Cosmos~ Liturgy~ Sex

2006-01-21T08:02:00.000-06:00

YOU ARE BEING REDIRECTED TO THE NEW WEBSITE!

We Moved!!!

2005-12-14T20:10:00.000-06:00

Well, we have moved to a new site. Hopefully this will remedy the problems we have been having. Please update your links and visit us at http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com

Love and Irresponsibility

2005-12-02T12:38:00.000-06:00

There is an intimate bond between love and reproduction. John Paul II shows that marital intercourse is the most perfect expression of Trinitarian love when it is open to the gift of a child. Human sexuality is God's gift which allows us to cooperate in His plan for creation. This realization gives Christians a great regard for love, procreation and human sexuality. These days the connection between love and reproduction is often severed in the minds of many Americans. One major reason for this is that we have lost sight of the responsibilities associated with the most intimate expression of married love because so many no longer have to deal with its physical consequences. Artificial contraception, especially "the pill," has done a lot of damage here because it allows sex without the concern for reproduction. Tragically, contraception's all too common use, even among many married Catholics, often separates the expression of intimacy from the begetting of children. We are left with a dis-integrated view of love, sex, and reproduction. Love is reduced to feelings, sex to pleasure, and reproduction to personal fulfillment. This widespread thinking brings with it many negative repercussions including, a climbing divorce rate, the dissolution of the nuclear family, the increase in trafficking of children and women for the sex trade, a booming pornography industry, and within the medical community, a "commoditization" of human sexuality and reproduction. A dis-integrated view of reproduction, all too common among medical researchers, has led to treating human sexuality as a commodity to be manipulated with the only limits being set by scientific capabilities. Many scientist are going beyond the creation of babies in Petri dishes for invitro fertilization (IVF) to now experimenting with the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos and human cloning, experimenting with stem cells harvested by destroying human embryos, and even embryo harvesting where embryos are allowed to grow to various levels of maturity, destroyed, and their cells harvested for a variety of applications. Currently, many states have no statutes limiting any of these practices. This should cause us great concern. The Second Vatican Council reminded all Catholics that we, clergy and laity alike, have an obligation to spread the gospel message throughout the culture. John Paul II indicated that this includes resisting practices which are at odds with this gospel of life.

Father Harvey's Take

2005-12-01T16:14:00.000-06:00

The founder and director of Courage, an apostolate to help those with same sex attraction live a chaste life, gave an interview with Zenit about his thoughts on "the document." In sum, he agrees with it in its entirety. He was happy with its tone and surprised by its restraint.

God in the Streets of NYC

2005-11-30T16:11:00.000-06:00

Here is an amazingly well done video for vocations. I think the most moving section for me was JP the Great's voice over. These folks acted on the late Holy Father's words in a most gutsy way. Thoughts?

As We Expected...

2005-11-29T21:37:00.000-06:00

The spleen rupturing has begun. Catholic On-line is running three front page stories from CNS on reaction to the release of the "document." We have seen a priest in Pheonix quit over it, which is not a bad thing--if he is that confused he should not be a Catholic priest. I do feel sorry for those who have such a distorted view of the human person that they are taking this as a rejection of them or their loved ones, friends, etc., as persons. I plan to pray extra hard over the next few weeks that this uproar becomes the catalyst for grace by which many confused souls suffering from same sex attraction open themselves to the truth and are reconciled with Christ and His Church.

Dancing for Our Creator???

2005-11-28T12:50:00.000-06:00

That is the sound-bite that the Indy Star took from rationale that Gregory Hancock and his dance theater give for imposing his "Flamenco Mass" on unsuspecting Catholics. While liturgical dance is not prohibited by name in liturgical documents, it is certainly a novetly which Redemptionis Sacramentum rules out in its prohibition against introducing elements not contemplated by the liturgical books. Any changes in the Mass of this sort must be proposed by a conference of bishops and always have prior approval of the Holy See. Besides being illicit, it is just bad liturgical theology. Hancock says he wants to offer another vision of Mass as an alternative way of worship showing that there is more than one way to speak to God. I guess I don't have an argument with these assertions in themselves: it is certainly another vision of the Mass, it is an alternative way of worship, and there is more than one way to speak to God. The problem, of course, is the apparent presupposition that the structure of the Mass is a man-made method of speaking to God and so any Tom, Dick or Gregory can change it at will. It is not. A couple of weeks ago, I posted on this kind of presupposition from The Spirit of the Liturgy. This attitude that we can make worship whatever we wish fits so well with what Cardinal Ratzinger called a "cry in the dark." While I have no doubt that Flamenco dancing can be a very emotional experience, perhaps even more so for the performers, emotion is not the same as an experience of the Transcendent. Cardinal Arinze has identified the primary problem with liturgical dance, he has said that it draws away from the vertical and focuses on the horizontal level. He means that dance is inherently appreciated as entertainment rather than as liturgical worship. Why is that? I think that it is for the very reason that good liturgy is not spontaneous. In the Mass we are, as the Mystical Body of Christ, offering back to the Father, the Sacrifice of the Son. If we do not know the dance we are more apt to be drawn in by its novelty and (presumably) beauty than we are drawn to join ourselves with the act and together offer it to the Father. In fact, unlike prayers and singing, it does not seem to me that dance lends itself to a corporate act of worship. That is probably the reason that we have never seen dance in the liturgy until it started popping up a decade or two ago. Assuming that it is well done and not obscene, I am all for offering this Flamenco Christmas pageant in the parish hall. My question is, why do so many insist on co-opting the Mass and separating the worshiping community from the authentic liturgy of the Church by imposing their personal sense of creativity on us when it is at odds with liturgical rubrics and liturgical theology?

