion poll ... showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal."

Second, the article acknowledged that The Netherlands has liberalized it's stance on drugs, prostitution and gay marriage over the years.

This shows the flaw in the argumentation of most supporters of SS marriage. Various officials called pedophilia "sick", "taboo", and "shocking" - which is curious. The Dutch, according to Stanley Kurtz, "Ever-larger percentages of the Dutch public came to favor same-sex marriage: it was at 73 percent by 1995."

The arguments FOR SS marriage are based on personal autonomy, sexual liberty, and the twin towers of "consent" and "it's not hurting anyone" - all of which apply to at least some of what the NVD (pedophile party: in Dutch it's Charity, Freedom, Diversity), is proposing.

Put another way; how does one argue that pedophilia is sick and should remain taboo when one dismissed those same arguments against SS marriage as narrow-minded bigotry?

Well, you can't make a coherent argument that they are different. The only argument that "works" for SS marriage is so comprehensive that to assent to it requires assent to pedophilia, bestiality, and worse.

Much is made about how gay people are "just like anyone else" which is true ontologically - we are all human beings, made in the image and likeness of God. But what we do distinguishes us from each other. And so SS marriage proponents have been able to separate "gay" from "pedophile", etc. And I think that there is a difference, most gay people want to be with adult humans, not animals or children. But the argument that they should be allowed to do what makes them happy is too successful. It arbitrarily chooses one traditionally taboo behavior and says that we should all accept it - but not other behaviors. Meaning we have no recourse to taboo or tradition when the next behavior is brought to us, demanding "tolerance".

This is a wake up call. The Netherlands is "the world's California" by which I mean that all sorts of nonsense gets tried there first. It is reported as a success by sympathetic media, and then used as a lever to institute nonsense in other locations. California is the nonsense incubator here, though Massachusetts is making a run. Even if this fails, it's another step down the slippery slope.

We all need to be able to discuss this politely and rationally with our friends and family

Okay, I'm not entirely comfortable...

2006-06-01T17:24:00.000-06:00

.. with this, but let's see how it goes.

First read these:

Recap of Massachusetts' putting Catholic Charities out of adoption business

Volunteer Firefighter loses job over gay-marriage position

Then click here and let your senators know how you want them to vote on the measure that will protect us from the imposition of gay marriage by a few judges.

The Need To Be Precise...

2006-05-31T11:23:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Mike E. below, I am reminded of one of the purposes of this blog. We desire to help folks who teach or explain the faith to be more effective. We do this by emphasizing our interior life as the foundation of our life and ministry.

Over the past several days I have been reminded of the need to be precise when we are teaching the faith whether speaking or writing. We have to carefully guard against a “shotgun approach” to teaching (where it is good enough if it is close enough). There seem to several general principles that can help prevent these problems. I would like to explore and reflect on these principles over the next few days. These are far from exhaustive or Magisterial.

First, we must be formed ourselves. We can’t leave it to others to be formed, and we follow them. Therefore:

1. We have to know what we are talking about. We must be coming to an ever deeper knowledge and love of God and his Word. Knowledge of God is crucial. We must know him to love him. We must know him to teach others about him.

2. We must know more deeply than simply a vague understanding of what we teach. This must go deeper than just an assortment of facts to a real understanding. We can know that Jesus was one person with two natures but what does that mean? How can we understand?

3. We must not only ‘know’ doctrine etc., but we must think deeply about it to see the connections to other teachings, to its Scriptural foundations, and what follows from that particular doctrine. Our faith isn’t contained in discreet packets of information. It is contained in a Person. Therefore, we must make these connections so we understand the ramifications of a particular doctrine on the formulation and understanding of others.

4. We have to “stay within ourselves”. Many years ago, I was an avid golfer who was quite competitive, especially with myself. A principal that was continuously demonstrated to me was the harder you swung the shorter the drive was. My father used to tell me all the time to “swing-within-myself”. In other words, to press or push my swing made me miss rather than swinging in the manner that I could comfortably. We do this intellectually, also. We have to be careful that we understand the limitations of our knowledge so that we don’t overreach our knowledge and teach error. This is so easy to do out of the desire to help and the fear of not knowing. This particular principle is the one I worry about the most, personally.

5. We must ‘know about’ in the context of ‘knowing’. All of the knowledge and intellectual acumen in the world means nothing without love. As St. Paul emphatically states,

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2

Our prayer life is crucial to our intellectual life. Period.

These things don’t happen overnight. This is a lifelong project to grow as faithful Catholics and catechists. The important thing is that we are growing in truth and love everyday.

Say Hello to Heaven...

2006-05-30T09:50:00.000-06:00

Another good article on CatholicExchange. This one is about heaven, and how we think about it.

Perhaps we do not think of heaven because we think that it is wrong to work for a reward; we think that we should serve God out of disinterested love. Jesus didn’t think so. ... He begins His Sermon on the Mount with the Beatitudes, each of which promises a reward. ...

“Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” This amazing paradox of Christianity is one of the few texts found in all four Gospels (Mt 10:39; Mk 8:35; Lk 9:24; Jn 12:25). This is the kenosis of the Incarnation (Phil 2: 5-11) and the Paschal Mystery (Mk 8: 31). Love is always fulfilling itself by emptying itself.
Perhaps we do not think often of heaven because we have some strange ideas of what heaven will be like. We pray, “Eternal rest grant unto them O Lord.” Who wants to sleep all the time? And how can we rest under all those bright lights? “Let perpetual light shine upon them.” Who can get excited about riding around on a damp cloud all day playing a harp, or perhaps today it is a guitar. “Green Pastures” and an “Everlasting Fish Fry” are not very attractive either. “Will there be sex in heaven?” If you answer no, people lose interest. If sex is what you want in heaven that is what you will have, because in heaven all of our desires will be perfectly satiated. But you won’t want that in heaven. You don’t want a creature when you have the Creator. If such insignificant creatures as a marijuana weed, a poppy seed, a cocoa leaf can give such pleasure, what do you think the Creator can give? Don’t worry — you won’t be disappointed.

Being or Nothingness - which will we choose? ...

2006-05-30T09:27:00.000-06:00

George Weigel writes in Catholic Exchange today about a conference he and Cardinal Schoenborn put together to discuss the state of western society and Catholicism.

The article is interesting and makes a good case for Weigel's book The Cube and the Cathedral as a good resource for a basic understanding of what makes secular western man tick.

In Vienna, however, he insisted that nihilism — a soured cynicism about the mystery and wonder of being — is the prior enemy-within-the-gates. For nihilism leads to deep skepticism about the human capacity to know the truth of anything; skepticism leads to what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger described on April 18, 2005, as the “dictatorship of relativism;” and relativism is a solvent eating away the foundations of western self-understanding, western civilizational morale — and the western capacity for intelligent self-defense.

The reason I blog this at all is that one mission of this blog is to help catechists - and anyone else who wants to help explain the faith to others - do their jobs. In order to explain and discuss Catholicism with "modern Western secular-humanists" one needs to understand what they are, what their assumptions are, and how they look at the world.

Nihilism is a powerful worldview. Once it is embraced, escape is difficult. I have two friends who are very nihilistic in their viewpoint - talking with them has been very difficult. In many years of discussion, the only progress I've made is to convince them that I am sincere in my belief, and am not "just using it as a shield against the crushing pointlessness of reality."

Seriously, that is how they talk! I haven't read Weigel's book yet (it's on my Amazon wish list), but the reviews have been generally good, and and if the driving force behind the Catechism found it interesting, I'm sure there's something to it. Ask your library to get it if you're not a bibliophile.

Debunking something more important than DVC...

2006-05-25T10:57:00.000-06:00

Now, it's all well and good to set the record straight regarding Dan Brown's "informed fiction" and I'm glad to pass on the work of others in that direction. But there are other things going on which deserve our attention as well.

One is the widely held idea that gay marriage "isn't going to have an effect" on real marriage. This is often thrown out by gay-marriage apologists as the unanswerable coup de grace against the opposition; usually phrased "Oh, please. How is letting two people who love each other get married going to damage your marriage, or anyone else's?"

Well, Stanley Kurtz has collected some pretty impressive evidence. Not the forensic kind, but the philosophical kind. He has a long piece on NRO today, recounting how many European sociologist believe that gay marriage and it's derivatives are 'changing' heterosexual marriage - i.e. undermining it.

Still confused? Then I’ll make my point succinctly: Gay marriage undermines marriage. You see, it turns out that this decidedly conservative observation is entirely consistent with the views of some of the most influential sociologists in Europe (and their followers here in America). I’ve been quoting and paraphrasing these prominent sociologists to show that I’m far from the only one who connects same-sex marriage with the decline of traditional marriage.

Of course, “hip-and-happening” left-leaning sociologists would be loathe to put the matter precisely the way I do. For fear of scaring the public away from still more change, they’d be careful not to offer a detailed causal case showing that gay marriage undermines marriage. Above all, Europe’s sociologists (and their American fellow travelers) actually celebrate and promote the decline of the traditional family that is signaled and advanced by same-sex marriage.

But strip away the jargon, drop the element of celebration, and it turns out that conservative opponents of same-sex marriage and some of Europe’s most influential sociologists are saying much the same thing: Same-sex marriage doesn’t reinforce marriage; instead, it upends marriage, and helps build acceptance for a host of other mutually reinforcing changes (like single parenting, parental cohabitation, and multi-partner unions) that only serve to weaken marriage. In short, “the queering of the social” (meaning a broad spectrum of family change, including, but not limited to, same-sex partnerships) calls into question the normativity and naturalness of “heterorelationality” (i.e., traditional marriage).

Like I said it's long, but it is good. If you want to be able to answer that 'unanswerable' question intelligently, it's a useful tool to help you be able to understand what some people who support SSM are thinking about, and how to articulate the consequences of those ideas.

Opus Dei "Light"? ...

2006-05-25T01:15:00.000-06:00

Uhhh....
Not sure that this prediction is really going to catch on, but you never know.

I can imagine a few celebrities who could benefit from a little discipline.

"I have small children that I want to keep Christian"...

2006-05-18T00:57:00.000-06:00

Some of you may have read about Rod Dreher and his consideration of leaving Catholicism for the Eastern Church. Now, I disagree with Rod on any number of things...mostly because he suffers from the exact condition he ascribes to "mainstream conservatives" and "most" of the Right. He accuses them (me?) of placing economic theory and efficiency at the center of things where God should be, which is what he does- he places opposition to that philosophy at the center where God should be. He's become obsessed with what he thinks shouldn't be at the center to the point of well...putting it at the center.

Anyway, that's not the point of this post. In the post I linked above, Rod relates a story:

Many's the time I've regretted how high-handed I was with my friend the Religion Reporter, who was leaving Evangelicalism for either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, he couldn't decide which. I made the argument -- this was 10 years ago -- for Catholicism. He said, "But I can't see raising my kids in Catholicism." I took umbrage at this, and thought he was making a comment about the sex abuse scandals of the past (this was 1996; little did I know what was in store for all of us). No, he said, you don't get it: I have small children that I want to keep Christian. I have been covering American religion for many years, and I know what life is like in most parishes. Over and over again, I have seen the magnificent teaching and witness of John Paul II and the Catholic tradition undermined and even rejected at the parish level. I honestly don't know if I could keep my kids Catholic in the American church -- or even Christian.

Dreher says that didn't make sense to him when he heard it 10 years ago, but now... well, it resonates with him.

I have to admit I've had similar thoughts as his friend; many Catholics are ignorant of even the basic tenets of the Faith, but have absorbed a ton of "the Conscience must be obeyed" crap from uninformed (and unformed) priests, catechists, and friends. This results in highly developed and truth-resistant egos. I'm talking about within the Church; one can't even draw back from "the world" to get respite from relativistic, consequentialist morality and a materialist, self-worshipping culture. For heaven's sake, we have a priest in our own diocese who publicly and flagrantly dissents from a core teaching without consequence, and a Bishop who can't even bring himself to say "Fr. Tom was wrong" all he does is write "here's what 'I' believe" without even referencing why he's writing it. It sort of sounded like he was saying, "bad move, Tom...boy I'm glad I didn't say that (out loud)". Nice to see the Shepherd ignoring his flock and his priest, both of which needed catechetical AND pastoral attention.

Catholic schools, as well, are no incubators of living faith. At the University level they sometimes appear more depraved than the secular schools, and at the local level they seem more concerned with academic performance than with producing well-formed and educated Catholics.

I have been wanting to blog about this for awhile, but it always came out negatively, and it's not meant to be. True, I am angry and fearful about some things, but ultimately I trust the promise of the Church's survival. I am just struggling with my role as one "with small children that I'd like to keep Christian" in a world which would like me to fail at that. Certainly, there are things one can do - have a living faith of your own, have an interior life, model Catholic obedience, humility, and boldness to your children. But there are no guarantees. Michael's post below finally motivated me. It does cost to be Christian and especially Catholic right now. And you have to be willing to risk, and trust.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil...

is it unbelief or 'anti-belief'...

2006-05-17T21:10:00.000-06:00

We were recording a podcast today (to be posted at a future date...) and our conversation turned to our own individual conceptions of things, and how sometimes 'rational thought' or 'secularism' is a way to run away from the conviction of our own sinfulness.

"Not believing" in God isn't an escape from faith and irrationality, it is a substitute which places us at the center, rather than God or gods or Nature.

Reading The Corner today, I see this story on [dis]BeliefNet about the virtuous atheist. He says "unfounded claims" and similar phrases alot, referring to religious belief. But he never proves his own position, which is 'anti-belief' rather than unbelief. He has a positive belief in a specific position, whether or not he can see or admit it.

But as I was thinking about this post, I read what another Corner writer had to say about Mr. Harris. It's so good, I'm going to give you the whole thing here. I'm sure Jonah won't mind:

Voodoo Atheism [Jonah Goldberg]

So I read the first paragraph of the story linked to below by Pod. It begins:
Sam Harris is not your grandfather's atheist. The award-winning writer practices Zen meditation and believes in the value of mystical experiences.
This alone is pretty much all I need to read to not care about what this guy has to say. Let me explain. I've been reading a lot of stuff on the subject of leftwing anti-religious bias. There are many, many different kinds of such bias and I don't want to address them all here. But one of them is the sort neatly encapsulated in this Sam Harris guy's belief in "the value of mystical experiences."

There are vast numbers of people on the left who hold two positions simultaneously: 1) that organized religion is a sham and a source of evil in the universe and 2) that there are rich mystical, spiritual and supernatural forces at work in the universe working apart from traditional religions. A great many feminist theorists endorse a hodge-podge of faiths from Wicca to Gaia theory. Make-believe Budhists and Kabbalists snort and guffaw at traditional religion while at the same time they worship crystal rocks and blather on about how they were a scullery maid in the 14th century.

Now, there is nothing inherently contradictory between belief in some alternative spiritual or supernatural system and radical animosity to traditional religion. But, that's not the pose so many of these people take. They see nothing wrong with "proving" that God doesn't exist or with mocking people who believe in the Bible, but they also see nohing wrong with claiming that other, often more bizarre, supernatural theories are plainly true.

In other words, they use the language of reason to belittle and mock traditional religion and morality, but they are not in fact champions of reason themselves. They are moral irrationalists, by their own definitions, who want to replace one moral system with another more to their liking — one which usually champions their pet political and cultural priorities.

Theologically, they are closer to pagans denouncing the "false" God of the Bible than they are principled atheists or secularists. On what grounds do they claim that, say, the story of Jesus' Resurrection is an obviously absurd fairy tale, but the mystical healing power of crystals or the "obviousness" of reincarnation are plain for all to see? I am not saying that people who offer the cliché "I don't believe in religion, I believe in spirituality" are necessarily hypocrites. But I am saying that quite a few of them are. If you're going to be an atheist when it comes to traditional religion, fine. But don't let me catch you playing with voodoo on the side if you want to be taken seriously.

If that isn't the best short summary of how so-called atheists replace belief in God with belief in .... something else (even sometimes disbelief itself) then I haven't seen it. I think (heh) that it is important to understand this concept. When we talk to nonbelievers or even DaVinci-ized believers, we have to remember that they are not always clear-eyed rationalists who just need a well-constructed retelling of Aquinas' proofs to bring them to the Lord. They already have gi-normous amounts of faith - it just needs to be focused on the proper person.

The Da Vinci Code...redux2

2006-05-17T07:42:00.000-06:00

Another incredible opinion piece that is worth the read. Buchanan ends with this:

But that it will be a box-office smash, that it is the subject of lavish praise in the press, that it is the best-selling novel of the 21st century, tells us we live not just in a post-Christian era, but in an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving, for it is truly satanic.

Strong words...but how can we deny its validity?

When we reflect on Pope John Paul II's claim's of a "New Springtime in Christianity", we have to realize that it won't be that Christianity will be popular or well thought of. As the same pope said, "And may the blood of Asia’s martyrs be now as always the seed of new life for the Church in every corner of the continent". We must expect hatred and persecution to bring a new zeal - a deepened commitment. To be and remain a Christian will end up costing so much (psychologically, emotionally, socially and even professionally) that there won't be room for the lukewarm. I pray for the grace to be one of those that remain.

Picking my jaw up off the floor...

2006-05-17T01:24:00.000-06:00

A Variety reporter at the Cannes Film Festival says Da Vinci Code movie is kinda stinky.

A pulpy page-turner in its original incarnation as a huge international bestseller has become a stodgy, grim thing in the exceedingly literal-minded film version of "The Da Vinci Code." Tackling head-on novelist Dan Brown's controversy-stirring thriller ... director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama, leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull, but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative

Sitting through all the verbose explanations and speculations about symbols, codes, secret cults, religious history and covert messages in art, it is impossible to believe that, had the novel never existed, such a script would ever have been considered by a Hollywood studio. It's esoteric, heady stuff, made compelling only by the fact that what it's proposing undermines the fundamental tenants of Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, and, by extension, Western Civilization for the past 2,000 years.

Through the intercession of Pope John Paul the Great?

2006-05-16T21:29:00.000-06:00

John Lewis, the Rome Bureau Chief for EWTN, was asked to translate a letter from a French Nun who has apparently been cured of Parkinson's disease; possibly through the intercession of our late Holy Father. Only time will tell if this may be a miracle that would advance his cause for Beatification.

The Da Vinci Code...redux

2006-05-16T10:28:00.000-06:00

From the water is wet category, Reuters reports a story on the impact of The Da Vinci Code on the faith of people who have read the book:

LONDON (Reuters) - "The Da Vinci Code" has undermined faith in the Roman Catholic Church and badly damaged its credibility, a survey of British readers of Dan Brown's bestseller showed on Tuesday.

People are now twice as likely to believe Jesus Christ fathered children after reading the Dan Brown blockbuster and four times as likely to think the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect.

"An alarming number of people take its spurious claims very seriously indeed," said Austin Ivereigh, press secretary to Britain's top Catholic prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.

"Our poll shows that for many, many people the Da Vinci Code is not just entertainment," Ivereigh added.

He heads a prominent group of English Roman Catholic monks, theologians, nuns and members of Opus Dei, who commissioned the survey from leading pollster Opinion Research Business (ORB) and have sought to promote Catholic beliefs at a time when the film's release has provoked a storm of controversy.

ORB interviewed more than 1,000 adults last weekend, finding that 60 percent believed Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene -- a possibility raised by the book -- compared with just 30 percent of those who had not read the book...

In the survey, readers were asked if Opus Dei had ever carried out a murder. Seventeen percent of readers believe it had, compared with just four percent of non-readers.

Let's face it. There are many people who want to believe this stuff and will not be convinced otherwise. These results confirm the thesis forwarded in the post yesterday. There is a 'spiritual environment' that exists for something like this to get traction. It reminds me of a Scripture where St. Paul is writing to St. Timothy:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

The answer? I believe it comes in the preceding verses:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. 2 Timothy 4:1-2

We must not lose the conviction that evangelization is a central aspect of our faith. Pope John Paul II said this:

Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, every Christian is called to be a missionary and witness. This is the Lord's explicit mandate. The Holy Spirit sends every baptized person to proclaim and bear witness to Christ to all nations: a duty then and a privilege, since it is an invitation to co-operate with God for the salvation of each individual and all humanity. Indeed, we have been granted "this grace ... to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph 3:8). MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II FOR THE WORLD MISSION DAY 1996

The battle isn't to defend ourselves in the court of world opinion but to bring people to Christ! Let us then proclaim Christ in season and out of season in love.

Love and Truth conquer all!

"The spirit is to be found in the letter itself..."

2006-05-16T01:15:00.000-06:00

Writing in First Things, Avery Cardinal Dulles says that is what Josef Ratzinger had in mind about Vatican II in response to those would look at the "spirit" rather than at the text of the documents.

Cardinal Dulles' essay is rather long, but it's a great bit of insight about Vatican II, and the Holy Father's role.

In an interview published in 1985 [Cardinal Ratzinger] denied that Vatican II was responsible for causing the confusion of the post-conciliar period. The damage, he said, was due to the unleashing of polemical and centrifugal forces within the Church and the prevalence, outside the Church, of a liberal-radical ideology that was individualistic, rationalistic, and hedonistic.