Confused Politicians

2005-11-27T20:31:00.000-06:00

San Antonio Archbishop Gomez provides some excellent advice for pastors and politicians to help clear up the confusion that so many have over how their faith lives intersect with their public lives. The truth is often the more difficult road to take. As Jesus warns, the road that leads to destructionis is the wide one.

Ignorance Abounds...

2005-11-26T18:26:00.000-06:00

With the imminent release of "the document" there are a lot of folks rupturing spleens over what they think that it will say. Most seem to assume that the leak to the Italian press is authentic, including the former editor of the U.S. Jesuit magazine, America. Unfortunately Fr. Reese makes the same category mistakes as the rest of American culture and seems to think that the reductionist approach to anthropology reveals the truth about the human person. In other words, because a good portion of the medical community presumes that they can circumscribe the truth about human sexuality by assuming that sexuality and sexual attraction is simply a social construct, Fr. Reese seems to assume that this defines the truth. Thus, he makes the ironic claim that the Vatican is ignorant in reaffirming its current policy against ordaining men suffering from same sex attraction because they have not done a study to see how wide spread the problem is among the already ordained. This absurd statement presupposes that if that if a sufficiently high percentage of SSA oriented priests are celibate and provide effective ministry that there should be no reason for them not to be ordained. This pragmatism neglects the Vatican II teaching which says that the Church is the expert on the human person. It ignores the authoritative teaching that says homosexual attraction is a disorder and the empirical evidence that disorder, left untreated, leads to further disorder. Fr. Reese makes the further absurd claim that those with strong heterosexual attraction should not be ordained because of dangers in all female environments as if a natural inclination is equivalent to a disordered inclination. Another absurd claim is that many of the priests who abused boys were actually heterosexual. Hmmm, I guess that they were really only attracted to women but somehow mistakenly projected femininity onto their male victims . . . ??? I am not sure I can even try to make start making sense of this outlandish assertion. Whatever the document actually says, it is certain to be the opportunity for more opprobrium hurled at the Church from without and unfortunately, from within. It is clear that those who attack the teaching, for many reasons, identify the SAA inclination with the dignity of the person suffering from it. Until this connection is broken there is little chance that the Church’s position will be understood much less accepted.

"Fundamentalism in a time of insecurity."

2005-11-25T23:39:00.000-06:00

The Archbishop of Dublin has said that homosexual men are not excluded from ordination as Catholic priests, according to a report in the Irish Times. The archbishop spoke about the problems he saw arising from religious conservatism in the United States; he remarked on the temptation toward "fundamentalism in a time of insecurity." I am not really sure of the insecurity to which he is referring. I am concerned about the difficulty of so many intelligent men not being able to accept the clear instruction set forth by the Church. With so many souls at risk and the use of terms like "conservative" makes me think that the idolatry of politics has blinded and hardened the heart of another Church leader.

Meme In Honor of the Blessed Trinity.

2005-11-24T22:28:00.000-06:00

Thank you, Island Catholic, for the chance to evaluate where I am spiritually. This was not as easy as I thought as it would be, it only took me about a week to get it together, and here it is: 1. Write three things for which we're grateful to God in this past liturgical year. For our new Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. For John Paul II and his example of holiness and courage. For the improved understanding of and faith in the Catholic Church. 2. Write three ways in which we hope to improve our relationship with God in this coming liturgical year. Walking more by faith and less by sight. Learning to trust in God more, and less in my imperfected feelings. Less procrastination and making more of the time given to me. Since I am so late with this tag, I will not pass it to any fellow bloggers.