Dulles then gives a good bit of description of Cardinal Ratzinger's contributions to the Council, and how his opinions on the various documents has changed, and offers some explanations (and guesses) as to why.

I thought this bit on Ratzinger's view of the Liturgy was a good summary of the reasonableness of the Council creating a "backlash" effect. It was mentioned in the article that the progressives run past the council, and the traditionalists run from it. That can be seen now in goofy masses with dancing and incessant talking...and the lamentable (and predictable) reaction from those who think the silliness is becuase of the Council, not in spite of it:

The council fathers, he insists, had no intention of initiating a liturgical revolution. They intended to introduce a moderate use of the vernacular alongside of the Latin, but had no thought of eliminating Latin, which remains the official language of the Roman rite. In calling for active participation, the council did not mean incessant commotion of speaking, singing, reading, and shaking hands; prayerful silence could be an especially deep manner of personal participation. He particularly regrets the disappearance of traditional sacred music, contrary to the intention of the council. Nor did the council wish to initiate a period of feverish liturgical experimentation and creativity. It strictly forbade both priests and laity to change the rubrics on their own authority.

Also intriguing is this contrast Dulles makes between Benedict and John Paul II:

As a personalist in philosophy and as a theologian in the Augustinian tradition, he expects the Church to maintain a posture of prayer and worship. He is suspicious of technology, of social activism, and of human claims to be building the Kingdom of God. For this reason he most appreciates the council documents on the liturgy and revelation, and has reservations about the constitution on the Church in the modern world, while giving it credit for some solid achievements.

The contrast between Pope Benedict and his predecessor is striking. John Paul II was a social ethicist, anxious to involve the Church in shaping a world order of peace, justice, and fraternal love. Among the documents of Vatican II, John Paul’s favorite was surely the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes. Benedict XVI, who looks upon Gaudium et Spes as the weakest of the four constitutions, shows a clear preference for the other three.

Thanks to Jimmy Akin for the heads up on Cardinal Dulles' article.

How to know...

2006-05-15T23:44:00.000-06:00

When you have a good book in your hands...

It starts with a quote like this:

"Your first duty as pastors is not projects and organizations, but to lead your people to a deep intimacy with the Trinity." -John Paul II to the Austrian bishops

The Da Vinci Code...

2006-05-15T09:46:00.000-06:00

Dennis P. McCann has a wonderful (and short) opinion piece here on the spiritual environment that exists to cause a book like Dan Brown's to be popular. He says a couple very interesting things like:

The truth is anti-Catholicism is the last respectable prejudice in the USA.

and

The price of a movie ticket is about $8.50, but in psychic terms, it's far cheaper than the price Catholics pay to belong to their church. We live in a time of religious individualism, and Brown has become one of the leading cheerleaders, giving us permission to believe whatever we choose.

The obsession over Brown's book and the upcoming film represents more than just a craving for escapist entertainment. It is another sign of decadence in our civilization. The Catholic Church represents a religious anti-individualism some might find profoundly threatening. Catholics are told from childhood they cannot make things up as they go along. Despite the millions of "cafeteria Catholics" who choose to follow only those church rules that fit their lifestyles, the church, so sinisterly depicted in The Da Vinci Code, continues to challenge its members to face up to the realities of the human condition and deal with them humbly before God.

Here is the part we all need to reflect on deeply and ask ourselves some hard questions where we might slip into this;

Digging for stubborn facts, apprehending the truth about them and acting accordingly are inconvenient, but the failure to do so has resulted in the whirlwind we are reaping. Though our private fascination with all-too-easy fantasies such as those Brown offered is only one symptom of our spiritual disarray, it has the potential to corrupt all aspects of American life.

Let's pray that our faith-based decadence isn't fatal.

Our intellectual laziness; our mantras of "my truth is my truth"; denial of objective realities; microwave and soundbite spirituality allow things like Dan Brown's silliness to flourish.

As I wrote below there didn't seem to be any hesitation that the Church was right! If it doesn't agree with what "I" want, it MUST be false!

We want Jesus, the Jesus of the Gospels, to take his Cross and go away. Then we can create him in our own comfortable image. No demands. No sin. No judgment. Just the **luv** that affirms us in our okayness. The problem is that **luv** leads us to destruction!

Let's Make This Crystal Clear - In-Vitro Fertilization is Wrong

2006-05-11T11:57:00.000-06:00

Here is an interesting article about a Catholic schoolteacher who claims she was fired due to using in-vitro fertilization to have twins. She is suing the school claiming discrimination. According to the article, it was clear in her contract that she could be fired for serious violations of Catholic Church teaching. I am not here to judge her and am sure that not having children would be a great trial. However, looking at the situation objectively we see several notable aspects of this story.

This is a clear violation of Church teaching with regard to in-vitro fertilization. Here are the pertinent Catechism references. For further reading, check out Donum Vitae:

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."
2377Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

The basic moral point is contained in #2377:

"Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

These aren't just babies. They are persons who have the right to be born from an act of love and self-donation and not simply from the mixing of human germ cells by a technician. It devalues us as persons.

The second moral problem comes with the extra embryos created. The article states that; "...Jones said the couple used their own eggs and sperm and none of the embryos were destroyed in the process,...". I seriously doubt that. They, in my opinion, are playing on words here. In most IVF procedures, there are multiple embryos that are introduced into the uterus in the hopes that one will implant into the uterine wall. This is evidenced by the fact she had twins. They may not have destroyed any embryos, but they certainly implanted more than two. The others just didn't take. Thus, those children died not from direct destruction but from the inefficiency, known by the doctors, inherent in the procedure. Furthermore, in all likelihood, there were many embryos created that weren't introduced into the uterus. What happens to those children? They are frozen at -195⁰ Celsius. One might attempt to justify this practice by using those frozen embryos at some time in the future, but one can't get past the abortion aspect of IVF by loss of embryos via lack of uterine implantation, AND the fact the embryo can die in the liquid N₂ AND it is de-personalizing to subject someone (the embryo) to that kind of treatment when it isn't necessary.

What is sad about this story is now the couple has left the Church and attends Lutheran services. I hope and pray that they are able to repent and return one day. I don't think it will be soon; however, when they say things like "I want them to know that just because their parents had them through in vitro fertilization, that we are not evil sinners,Â she wrote." Isn't that the typical modern statement to justify oneself? I don't think that ANYONE called her an "evil sinner". She doesn't engage the Church's teaching in any way other than to portray the Church as the unjust 'JUDGER', which, of course, is the gravest evil at all. The Church's job is to 'affirm us in our okayness' as Mark Shea puts it.

Let us pray for their conversion as well as ours.

The Desert....

2006-05-10T21:08:00.000-06:00

I am not a big fan of blogs where the people pour out their hearts and their problems for the world to see. In addition, it doesn't really fit with the mission of CatholicTruth.NET. However, I feel compelled to write a little about where I am at in hopes it may help another.

I am in the desert....BIG TIME...

Mark Shea writes a wonderful daily devotional everyday for Catholic Exchange.com called Words of Encouragement. A couple years ago, he wrote one that I have kept. It is appropriate to dust it off once again!

Title: The Master Gardener
Author: Mark Shea
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2003

Isaiah 58:11
And the LORD will guide you continually, and satisfy your desire with good things, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

One of the realities of the Christian life is the "dry spell". True, there are moments in our Christian walk when grace is pouring out in buckets, life is happy and peppy and bursting with love, and the smallest prayer seems to elicit ridiculously disproportionate blessings from Heaven. But there also come moments when we beat our heads against a Heaven of brass and nothing happens. We are faced with the challenge of looking around at a universe in which all trace of God seems to have vanished. At such a point, we look up at the pitiless sun and have to choose whether we will give up or do the biblical thing of asking why we have been forsaken and then slogging ahead in obedience to God. Very frequently, it is only after such dry spells, weathered in the Spirit of Christ's perseverance, that we find the next outpouring of grace. But that makes sense. After all, gardens don't grow if it there's nothing but rain, just as they don't grow if there's nothing but sunshine. So expect to be like a watered garden. But don't expect the water will run continuously. It will run when it is needed and it will stop when it needs to be stopped. Both are the wise Providence of the Master Gardener.

The desert is a difficult place. It is dry, desolate, inhospitable. It seems that any progress or closeness to God EVER experienced has been lost. In fact, it seems like all is lost!! That, however, is a feeling and not reality. The reality is that we are being asked to walk in faith and love; to trust that what God says is true. The desert holds potential for real growth. We must choose in the desert. We have to walk in the sacrificial, agape love that calls us beyond what we 'get' to what we 'give'.

I lived in the Sonoran Desert for 3 1/2 years. I have seen (and felt!!) the spines and needles of the cholla and cacti. I saw the dryness, the snakes, spiders, and scorpions. The desert can be a scary, dangerous place. However, I have seen the desert after the rains come! It is a glorious place of beauty where the same cholla and cacti now produce the most beautiful flowers!!The desert waits in anticipation of those rains. It is ready to receive them and utilize them to the utmost! It should be the same with us. We must allow the desert to work in us; to prepare us for the rains to come. We must persevere trusting that God knows best and is drawing us to himself.

It is easier said than done! I am stumbling around like I am in the complete dark...falling...stumbling...unfaithful...self-pity...it ain't pretty! But I know that he is faithful. I beg for mercy and grace and try to take another step. If you are experiencing the desert, hang in there! Please pray for me, and I will pray for you! (My blogging will be sporadic. I can get inspired to save my life! 8^>)

A Catholicism of Convenience...

2006-05-10T17:07:00.000-06:00

...at Boston College. Jonah Goldberg's latest for NRO details how an allegedly Catholic institution has fooled itself into thinking that it's positions are based in the Catholic and Jesuit traditions of B.C. when it's clear that isn't always true. B.C. has invited Dr. Rice to be the commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree. Many faculty are uh... unsupportive. In letter titled "Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree" 200 B.C. employees (i.e. faculty) request she not be so honored. Does this stem from Ms. Rice's "mildly pro-choice" viewpoint... nope, it's this:

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work.”

Okay, they don't like her foreign policy, and think it is out of synch with Catholicism. But are they consistent? Jonah writes:

One can respect honest disagreement over the Bush administration’s foreign policy. But this high-minded rhetoric is a bit hard to take considering that B.C. is fairly selective about where it will draw such lines. For example, Mary Daly was for decades a distinguished professor at Boston College, despite the fact she exceeds even the right-wing parody of a left-wing academic. She refused to teach men. Her writings include such relentlessly anti-Catholic manifestos as “The Church and the Second Sex” and “Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation.”

Daly left the school in 1999, when she was told that she could no longer discriminatorily bar men from all of her classes. Rather than teach men, she chose to quit. But until then, Daly was free to call for the abolition of the Catholic Church and other “patriarchal religions” in favor of her own “post-Christian” feminist religion. Apparently, teaching students to reject Catholicism entirely is tolerable in a Catholic school, but Catholicism is useful in a pinch when it can be used to shun villains like Rice. “This is the only time these people have cited Pope John Paul II on anything,” the Rev. Paul McNellis, an adjunct professor in the B.C. philosophy department, told the Boston Globe.

Note well that while the merits of Dr. Rice's positions on foreign policy can be debated by Catholics, Ms. Daly's views of sexuality, marriage, and the very Church herself, are not. And which one was a professor and which one is being attacked by the faculty? Ward your children well. A "Catholic" designation on a school, a seminar, a university, or even a clergyman is no guarantee of faithfulness. John Paul reiterated that parents have the primary responsibility for educating their children. Don't subcontract that out to the firm of Evil, Ignorant, & Oblivious.

Eye-Opener regarding "free" speech and religion...

2006-05-08T17:12:00.000-06:00

Writing in The Weekly Standard, Maggie Gallagher is leading the way, again. In her current piece there, she points out the "train wreck" that is coming in the clash between freedom of religion / religious speech, and non-discrimination policies that enforce sexual liberty.Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage? Let's look at some of the article (though I strongly encourage you to read it all):

...the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion.

"The impact will be severe and pervasive," Picarello says flatly. "This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations." Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state ... people don't even notice that "the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it's easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law,gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter."

From one scholar considered a "reasonable" proponent of gay marriage:

Of all the scholars who attended, perhaps the most surprising is Chai Feldblum. She is a Georgetown law professor who is highly sought after on civil rights issues, especially gay civil rights....the bottom line for Feldblum is: "Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner."

Another scholar, Robin Wilson, is an expert in both family law and health care law:

Wilson predicts "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others. Although Roe and Griswold established only the right to noninterference by the state in a woman's abortion and contraceptive decisions, family planning advocates have worked strenuously to force individual institutions to provide controversial services, and to force individual health care providers to participate in them."

"This litigation after Roe," she says, "provides a convincing prediction about the trajectory that litigation after Goodridge will take" (Goodridge being the Massachusetts supreme court decision that legalized gay marriage). The post-Roe litigation also provides fair warning about the limits of First Amendment protection. The lever used to force hospitals and doctors to perform abortions and sterilizations was the receipt of any public money. "Given the status of most churches as state nonprofits and federally tax-exempt organizations, it is likely that public support arguments will be advanced to compel churches to participate in same-sex marriage.

Thus, churches in Massachusetts (and perhaps soon other states) may have much to worry about," Wilson writes. "Churches that oppose same-sex marriage today may perceive a credible, palpable threat to their tax-exempt status, the benefits of which are substantial."

In a related thread, The Guardian reports that in Boston, gay activists are trying to argue that the courts decision to allow gay marriage should be unassailable by the unwashed masses, er... voting public.

``The people shouldn't be able to directly attack'' a court decision, said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed the lawsuit.

Incredibly, the MA constitution appears to ban citizens' attempts to reverse a courts ruling via the amendment process.

The consequences...

2006-05-08T17:02:00.000-06:00

Kathleen Parkers writes of a college student in prison for not knowing his...partner... was going to say "no" before she said it.

Now, I realize that the real consequences of our actions are spiritual, and eternal. But this young man is paying the price for believing what the culture of death - the culture of pleasure told him.
Pray for him, and for her. His life is, if not ruined, severely damaged, and hers... if many of the details are accurate, she has many problems which will continue to destroy her relationships.

File this under: "the temporal consequences of sin"

Blog posting...

2006-05-02T16:33:00.000-06:00

...has been light, we know. But now we're tanned, rested, and ready to go! Or at least ready to go.

And there was much...

2006-05-02T16:24:00.000-06:00

...Rejoicing!!

Supply and Demand smokescreen...

2006-05-02T15:39:00.000-06:00

Maggie Gallagher's Institute for Marriage and Public Policy has posted an interesting piece of research.

Basically, even where gay "marriage" is legal, not many take advantage. There are sure to be many reasons for this, but what is interesting is what else it may tell us.

The agitators for this concept are likely the most ideologically driven of the population. They want "marriage" for gays, whether or not most homosexuals want it. So while the small numbers would appear to blunts some of the Destruction of Marriage argument, they actually don't.

The point made about marriage is not that currently existing heterosexual marriages will be damaged by recognition of homosexual unions; it's that the redefinition of marriage will (not immediately, but fairly rapidly) make marriage functionally nonexistent by making all relationships of all kind, degree, and participant equal. As the little boy Dash said in The Incredibles when his mom told him that everybody is special: "[that] is another way of saying no one is."

Additionally, it is interesting that for all the volume in the media - no one's gettin' hitched in Massachusetts (estimated between 6 and 17% of gays married). And if the demand wasn't there, why such a push when other policies like civil union, and easing of legal restrictions for non-family members to have a say in the lives of their friends and partners were much easier "sells" to the public?

The point of the movement is to reduce the "specialness" of marriage, and the New York Times, HBO ("Big Love") and the rest of the "drive by media" are willing accomplices.

"Human Embryo in the Pre-Implantation Phase"

2006-05-02T11:01:00.000-06:00

There was a communique promulgated from the Pontifical Academy for Life March 23rd and published in Zenit yesterday that is very important. It takes up the issue of the human embryo prior to its implantation into the uterine wall. The Academy utilizes modern scientific knowledge to understand more deeply the moral theology concerning the embryo, especially challenges to the personhood of the embryo based on developmental stages. The Academy puts it thus:

These data must then be subjected to an anthropological interpretation in order to highlight their significance and the emerging values to which to refer in the last place, to derive the moral norms for practical action and standard procedures.

The Academy first considers the development of the embryo in the light of embryological discovery and establishes "certain universally recognized points":

1. "The moment the sperm penetrates the oocyte [egg] is when the existence of a new "human being" begins. Fertilization induces a whole series of consecutive events and transforms the egg cell into a 'zygote'". This is an extremely important point. Although an oocyte (egg) is considered a 'germ' cell rather than a 'somatic' cell, it cannot, in humans, spontaneously give rise to a zygote. Thus, fertilization (penetration of the oocyte with the sperm and subsequent coming together of the distinct haploid genomes of both parents) causes changes to both germ cells that are required for the zygote to form. These changes are dependent on the presence of the other germ cell.

2. Embryology documents a definite direction of development to the more complex and differentiated without the possibility of regression to stages the embryo has completed. In other words, from the moment of fertilization and zygote formation a fully developed human being will result unless there is a genetic or physiological problem or if there is no outside interference. The fact that there is not a possibility of return to a less developed stage; it follows that there is no other stage other than conception (zygote formation) that is definitive for the beginning of human life.

3. The new being autonomously replicates its genetic material. Thus, the zygote is controlling its own development rather than being dependent on the mother for development. There is a big difference between supporting the development of a distinct human (as the mother does throughout the child's life) and being the source of said development (like an organ in the mother). Early embryology tells us that it it the mother supporting the autonomous development of the zygote.

4. "The characteristics of the time needed for the passage from a less differentiated stage to a more differentiated stage and the coordination of development are also strictly linked to the property of 'continuity'". In other words, this property of uninterrupted succession from one stage to another in a coordinated, regulated fashion argues for a distinct being that is controlling its own development over time. There is not a scientifically discernible stage where there is a break in the movement towards more differentiation or a lack of coordination that could be indicated as a pre-human embryo. Therefore, from the moment of zygote formation a distinct human being is gradually being formed through the coordination of its own development. The mother takes the role of nurturer.

The scientific data can be summed up thusly:

All together, these trends already form the basis for interpreting the zygote as being a primordial "organism" (monocellular organism) that consistently expresses its potential for development through a continuous integration, first, among the various internal components and then, among the cells to which it progressively gives rise. Their integration is both morphological and biochemical. The research that has been under way for several years now only yields further "proofs" of this reality.

Therefore as stated above, there is no scientific or developmental stage of the embryo that can be called "pre-human". The Academy continues by now asking the question whether the embryo is already a "person"? They conclude:

It can be concluded from this data that the human embryo in the phase of pre-implantation is already: a) a being of the human species; b) an individual being; c) a being that possesses in itself the finality to develop as a human person together with the intrinsic capacity to achieve such development.

The question about the personhood of the embryo is a philosophical one and thus cannot be definitive. The Academy states that, based on the scientific data, there is no significant reason to deny the personhood of the embryo.

The Academy concludes:

From the moral viewpoint, moreover, over and above any consideration of the human embryo's personality, the mere fact of being in the presence of a human being (and even the doubt of this would suffice) would demand full respect for the embryo's integrity and dignity: Any conduct that might in some way constitute a threat or an offense to its fundamental rights, and first and foremost the right to life, must be considered as seriously immoral.

To conclude, we would like to make our own the words that the Holy Father Benedict XVI spoke in his address to our congress: "God's love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother's womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26) in each one.

"He makes no distinctions because he perceives in all of them a reflection of the face of his Only-begotten Son, whom 'he chose ... before the foundation of the world.... He predestined us in love to be his sons ... according to the purpose of his will' (Ephesians 1:4-6)" (Address, Feb. 27; L'Osservatore Romano English edition, March 8, p. 7).

Once again, empirical science cannot answer questions of meaning, purpose, and ethics because these questions are questions answered by philosophy and not 'science'. It is asking a question about the universal - the whole picture. Science can ask about parts of the whole. Anyway, it is a call for Catholics to become familiar with natural philosophy and metaphysics. I didn't even touch on the metaphysical questions of immediate, mediate and delayed animation. The moral and theological challenges of today call for the laity to be able to engage these arguments with reason and intelligence.

Deep Conversion/ Deep Prayer

2006-04-27T22:39:00.000-06:00

Fr. Thomas Dubay was on Al Kresta today talking about his new book Deep Conversion/ Deep Prayer. Sounded very good. Fr. DuBay is such a blessing!

Urbi et Orbi Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI

2006-04-16T13:48:00.000-06:00

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=74945

New podcast is up!

2006-04-15T10:45:00.000-06:00

The topic is humility.

Have a very blessed Easter everyone!! He is risen!!

May You Have a Blessed Triduum!!

2006-04-13T17:27:00.000-06:00

May God, the Father, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit bless you abundantly and give you NEW LIFE!!

Pope Benedict Speaking da Truth...

2006-04-13T17:23:00.000-06:00

Want to know what the Pope thinks of this whole Judas controversy? Read it here!

The juicy part:

For Judas, the pope said, "only power and success are real; love does not count."
"And he is greedy: money is more important than communion with Jesus, more important than God and his love. He also becomes a liar, a double-crosser who breaks with the truth," Pope Benedict said.
Purposefully ignoring the truth, he said, Judas "hardens, becoming incapable of conversion ... and throws away his destroyed life."