Happy New Year!

2005-11-23T12:00:00.000-06:00

Well, no I am not really all that early with this post as it might at first seem; though it might be better to have waited until after Thanksgiving. However, we are travelling to Dayton for Turkey day. Actually we are leaving as soon as I get off work at noon. I am not sure if I will get to a computer for the next few days so I thought I would provide the text of an Advent reflection for the first Sunday (yeah...it is here already). Here is one for this year by Msgr. Stuart Swetland: The First Sunday of Advent, November 27 Isaiah 63:16-17, 19; Psalm 80:2-3, 15-16, 18-19; 1 Corinthians 1:3-9; Mark 13:33-37 Happy New Year! For Catholics, the new liturgical year begins this weekend with the First Sunday of Advent. How appropriate that our New Year begins with the Lord's call from the Gospel of Mark: "Be watchful! Be Alert!" (Mk 13:33). For what are we to be watchful? While we are called to be alert for many things, most importantly we are called to be watchful for the coming of the Lord. The term "advent" comes from the Latin adventus, meaning "coming." Although we are always to be ready and alert, in a particular way the season of Advent reminds us to be watchful for the coming of the Lord. How does the Lord come to us? Of course most of us immediately think of the coming of the Lord in history as the Babe in Bethlehem. Here, God fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah when he "rent the heavens and came down" becoming Incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Christmas is the season where we celebrate this first "coming of the Lord." Advent helps prepare us for this celebration. But Advent, especially in the earlier part of the season, also looks forward to the Second Coming of Christ at the end of time. In the first coming of Jesus, He entered our history in humility and weakness in order to establish the Kingdom. In the Second Coming, He will come in power and glory to end history and usher in the completion of the Kingdom. As Christians, we express the hope of the New Heaven and New Earth when we pray "Maranatha--Come, Lord Jesus!" (1 Cor 16:22). However, Advent does not just look forward to Jesus' Second Coming or backward to remember His first coming as Man. It is also a season that asks God to come here and now. "Rouse Your power and come to save us" (Psalm 80:2). Advent is, as well, a season where we prepare for the Lord's coming in grace to each of us in this present moment. The goal of Advent is that each of us, and all of us as a Church, will be closer to the Lord at this Christmas than we have ever been before. Catholics ought not be surprised by the fact that Advent celebrates three "comings" of the Lord. For, in fact, all of our liturgical celebrations commemorate this. They remember a past event in the life of Christ, look forward to our completion in heaven with Him, and celebrate the coming of Christ in grace here and now. For example, in Mass we remember what Jesus did for us at the Last Supper and in His passion, death and resurrection; we look forward to perfect communion with Him in Heaven; and we celebrate His coming to us in grace and glory during the liturgy in Word and Sacrament. Our memorial acclamation also reflects this three-fold celebration: Christ has died (past), Christ is risen (present), Christ will come again (future). The Advent season is a busy one for us all: presents to buy, trees to trim, cookies to bake, cards to send. But first and foremost, it is a season to "prepare the way of the Lord" (Mk 1:3). While wonderful gifts, a beautifully trimmed tree, perfectly baked cookies, or just the right card might be nice, it will truly have been a great Advent if we find that we can say we have indeed become closer to Christ than ever before. Then we really will have had a happy new year!

Blessed are the Pure in Heart

2005-11-22T21:10:00.000-06:00

I have written on this topic before (I apologize for the messed special character problems I have not yet fixed for those who follow the link), and others have posted on the same idea as of late. Though, apparently men have less credibility on the topic than women. Any way, I guess I will take another shot. I don't usually get as many transient visitors as others so I may be safe. Sexual purity, at least in a certain way, is much more difficult for men on average than for women. Why is this? It is because men's psycho-sexual gifts (especially testosterone) help to focus their attention on women in such a way that men very easily can and often do reduce a woman to an object of pleasure rather than seeing her as a person. Compound this with the fact that women, on average, more than men are much more integrated in many ways. One of these ways can lead women to experience the compelling desire to be thought of as beautiful and desirable. In our current culture, this unfortunately is very often translating into immodest dress and behavior. Most men, schooled by our culture and succumbing to their fallen inclinations, are not complaining. Thus, often even committed Christian women can dress (if you can call it that) in ways that leave little to the imagination. I suppose I should restate this. The human body is very very good! In fact, without it one cannot be a human person. The human body is beautiful (even for those of us past 40 it still has a certain aged beauty I suppose). The problem is that in our fallen state, lust is always lurking at the door. As John Paul the Great says, it is an ever present danger. We are all in this life together so we ought to help each other in the universal call to holiness. Those men and women who do not consider the affect that their attire and actions will have on others' ability to see them as a child of God rather than a piece of meat ought to consider this. Those who do not care, should. We all need to keep our eyes focused on Jesus and to strive for a pure heart, a singular heart given wholly to God. This can be made somewhat easier, especially in Mass, if there are not temptations lurking in the next pew.