Take that, National Geographic!!!

My dearest Wormwood...

2006-04-12T02:05:00.000-06:00

I've alwasy loved The Screwtape Letters, and the style lends itself to many modern adaptations. Here is one such adaptation, taking on The DaVinci Code.

Very nicely done, Mr. Metaxas. I particularly like these two bits:

The ersatz "her-story" of the Church's vicious oppression of women is seasoned with great steaming lumps of balderdash about Nature and "Mother Earth." It's a briliant connection. Men and women alike invariably eat it up with a spoon because it gives them a heady sense of being somehow "spiritual" without the annoying necessity of adopting all of those patriarchal "rules"! Never mind, Wormwood, that in this Nature goddess silliness they are worshipping deities that don't exist! The only thing that matters is that they are not worshiping the deity that does! How we accomplish that doesn't matter a fig! And if we can give them a sense of their own superiority, a recognition of their sober respect for Mother Earth and against all senseless violence, and against all war and for peace and harmony and tolerance and recycling, well, all the better!

Now then, another extremely admirable facet of this book is the author's intimate knowledge of his audience's skyscraping ignorance, which he exploits to devastating effect. One must ever endeavor to capitalize upon ignorance, Wormwood. This is one of the chiefest weapons in our arsenal, and let me observe—and not without some glee—that the ignorance of contemporary Western Society in matters of history and theology both, is of an absolutely unprecedented greatness. Never before have so many known so little about so much of great importance. Ask your average fellow in the street the slightest detail of a daft sitcom of forty years ago and he will move heaven and earth to supply you with the answer, and then will likely prate on with other similarly inane details—as if knowing who lived at 1313 Mockingbird Lane was his very passport to the Elysian Fields. Ha! But ask him to tell you about the Nicean Council, or ask him what are the Synoptic Gospels and you will suddenly find yourself in the presence of a weatherbeaten cigar store Injun! But then go ahead and ask him who played drums for The Monkees, or the name of that blasted itinerant peddlar on Green Acres and you will think yourself in the presence of a very Voltaire!

Heh. I think I'll have to get Clive's original down from the shelf for a re-read. Ahh, never have so many known so little about so much... that's funny stuff.

The Way of the Cross...

2006-04-12T01:31:00.000-06:00

Ah. Remember down there I read about the Good Friday Meditations that the Holy Father will use?

The good people of Zenit.org have provided the text in English, along with the Stations. Check it out:

Through faith and baptism, we have access to the death of Christ, to the mystery of the Love by which Christ himself tasted and conquered death ... and this in turn becomes the first step of our journey back to God, a journey which will end at the moment of our own death, a death experienced in Christ and with Christ: in Love!

Beating a dead horse...

2006-04-12T00:47:00.000-06:00

Michael may not want to rehash "The Gospel of Judas" much...but I will.

The excellent, if at times depressing, Suicide of the West has this to say about the text:

The one indelible mark of Satan is inversion: the upside-down cross, the Promethean (and Luciferian) grasping for sacred fire, the transvaluation of morals. The recently “discovered” Gospel of Judas, a choice piece of Gnostic propaganda, is remarkable for its inversion of the true Gospel...

...The Gnostic Gospel is a gospel of inversion, a Satanic catechism, a credo diabolicus...

...Of course, the point from a satanic perspective was not to erect an alternative Christian theology, but to undermine the true Faith....

I think this is a great post, and very insightful. The Evil One is not trying to get our worship for himself as much as get us to worship oursleves - thereby separating us from Jesus. Sometimes popular imagination has envisioned Satan as a competitor of the Lord's. A sort of Coke vs. Pepsi struggle for market share (the Devil of course being Pepsi), where both Jesus and Satan want something from us. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Jesus doesn't want something from us - he wants us. And Old Scratch? He is a loser, literally. He has already lost, and so nothing we have is of value to him - he just wants to deny us our place with Jesus.

The Gospel of Judas is just one more way he can pander to our pride and self-centeredness. I've talked to many who say that this "new discovery" and things like The DaVinci Code are just entertainment and anyone who is fooled was already in trouble. But it matters - do you know anyone who read DVC and now is "smarter" about "how the Church has supressed so much of what really happened"? Read Mike's link to the Bishops' statement and get just a little prepared for Easter dinner with Cousin Fred who "has taken some courses in Comparative Religion, you know" - and respond in charity, of course.

The slavery of busy

2006-04-11T22:27:00.000-06:00

Being a good American, I have a totally messed up idea of freedom.

We tend to think of freedom as "I can do whatever I want." The Church gently reminds us that the true definition of freedom is "I can do whatever I ought." In order words, freedom means that there is nothing stopping me from doing what I should do.

A moment's reflection demonstrates that the Church's definition is the only on that makes sense. If everyone were "free" in the American sense, no one would be free. What would happen in the average city if there were suddenly no consequences for any action. Would it be safe to leave your house? Would you be safe in your house? "Freedom" in that sense would mean that you would have to stay in your home, behind bars and with a gun. And how is that freedom??

True freedom is being free of that which prevents us from doing what we ought. And what we ought to be doing is serving God. That is why we speak of the "slavery of sin." Sin prevents us from praying, behaving morally, serving our family, serving our neighbor and generally just being who God wants us to be. Through our cooperation with the grace of Christ, this bondage is weakened and eventually destroyed. For when the Son sets you free, you are free indeed.

The past few months, I've also learned something of what I've come to call the "slavery of busy." My schedule has been such that I've either been sleeping or working. And that's bad. Upon reflecting upon this slavery of busy, I've come to the conclusion that when life gets like that, something has gone wrong. There is a fault which needs to be identified and eliminated.

In this case it was procrastination. Part of the procrastination was mine, and part was that of someone else. But both came together in a "perfect storm" that sent me spiraling into slavery. No time to pray. No time to be with my wife. No time to play with the kids. No time for podcasts. No time for the blog. No time to do what I ought.

Finally the busy has passed. I've been set free. But the price was too high. I am now on guard against "busy" much in the way that I am on guard against sin. I don't know if the busy was sin, but it has the same result as sin... slavery. And I don't want to go there again.

More on the So-called "Gospel" Of Judas

2006-04-11T11:19:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, the Latin American Bishops hammered the so-called "gospel" of Judas. (Which we shouldn't even call a gospel because it isn't). I don't intend to rehash this Gnostic text and the ridiculous media attention it is getting. What I do want to point out is a section of their statement that states:

"“The enemies of the Church are drudging up old arguments, apocryphal writings in order to confuse the people, and if people do not study their faith, they will get confused," said Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara, Mexico. The cardinal said, "If Catholics adequately study their faith, nothing would be able to shake it, not even their enemies." He also called on the faithful to not be fooled by “apocryphal writings that only carry with them a host of lies and fables."

We need to study our faith so that we don't become confused. The Catholic faith is not a blind faith but an informed one. We bring to bear all of our faculties to know, love, and serve Christ.

These enemies of the Church are using the ignorance of the Catholic faithful to lead them astray. They over-sensationalize stories in order to cause doubt. Unfortunately, most don't have the knowledge to defend and refute. It seems to me as time goes on it takes more and more effort and inconvenience, so-called, to remain a faithful Catholic. Those who do not make the sacrifice and effort will be seduced by the false wisdom of the age. On the other hand,"“If Catholics adequately study their faith, nothing would be able to shake it, not even their enemies."

The world needs the witness of prayerful, informed Catholics. Remember, nothing can overcome the truth!

A Sure Sign That The Apocalypse Is NOW!!

2006-04-09T15:01:00.000-06:00

I got the craziest phone call on Friday. It was the local Fox News affiliate desperate to interview ANY Catholic willing to talk about the so-called "Gospel of Judas". I got talked into it by my pastor! I received the call at 4pm; they were at the Church at 4:30pm. Not much time to prepare. I was so nervous! Anyway, Here is the link to my interview. I was wiggling around in my chair like my 3 year-old during the reading of the Passion this morning! 8^>

The only thing good about it is that NO ONE tunes in to Channel 12 News! The things I get myself into....sheesh...

"Lord, we have lost the sense of sin!"

2006-04-06T01:29:00.000-06:00

Wow. Meditations for Good Friday at the Vatican are serious! which they should be, of course.

Archbishop Comastri, the vicar general of Vatican City, was asked by Pope Benedict XVI to prepare the meditations for this year's Good Friday observance. He has responded with a powerful text calling upon Christians to reject the "monotone publicity" of a hedonist society that bids people "to die in selfishness."

It's too bad I can't find the text online.

Truth and Love, Inseparable...

2006-04-06T01:15:00.000-06:00

We are not always so good at holding two things in our minds at once, especially if those two things appear contradictory.

Those who believe in Christ and want to live in communion with his church have "a precise obligation" to "interrupt communion with those who have moved themselves away from the doctrine that saves," the pope said April 5 at his weekly general audience.

That thinking is sometimes considered to be at odds with "Love" because we misunderstand love to be some emotional state wherein all behavior is tolerated... you know "love means never having to say you're sorry" and that kind of thing. Well, REAL love is gentle and kind - but it is not tolerant of behavior which is bad for the object of our love.

"Truth and love are two sides of the same gift that comes from God and is preserved in the church thanks to the apostolic ministry," [the Pope] said.

The Holy Father also recommended the The First Letter of John for its teachng on the obligation to love, and for the manner in which it "addresses with drastic severity those adversaries who were once members of the community, but are no longer."

The story is here.

International Theological Institute...

2006-04-04T15:47:00.000-06:00

I have some **amazing** news!! About 3 months ago I was invited to submit an application to a Pontifical Institute to pursue advanced theological studies. The International Theological Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family was instituted by the late Pope John Paul II in 1996. It awards canonical degrees in theology. It is located in the beautiful Austrian Alps in a small village called Gaming. The facility is a renovated 14th Century Carthusian Monastery, pictured here to the left.

I was accepted and now am preparing to take my family to Austria for a minimum of five years! It really is a miraculous story. I know a professor at ITI. We were talking one day about theological studies and what not; he called me the next day and invited me to apply. Since then, there has been one miracle after another: I got accepted (huge miracle), I received a scholarship, and now there are a group of people forming that are committed to pray for my family and I and to help us get there financially. God is so amazing!

On the one hand, I hear the call of Jesus to the Rich Young Man to sell everything and to come and follow him. We, literally, will be selling most everything: house, cars, furniture, toys, housewares, everything. We get three suitcases each. There is a sense of freedom and release as I contemplate the simplicity of Gaming. We won't have a car, neither a TV, or Nintendo. It will be very simple Christian living. What a wonderful place to enter deeply into solitude and silence. There will be much purification from possessions.

Furthermore, I sense a period of time on the mountain top like the Mount of Transfiguration. This will be a time of refreshing, renewal, strengthening, illumination, and 'vision'. After ten years of ministry, we can definitely use a five year long retreat!

Lastly, my flesh is still howling in fear about the money, uprooting my family, language, if I am good enough, smart enough. There are so many HUGE waves that scream for me to take my eyes off the eyes of Christ, who has summoned me. I would ask that you would please pray for me; that I would keep my eyes on Jesus, that I would by faith trust the words that Yahweh spoke to Joshua; "I command you: be firm and steadfast! Do not fear nor be dismayed, for the LORD, your God, is with you wherever you go." (Joshua 1:9)

I will miss the people of Holy Apostles. They have been my family for many years. As of now, it looks like we will be leaving in early August to begin classes this fall. To be honest, I am still reeling from this. I am so grateful to the Lord to give me such an opportunity to serve him and sacrifice for him.

Glory to God in the Highest!!

"I was mortified!"...

2006-04-03T11:48:00.000-06:00

Mike's excellent post below talks about giving our time, giving our stuff, and denying ourselves. This is so difficult - in fact it's so difficult that our culture has even created language where the whole idea of denying ourselves becomes synonymous with "the worst thing ever" - hence my title to this blog. When something really bad happens to us we say we are mortified...

But as Father Farfaglia writes... "The practice of continual mortification is an essential part of our walk with the Lord."

He covers Pride, Lust, Gluttony, Anger...you see where this is going? It's a good piece, and helps flesh out some of the ideas in Mike's post:

Let us then chase out of our soul whatever may be an obstacle to our relationships with Jesus Christ. Mortification is an act of the will. Mortification cannot be based on wishful thinking. We really have to die to ourselves in order for Jesus to live in our lives. Dying to sin, attachments, addictions, obsessions, and selfish tendencies will be a painful and even dramatic experience.

But too many people today are looking for an easy Christianity. We need to look upon the crucifix and understand once again that the only Jesus there is, is the Jesus Who was crucified.

Read it. Then rise to its challenge - by surrendering!

The Bottom Line...

2006-03-30T13:47:00.000-07:00

This beautiful hymn written by Isaac Watts is sung during Lenten Vespers:

WHEN I SURVEY THE WONDROUS CROSS

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
The vain delights that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
What grief and love flow mingling down!
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o'er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were all the realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

I would highly recommend reflecting on and praying each and every line. What I want to point out is the last stanza. In the face of this "Love so amazing, so divine", the only appropriate response is "my soul, my life, my all."

I have to ask, "Does the Lord have my soul, my life, my all"? What am I reserving for myself? What won't I give? Then the question is "How do I give?".

The first thing we must give is time. We must make room in our life for deep prayer. It must be of the highest priority, especially to be in solitude and silence. (See post below). We cannot give ourselves without a tremendous help of grace. Silence and solitude puts us into close contact with that grace.

The next thing we give is our stuff. Possessions have an insidious ability to "possess" us without our even being aware of it. We only find out how deeply we are "caught" by them when we give them away; not the giving from abundance that costs us nothing, but the giving that impacts us. Part of this giving away is our worldly notion of security and comfort. We should realize that a bank account with a cool million doesn't ultimately make us secure 'cause we cannot buy our way into heaven. Furthermore, we must never forget the words of the Lord:

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Matthew 7:13-14

Yes, you read right. The gate to destruction is wide and easy!! We have a choice between an easy life and a holy life. The two are in fact mutually exclusive.

Lastly, we deny ourselves. We choose not to do things that we want to do (like eat, relax, sleep-in, eat meat, etc.) to train our will (in other words to have true freedom) to choose the good rather than what we want. God is essentially good. Thus, by learning to choose the greater good (food and rest and stuff is good but God is the ultimate good) we learn to deny our will where it contradicts God's perfect will.

Thus, as we give our time, our possessions, and our will to God we are fulfilling the complete giving of ourselves, in loving response, to the infinite love of the Blessed Trinity.

Harden Not Your Hearts...

2006-03-28T14:07:00.000-07:00

For the entire season of Lent, the Liturgy of the Hours has had us repeating the same small section of Scripture at the beginning of each day.

If today you hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your hearts. Psalm 95:7f

What is the Lord calling us to now that we have hardened our hearts to hearing? Has he called you to simplify your life of possessions? Give up relationships that take you away from God? Love your neighbor more deeply in self-sacrifice?

All these things go against our instinctual selfishness and cause us to 'ignore' God. Lent is a time to let go of ourselves and humbly fall into the arms of our savior repeating the words of Jesus to his Father, "Not my will but your will be done." We must let these challenges break open our hearts in generosity and love rather than harden them to the voice of God. It is then that we can truly be free; free from selfish desires, free from things, free to serve God in joy and love.

We may think that we are totally open to God. Typically, these thoughts come when we are well-fed, stable, and comfortable. The rich young man thought he had it "goin' on" when he asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. (Mark 10:17-25) It wasn't until Jesus challenged him to live a radical, gospel-centered life that he hardened his heart and went away sad. It is real easy to be a Christian as long as we perceive that God isn't asking anything of us that is beyond being a "good person", (which really means leaving us alone to do pretty much whatever we want).

The thing is Christ is calling us just like the rich young man!!...to the same things as the rich young man!! When we hear the radical call of the gospel to "deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:21-25)., Christ is speaking to us! Jesus states in verses 24-25,

"For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?

Upon reflecting on this we immediately see that we can't so this by ourselves and were not meant to. We must humbly seek the mercy, love, and strength of Christ to do what he asks.

Let us make St. Augustine's prayer our own..."O Lord, all my hope is based on your great mercy. Give me what you command and command what you will." We long to be close to God and to see this world more closely resemble gospel values. To hear him, follow him, and die for him is the only way those things will come about.

Actions Speak Louder...

2006-03-27T13:56:00.000-07:00

It's important to remember that the Church's oppostion to "marriage" for homosexuals is not rooted in dislike for the people. It's about Love. Real love is not about "giving people whatever they want" or "never saying no" or anything like that. It's about what's good for people.

To that end, it's good to see things like this. This law would remove hurdles that any two people have in allowing certain legal privileges to each other. This is neither a good nor bad thing in and of itself. But what it does is confirm that we are not opposed to people, but to a practice.

If Dr. Dobson is catching hell from some Christian conservatives because he supports a law that would allow gay people to visit each other in the hospital, not because they are gay, but because that's what they want to do, then they may deserve the label "bigot"

I think this is a good approach - the opposition to same-sex marriage is not one of practicalities, it's about the relationship between Man and God. If practicalities are getting in the way of that message, then let's take care of them.

Marriage as "Social Justice"...

2006-03-27T13:44:00.000-07:00

I have been reading Jennifer Roback Morse more often lately, and her piece today on marriage and Social Justice is one more reason I'm glad that I have been.

Upper class people have created a norm of years of unmarried, sterile sex before settling down to marry and raise a couple of children. But as these ideas cascade down the socio-economic ladder, they produce unmarried sexual activity with quite different consequences. Women who don’t look forward to glamorous careers view motherhood as their primary goal. Early sexual activity for them means early and frequent child-bearing. Early child-bearing all too often means a lifetime of poverty for themselves and their children.

There has been a lot of research on how married people are richer, happier, better looking (ooops, that one's not proven!) and overall "better off" than singles. This of course is not to disparage the vocation to being single. It's merely a statistic - not that an individual person is better off married rather than single, but that people overall are better off. Ms. Morse has taken this and applied to a particular problem - African-American poverty, but her overall point can be summarized by Scripture: "It is not good for the man to be alone."

This is one reason that the destruction of family and marriage is an issue that ought to concern more than just religious people - it has real and demonstrable effects to society.... i.e. to real people.

Immigration - Not Unlimited...

2006-03-27T13:30:00.000-07:00

Interesting Q & A with Cardinal Ratzinger before he was Benedict XVI.

One question put to him about Muslim immigration in Europe could be applied to the situation in the US:

Last year, Cardinal Biffi, Archbishop of Bologna, aroused debate by declaring that Muslim immigration raises problems…
... He pointed out that there is currently in act a migration of peoples, but it is clear that every government, even the most open-minded, cannot accept all immigrants indefinitely. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between those who are allowed to come in and the others. According to what criteria? This was Cardinal Biffi’s question. ... Defining the criteria that enable the unity of a country and foster its social peace is in everybody’s interest.

It will be interesting to see how Benedict XVI undertakes the effort to help Catholics understand how globalization and technology require the Church to apply her teachings in new ways to new situations. Understanding the economics of the "Nanny State" and the demographic challenges associated with people having fewer children may require a rethinking of things like immigration. I trust the Church to make good decisions; I just hope they have good people doing the explanations. The Pope can't address every single issue personally - though he may try!

Why We Blog.....

2006-03-24T23:44:00.000-07:00

Below Mike E. asks why I blog...that is a great question. To be honest, most of the time I am not sure. I certainly am not gifted at it. I don't have any particular insight; I don't write well; I am not good at turning a phrase.

Nevertheless, I do remember the gospel where Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes:

Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?" This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little." One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?" Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. John 6:5-11

I am exactly like this young lad who only had brought his simple lunch. I bring my most basic fare in the hope that somehow the Lord will choose to take it, bless it, break it, increase it, and give it to the hungry that are gathered in order to bring glory to himself and his Father in heaven. I have no illusions of what I bring to the table...simple gifts...five loaves and two fishes. However, I also understand that if it is Christ Jesus' will, he can make what little I do into something that will further the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Thus, I blog out of obedience, hope, faith, and love. I pray that the power of the Holy Spirit will inspire, enlighten, and set on fire the hearts of those who read these simple messages.

Stem Cells...

2006-03-24T14:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a report that claims scientists in Germany have isolated Adult Stem Cells (ASC) in mice that can be cultured to act as Embryonic Stem Cells (ESC). Of course, initial reports are always in need of further study. The media doesn't help by taking preliminary studies and presenting them as established fact. Research is much more convoluted than that.

I spent many years in science. I know how the ballgame works as far as the competition for grant money, the lifeblood of research. I personally observed many occasions where the ultimate usefulness of particular research was exaggerated in order to look better for the funding agencies and especially private funding foundations. Researchers jobs, reputations, and egos are on the line here, not that all are lying or being deceitful. However, there is a great tendency to....ummm....let's call it optimism. 8^> While that might be OK in some cases, it certainly isn't in the debate to justify the use if ESCs. Most scientists are portrayed as the dispassionate, objective scientist...yea right. Navigating the halls of a research facility is an exercise in moving through massively huge heads who revel in being 'brilliant'.