Virtus

2005-11-21T20:27:00.000-06:00

As an diocesan employee I was required to take the Virtus program which is our diocese's approach to Protecting God's Children. I was not exactly sure what to expect but in some ways it was not as bad as I thought. The video is certainly troubling, seeing victims describe the horror that they experienced and still do, and very troubling seeing perpetrators describe so matter of factly their modus operandi. The program itself has some good points to it. It is certainly good for developing awareness and compassion. However, there were also some problem areas. One is that I do not think it does a good enough job of distinguishing prudence from general suspicion and therefore, I think that the the program general leaves one with the sense that one should have a general suspicion of everyone. Undermining trust and creating general suspicion is developing a cancerous environment. We are not made to suspect and distrust and the more we do it the more difficult it becomes to trust. This can lead to difficult working environments and in the extreme a complete breakdown in the functioning of organizations and institutions. A second concern was that they tried to debunk certain "myths" without saying why they were myths or giving evidence to support themselves. The worst was the way they treated the myth that "Most abusers are homosexual." In pure numbers this is true, but it is also true that those suffering from same sex attraction AND who actively live that lifestyle are 3-16 times more likely to abuse postpubescent teenage boys. Thus the risk for practicing "homosexuals" is very much higher. More troubling is the way they explain it is the definitions they make, like saying that a man who has sex with a boy is not a homosexual but a pedophile. Besides not distinguishing between pedophilia and ephebophilia, this seems to be succumbing to the noxious notion that gay is simply one of 5 to 6 different "genders." Finally, the concern I had was with the implications of the way this is taught to children. I am always cautious when I see schools trying to take on role of parents. I think it is especially problematic to assume that all children are able to understand and deal with this issue uniformly. In addition, a teacher teaching 20-30 students doesn't know each child like his parents do and the teacher would not likely be in a position to be as sensitive to whether he was scaring or even traumtizing the child as would a parent . In general, I get the sense that it was developed by lawyers/insurers to limit liability. I think a more comprehensive, faith centered approach needs to infuse this program. I am all for doing everything we can to protect our children and Virtus seems like a start. However, I think it has problems that need to be addressed.

Pax Christi in Regno Christi

2005-11-20T21:00:00.000-06:00

In 1925, Pius XI published Quas primas and established the Feast of Christ the King in response to what he perceived as the danger the West had brought to itself with the rejection of Christ from both the private lives of many Christians but also from the public life of many more. The beginning of this rejection of God and His Son from public life can be traced in the West as far back as the Renaissance, but perhaps reached a critical stage in the French Revolution and the document, Declaration of the Rights of Man. The document might not seem too radical to us today but a fundamental shift in thinking that this document brought about, especially for a formerly Catholic country, was the assertion that a legitimate government derived its authority from the consent of the governed. Hmmm . . . that sounds like our Declaration of Independence . . . what's the problem with this? Well, the problem is that all authority comes not from public support but from God. When God is removed from public life and the consent of the people is all that determines what a government can legitimately do or not do, we have lost our source of absolute moral norms. The logical consequence of this assertion is what happened in Nazi Germany with the final solution, in the Soviet Union with Stalin's purges, and in the U.S. with the African slave trade. With the thinking that a government's legitimate actions are circumscribed only by its electorate, then all of these events remain beyond criticism. Wooahhh . . . some are saying. I see where this is going. You are advocating a theocracy when Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom implied and JP the Great and B16 have explicitly said that it is legitimate to separate Church from state. It is true that the recent Magisterium has advocated a certain secularism in public institutions. But they distinguish among certain types of secularism. Secularism which removes God from the public sphere is not neutral and it is not legitimate in their view. In fact, JP the Great even criticized the Italian government from removing crucifixes from public schools. This secularism which they are talking about is that in which the state recognizes that its competence is the temporal sphere not the religious, and so the state should make no laws compelling religious belief or limiting legitimate religious practices. It does not mean that the state must be devoid of references to God or even that it cannot accommodate the legitimate public expression of the religious belief of the majority of the public. Pax Christi in Regno Christi . . . the peace of Christ is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ. Christ is ultimately the only solution to all of our problems. What the Covenant before Christ showed us is that we cannot get to heaven or even solve the worlds problems without Christ and His grace. The way to heaven is now open through Christ. The horrors of the 20th century show that without God, man becomes unintelligible and he ultimately turns on himself. Knowledge, technology, modern "science"--while these are goods in themselves and can lead to more comfortable lives for more people, without God they ultimately will become the means by which we destroy ourselves. Some think we have already gone over the precipice. On this Feast of Christ the King, I am reminded that Christ is the Lord of history and that with God, all things are possible. In the end, what gives me hope is that regardless of what happens now we ultimately know, Thy Kingdom comes!