Researchers have promised the moon concerning the use of ESCs claiming they will cure every disease known to man. They sound like a bunch of snake oil salesmen...with little to nothing to show for it. Remember fetal brain tissue? About 10 years ago the same claims were made concerning fetal brain tissue (a great use for aborted children!). If the religious nuts would just get with the times, nearly every disease (especially neurological ones) known to man could be cured, they claimed. Well, 10 years later, we don't even hear fetal brain tissue mentioned.

We can't forget that dying is as much a part of life as living. It is an endpoint that makes us ask the tough questions in life and ultimately realize that we aren't God...that we are contingent, finite beings that aren't the source of their own being. When we turn to the Creator, death becomes, not an endpoint, but a mile marker on the way to the beatific vision. We will continue to watch as so many clamor, at any expense - even at the expense of innocent life, to cling to what was always meant to be temporary.

Self Reliance...con't.

2006-03-24T09:02:00.000-07:00

Long ago I posted on self-reliance. I have since spent quite some time reflecting on this fact in my own life. I kept coming up against the same question. "What is my part to do, and what is the Lord's part?" Here is what my hero has to say about the matter.

I shall put all my confidence in your mercy, and shall distrust my own strength, convinced that my weakness is caused by my self-reliance. St. Teresa of Avila

As long as we are trying to struggle on our own spiritual 'capital', we will get creamed! Jesus is our capital. For me, and I think most of us, the first movement of my intellect and will when tempted is to grit my teeth and resist. Of course, we are to resist but not with our own strength. Christ is our strength.

God indeed is my savior. I am confident and unafraid. My strength and my courage is the Lord, and he has been my savior. Isaiah 12:2

To struggle on my own is to fall into pride. I say "Stand back, God. I can handle this one!" Well, we can't, and he knows it. Humility is the recognition that I **absolutely** need God for everything. We really want to think that we don't need God at some level. We fall into the trap of the 'rugged individualist' which in unChristian. St Paul states,

It is God who, in his good will toward you, begets any measure of desire or achievement. Philippians 2:13

Thus, our first movement should always be towards Christ, seeking grace and help in need.

Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:16

Then and only then are we equipped to "fight the good fight" with Christ's strength.

This is not our 'default' procedure. We have to ask for the grace. We have to practice. We will fail; therefore, we have to get back up again, brush ourselves off, and resolve to cooperate with God's grace more deeply.

The Bishops reply to Fr. Faucher...

2006-03-21T03:00:00.000-07:00

Well, not to him, specifically. But they did reaffirm their "support of the Marriage Protection Amendment and efforts to ratify such an amendment" - which is good. I have not seen any statement from Bishop Driscoll regarding Fr. Faucher, but I was told that the Bishop is on the very committee which issued the statement. The statement, in part:

...Marriage exists so that the spouses might grow in mutual love and, by the generosity of their love, bring children into the world and serve life fully. ...

Therefore, it is our duty as pastors and teachers – a responsibility we share with the Christian faithful and with all persons of good will – to promote, preserve, and protect marriage as it is willed by God, as generations have understood and lived it, and as it has served the common good of society.

To promote, preserve, and protect marriage today requires, among other things, that we advocate for legislative and public policy initiatives that define and support marriage as a unique, essential relationship and institution. At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled defense of marriage is an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the wellbeing of children, and the common good of society. ...

We will do this in our teaching and preaching, but also in our public policy advocacy at the state and national levels and in the important dialogue about how best to protect marriage and the common good in the U.S. Constitution and in our society as a whole. We offer general support for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as we continue to work to protect marriage in state legislatures, the courts, the Congress and other appropriate forums.

Thus, we strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage --by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means.
It's difficult, though not impossible, to imagine support for Federal but not for State efforts in this area. So aside from the inherent wrongness of Fr. Faucher's postition, he's not on the same page procedurally, either.

Here's the link to "What Fr. Faucher Said..." where you can read my thoughts on what he said about gay "marriage

Latin, and Chant, and Polyphony - oh my!

2006-03-21T02:59:00.000-07:00

I'm sure this will not be greeted with cheers from some quarters...

Pope’s upcoming Apostolic Exhortation likely to call for increased liturgical solemnity, reintegration of Latin

Vatican City, Mar. 20, 2006 (CNA) - In June Pope Benedict XVI will receive the final proposal from the recent Synod of Bishops for the drafting of his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist. The commission of 12 cardinals and bishops from around the world, led by the secretary of the Synod of Bishops, Archbishop Nicola Eterovic, will meet in June to present the Holy Father a final proposal based on the 50 propositions that were made at the conclusion of last October's Synod.

According to a Vatican source, the commission will approve “a proposal and a plan for liturgical reform,” which will be made public in the Apostolic Exhortation that the Holy Father will tentatively issue in October.

The Vatican source said that the exhortation would include an invitation to greater use of Latin in the daily prayer of the Church and in the Mass—with the exception of the Liturgy of the Word—as well as in large public and international Masses.

The document would also encourage a greater use of Gregorian chant and classical polyphonic music; the gradual elimination of the use of songs whose music or lyrics are secular in origin, as well as the elimination of instruments that are “inadequate for liturgical use,” such as the electric guitar or drums, although it is not likely that specific instruments will be mentioned.

Lastly, the Pope is expected to call for “more decorum and liturgical sobriety in the celebration of the Eucharist, excluding dance and, as much as possible, applause.”

I, on the other hand, would be happy to NEVER EVER hear another song from OCP. And if the Holy Father could stamp out holding hands during the Our Father, I would be much happier, too.

Link to Story from The Cafeteria is Closed

Why we blog...

2006-03-21T02:48:00.000-07:00

I was asked the other day what we hoped to accomplish with this venture. Fame? Fortune? Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?

Well - speaking for myself, I hope to participate in the mission that Benedict XVI outlined in a talk he gave on St. Patrick's Day.

While far from being part of the "hugely influential media industry" I hope we are doing our part to live up to the Holy Father's words:

St. Paul reminds us that through Christ we are no longer strangers and aliens but citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, growing into a holy temple, a dwelling place for God (cf. Ephesians 2:19-22). This sublime portrayal of a life of communion engages all aspects of our lives as Christians and for you, in a particular way, points to the challenge to encourage the social communications and entertainment industries to be protagonists of truth and promoters of the peace that ensues from lives lived in accordance with that liberating truth. ...

In conclusion, I urge you to renew your efforts to assist those working in the world of media to promote what is good and true, especially in regard to the meaning of human and social existence, and to denounce what is false, especially pernicious trends which erode the fabric of a civil society worthy of the human person. Let us be encouraged by the words of St. Paul: Christ is our peace: In him we are one (cf. Ephesians 2:14)! And let us work together to build up the communion of love according to the designs of the Creator made known through his Son! To all of you, your colleagues, and the members of your families at home I cordially impart my apostolic blessing.

So in answer to that question...to promote what is good and true, and to denounce what is false. That is what I hope to accomplish.

Brent and Mike... how would you answer the question?

Last time I checked...

2006-03-21T02:38:00.000-07:00

...this was a three-person blog.

Fotunately, I'm getting paid three times my regular pay, and they are getting nothing.

News Flash: "Gay Marriage Won't Damage Real Marriage" is WRONG...

2006-03-16T10:30:00.000-07:00

First off, Newsweek has a piece called Polygamists, Unite!

[Marlyne] Hammon, who's involved in a polygamous relationship, is a founding member of the Centennial Park Action Committee, a group that lobbies for decriminalization of the practice. She's among a new wave of polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement—just as a federal lawsuit challenging anti-polygamy laws makes its way through the courts and a new show about polygamy debuts on HBO. "Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle," says Mark Henkel, who, as founder of the Christian evangelical polygamy organization TruthBearer.org, is at the forefront of the movement. His argument: if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.

There's a sound legal argument for making the controversial practice legal, says Brian Barnard, the lawyer for a Utah couple, identified in court documents only as G. Lee Cooke and D. Cooke, who filed suit after being denied a marriage license for an additional wife. Though the case was struck down by a federal court last year, it's now being considered by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Barnard plans to use the same argument—that Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 sodomy case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention," should also apply to polygamous relationships.

Lawerence helped codify in law the principle of "separation of sex and children" and that's EXACTLY what gay "marriage" would help do. Why else such an insistence that gays be able to adopt also? The philosophical battle is important, and the other side knows it, even if we don't. The HBO show on polygamy, gay marriage and adoption...the link between marriage, sex, and children must be severed so that NO RESTRICTIONS will exist on who sleeps with whom. Once this is complete, real marriage is, for all practical purposes, dead. Sure, religious straight people may still marry, but why? It will no longer have any function in society.

"I frankly would not love to see an article [about polygamy advocacy] in NEWSWEEK because this is the connection that our opponents make, and we feel it's a specious one," says Carisa Cunningham, director of public affairs for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

Of course, he wouldn't love to see that - but precisely because it's not specious. If it were, he wouldn't worry about it. But he knows that it's a real argument.

Then, in our very own IDAHO CATHOLIC REGISTER (March 3, 2006), this CNS article appeared:

Participants at Rome seminar warn gay marriage poses risk to children

ROME (CNS) -- Gay marriage and gay adoption would undermine society's traditional configuration and pose risks to the children raised by same-sex couples, warned participants at a Rome seminar.

[the seminar] offered for course credit by the Pontifical Lateran University, studied the topic: "The Homosexual Question: Psychology, Rights and the Truth of Love." In a public conference Feb. 23, professors teaching the seminar spoke at length about the threats posed by the gay rights movement and said current legislative proposals around the world could have far-reaching effects on how society is structured. French Msgr. Tony Anatrella, a psychoanalyst and consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family, said gay couples were unable to give children the model of sexual difference that any child needs to develop his or her own sexual identity. He referred to one recent study, which he said showed that 40 percent of children raised by homosexuals became homosexuals themselves. Msgr. Anatrella said there were other psychological "collateral effects" of being raised by a same-sex couple that show up only in adulthood, including anxiety over sexual differentiation. When it comes time for these young people to form their own families, they suffer because they have not learned to accept the sexual difference between two adults, he said.

I wonder if the priests in this diocese read the diocesan paper...hmmm?

"Labor Domini" coming soon?...

2006-03-16T10:10:00.000-07:00

CNA says that Pope Benedict XVI is preparing his first social encyclical about work as a participation in "the creative action of God, and therefore a means of sanctification"... uh, that won't cause the Fundamentalists to accuse the Church of teaching "Works Salvation" will it?

According to the report, which has not yet been officially confirmed by the Holy See, the encyclical would present a Christian vision of human work and address the importance of work for society. Likewise, it would explore the necessity and duty of the human person to work in some capacity.

Don't look for it before Christmas according to the CNA article.

New catechesis from Benedict...

2006-03-16T09:52:00.000-07:00

The Holy Father began a new Wednesday series yesterday. It will focus on the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

The first one highlights the importance of community, and the incompatibility of the individualistic view of Christianity, what I call the "me -n- Jesus" movement...

"The Church was constituted upon the foundation of the Apostles as a community of faith, hope and charity," ... Yet theirs is not an isolated mission, it is part of a mystery of communion, one that involves the entire People of God and takes place in stages, from the old to the new Covenant."

The Holy Father highlighted the fact that Jesus' message "is completely misunderstood" if separated "from the context of the faith and hope of the chosen people," ...For this reason, although the preaching of Jesus is "always a call to individual conversion, ... to interpret Christ's announcement of the Kingdom in individualistic terms would be unilateral and groundless," because in biblical tradition ... , "it is clear that the entire mission of the Son-made-flesh has a community goal."

"Thus, the twelve Apostles are the clearest sign of ... the guarantee that there is no contrast between Christ and the Church. And the slogan that became fashionable some years ago: 'Yes to Jesus, no to the Church,' is completely irreconcilable with the intentions of Christ."

One more update...

2006-03-15T03:27:00.000-07:00

...on Michael's story about the basketball kid...his story has reached the highest levels in the land!

Heh. "You can call me George W"

Rural development in poor countries...

2006-03-13T12:43:00.000-07:00

Interesting article from CNS about the Vatican's position on farm subsidies... summary: wealthy nations should consider eliminating them.

I think most non-Catholics think the Church is monolithically Socialist in her economic policy. This is the logical extension of what John Paul II wrote about the importance of private property and the market economy. Sugar, milk, and other selected crops get subsidized in the US to the detriment of producers in other countries, and global market forces are distorted.

Justice requires that wealthy nations reconsider the level of subsidies they offer their own farmers and the barriers that countries place on the import of agricultural products from developing nations, the Vatican said...

...the Vatican [also] said the conference must give priority to the "longing for justice and the desire for development" of poor people living in rural areas in the developing world...

While developing countries have to take responsibility for their own agrarian policies, the Vatican said, rich countries cannot ignore the impact their internal policies, particularly farm subsidies and trade barriers, have on the poor.

The article also quotes the Vatican's position on resolving

..."the question of the ownership of the land, an element of fundamental importance in economic and agrarian policies," the Vatican said, not only would promote development in rural areas, but also would "guarantee social justice, political stability and peaceful coexistence."

I think that this is talking about restoring private ownership of the farms to the farmers, rather than having the State or state-owned corporations as landlords.

Good stuff...

An Episcopal Reminder...

2006-03-12T16:14:00.000-07:00

...about fidelty to the Church.

First, 55 House democrats released a "Statement of Principles" regarding their faith and their jobs as legislators. In it, the pro-life dems were trying to affirm their own support for the Church's teaching on abortion (hint: intrinsically evil), while maintaining that they can't necessarily always vote that way:

Affirming Catholic teaching on "the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion," the politicians pledged to support alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, improved access to children's health care and child care, and "policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility."

"In all these issues, we seek the church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," the statement said. "In recognizing the church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the church in some areas."

Then, the USCCB issued this reminder on the responsibilities of Catholics in their public lives:

... we welcome the Representatives’ recognition that Catholics in public life must act seriously and responsibly on many important moral issues. ... We encourage and will continue to work with those in both parties who seek to act on these essential principles in defense of the poor and vulnerable.

At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right – the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess. Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the Representatives’ statement cites, declares:

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor (# 38).
While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life.

Nice work from the USCCB and Bishops Keeler, McCarrick, and DiMarzio.

Adherence to the Father's Will...

2006-03-12T15:58:00.000-07:00

Cardinal Marco Ce preached on this topic to Pope Benedict and his aides at a Lenten rereat at the Vatican, which ended this week.

This morning the cardinal began by reflecting on the solitude Jesus experienced in the Garden of Olives and his adherence to the Father's will.

"The agony of Gethsemane enables us to enter 'within' the mystery of the Passion, to understand the core and the core is this: He willingly gave himself up to death," indicated the preacher, as reported by Vatican Radio.

"The features that characterize Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane are the overwhelming psychological suffering, Jesus' total solitude, the collapse of all his work and, at the same time, the total and radical conformity of his will with the Father's," continued the cardinal.

Jesus remained "tragically alone" in Gethsemane as death approached, added the preacher. Jesus asks that he not have to drink the "cup" of the passion but accepts without reservations the Father's decision, the cardinal noted.

We struggle very much to conform our will to God's when it appears to us that it will result in "the collapse of all our work" and in being alone. To the world, we are only our accomplishments. In Lent, we seek to remember that we came from dust, and to dust we shall return. Conformance to God's will always involves suffering, and we are to count those sufferings as joy, knowing we are helping complete the work of the Cross in our lives.

"They Know My Voice"

2006-03-09T22:45:00.000-07:00

From Prayer by Hans Urs von Balthasar, page 15 (emphasis mine)

It [God's Word] is the lantern which shines in the darkness of the world (a world which keeps silence and refuses to reveal its own nature); it casts a softer light on the riddles which torment us and encourages us to keep going. Finally, God's word is himself, his most vital, his innermost self his only-begotten Son, of the same nature as himself, sent into the world to bring it home, back to him.

Oddly enough this parenthetical comment is the line that stuck with me the most from the whole first chapter of the book.

God has revealed himself totally in Jesus the Incarnate Word. To be sure we are incapable of comprehending the totality of He who has been revealed, but revealed He has been. We know where we stand. We know what is expected and are promised all the help of heaven to help us finish this race, should we choose to do so.

The world, flesh and the devil, on the other hand, refuse to reveal their own nature. Money, sex and power make similar promises as God. They promise satisfaction, but deliver frustration. They promise peace, but deliver discord. They promise freedom, but deliver bondage. They are illusion and fantasy, revealing nothing of their true nature and aims.

But isn't this exactly what the world thinks of God, to the extent that He is thought of at all? God is seen as distant and irrelevant, while the world is present and immediate.

Perhaps the words of Jesus, "they know my voice" applies to false gods as well as the true God. We see our gods and what they present to us. Foreign gods seem distant and illusory.

Let us pray that all people accept the revelation of Truth Himself rather than the "revelation" of the Father of Lies.

Women to admire...

2006-03-08T13:48:00.000-07:00

Today is International Women's Day as designated by the UN, at least.

Since the UN typically only supports people and organizations who support Planned Parenthood-style "family planning" efforts, here is a list of women who SHOULD be recognized and not just today...

If the UN is not too busy condemning Israel, electing Cuba and Libya to their Human Rights watchdog organization, and generally trying to spread abortion and coverup the scandalous human-trafficking and sex-trade practices of it's member nations, it should take a look at some of these women. They include scholars, diplomats, nuns, moms, and teens. They are from around the world, and have or are overcoming amazing adversity.

Preview:

When she enters the room, Rebecca Garang's demeanor of quiet, intense focus commands respect, even more than her near seven foot frame. Madame Minister is the 49-year-old minister of transportation in the government of Southern Sudan.

She assumed her post after the death of her husband, John Garang, in a helicopter crash. For 22 years, he had led the southern Sudanese resistance, the SPLM, against the forcible imposition of Islamic law in the southern Christian and animist homelands. After last year's peace agreement that resolved the conflict, in July he became president of the new South Sudan government and first vice president of Sudan's National Unity Government. At his funeral three weeks later, Madame Garang consoled her countrymen: "The lion is dead and we will see what the lioness will do."

A mother of six, she sees her post as key to development, and set about building a transportation network throughout the south and connected the world. She plans roads for food distribution and a growing economy, to prevent famines like that in 1998 that killed tens of thousands, to dredge the Nile and use barges to repatriate the 4.5 million southerners displaced, forced into exile, or enslaved during the war. In Washington this winter, she reminded us that South Sudan has neither tarmac roads nor a single hotel. Knowing that transportation has usually been a man's world, she has a woman chauffeur and is personally teaching 25 women how to drive. As I listen to her, my stomach is in knots, but she sounds undaunted, calm, confident, even mighty.

Too Comfortable

2006-03-07T20:18:00.000-07:00

One of my Lenten goals is to read Prayer by Hans Urs von Balthasar. I could tell that it was going to be good, just by this little snippet from the preface. He is talking about attempting to pray by taking up a book of meditations written by another:

We observe someone else eating, but it does nothing to fill our stomachs. We may read his "meditations", but what we have done is spiritual readings - not contemplation. We have seen how someone else as encountered the word of God, we have even profited by the encounter, but all the same it was his and not ours - and we ourselves have achieved nothing. Often because we are too comfortable, which is something that can be overcome. And often out of a fearfulness which robs us of the confidence to take steps on our own.

I particularly appreciate the line "Often because we are too comfortable, which is something that can be overcome." It's a statement that is foolishness to the world.

How could anyone be "too comfortable?" There are always more possessions to acquire, more power to obtain and more fame and notoriety. And even if one were to have enough of these Golden Calves, why would one want to "overcome" and give it up.

Through the Holy Spirit, Christ can heal us of this blindness so that we may see past this illusion. Too much comfort makes us rely on our possessions rather than God. It leads us to the sin of self-sufficiency and pride.

Having possessions and comfort removed by force can be a manifestation of God's mercy. It is an opportunity to recognize the sin and repent. It can also be an opportunity to harden our hearts and turn farther away. As always, in this life, the choice is ours.

I suspect, however, that it is preferable to give up our excess comforts willingly. To toss aside self-sufficiency for the sake of love. Which really is what this season of Lent is all about...

UPDATED - RE: What Father Faucher said...

2006-03-06T11:47:00.000-07:00

A protestant friend pointed out to me the Idaho Statesman op-ed written by Fr. Thomas Faucher in support of gay "marriage" last weekend. He asked how a priest could do that. I didn't have a good answer when he asked me (although I suspect Bishop Vasa would have one).

To my dismay, several Catholics defended Fr. Faucher's position. Why "to my dismay"- well, because even my protestant friend knows what the teaching of the Catholic Church is regarding that topic. And it's not what Fr. Faucher wrote.

So, in order that I would have an answer, I read and re-read Father's essay many times. You can find my rather long response to Fr. Faucher here.

Bishop Discoll's contact information at the Diocese can be found here.

UPDATE: Added some contact info, and cleaned up my grammar, sentence structure, and typos

Interesting article on women and work...

2006-03-06T11:38:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it seems that "choice" is a concept supported by the "pro-choice" side only when it comes to abortion.

Here is an article by an "expensively educated" woman who chose to opt out the work force to raise her kids. She takes offense at another woman who calls her chosen life, "lesser" for that choice, and says women shouldn't do that - it's bad.

Men and women both are pressured to believe that the only contributions to society are financial and that raising children or even having them is a net loss.