Anglican Use Rite and the Trajectory of the Latin Liturgy

2005-11-19T20:13:00.000-06:00

Perhaps most Catholics are familiar with the pastoral provision which allows some ordained, married Protestant ministers to be considered for ordination as Catholic priests after they come home to the fullness of the Church. Most probably are not aware that since the mid 80s the Church approved the Anglican use Rite liturgy which drew from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. This is allowed to be used in parishes which were previously part of the Anglican Communion. The first Anglican Use Rite parish was established in San Antonio, TX in 1983 and pastored by the first man ordained under the pastoral provision, Fr. Christopher Phillips. Fr. Phillips was also on the commission which developed this Rite. My mom is a member of that parish and I have been to their liturgy many times. As I was reading the complaints of some of the bishops about the new translation to the Sacramentary under the guidance of Liturgiam authenticam, it brought to mind the Anglican Use Rite. This is not the first time I have heard the changes. In a Roman Missal class I had taken, the professor shared embargoed copies of interim translations with us. The recent complaints indicate that many of the changes I had seen are still in place. There are certain things about the Anglican Use Rite liturgy that are unmistakable, like the Elizabethan English used throughout most of the liturgy. There are also other things, like the priest facing ad orientum, the altar rail, a collect (instead of opening prayer) and a Sermon (rather than homily) which indicate that the High Anglicans who have come home to Rome had not adopted the changes since the liturgical reform began in the late 60s/early 70s. Other aspects of the Mass are even prior to the Tridentine liturgy. For example, the deacon processes out of the sanctuary, with incense and altar servers, and into the church as on an ancient solea and chants the Gospel reading. However, the order of Mass in this Rite is not completely from the Book of Common Worship. As you experience the Mass, there is a sudden shift in language that is hard to miss. When the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins, the language suddenly becomes much more familiar to the average Catholic. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is in large part taken from the current Roman Missal for the Latin Rite. However, especially with the people's responses, one quickly notices that it is not always, exactly the same. For example, just prior to the Eucharistic Prayer when the celebrant says, "the Lord be with you." The response is: "and with thy spirit." After the Lamb of God the people respond three times with, "Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed." Both of these are closer to what we will see with the new Sacramentary translations. While the Anglican Use Rite liturgy will not be the result of the new Sacramentary translation there are certain affinities, especially with those translations which kept the biblical allusions which were lost in the "dynamic equivalency" translations we now have. However, I think that there are other aspects of the Anglican Use Rite that have gone back and recovered important liturgical traditions that the West had lost. I am not suggesting that I think that the reform of the liturgy (which I expect to come) will result in the equivalent of the Anglican Use Rite, I do believe that there are some important parallels that I am seeing in the results of the new translation of the Sacramentary and what we see in the Anglican Use Rite liturgy. The Anglican Use Rite liturgy is a very beautiful Mass. The liturgical music they use and the structure of the liturgy do a great job in reflecting the liturgy's transcendence. I suspect that if our current Roman Missal were to move more in the direction of the Anglican Use Rite we would start to see a renewed appreciation for Mass which might even be reflected in the number of regular attendees. In any case, if you appreciate a liturgy that gives the more the experience of heaven than one of being around the campfire with music that should only be found on old 8-track tapes, then I recommend attending one of these if you ever get the chance. (Right now there are only seven parishes, all but two of which are in the great State of Texas).

Grow Up!

2005-11-18T20:48:00.000-06:00

That is essentially the message of B16 to modernity. He proposes Christ as a remedy to modern culture which is imbued with subjectivism leading to extreme individualism, and relativism, Christ as the model of a new humanism. His predecessor was fond of paraphrasing Gaudium et spes 22 that Christ reveals man to himself. B16 takes up this same idea. Since Zenit is down right now and I cannot post the link to it, I will post the entire article below: Pontiff Points to Christ as Model for New Humanism In Message to Pontifical Academies' Session VATICAN CITY, NOV. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Amid the prevailing individualism and relativism, Christians have the mission to present Christ as model for a new humanism, says Benedict XVI. The Pope presented this proposal in a message sent to the annual public session of the Pontifical Academies, held Tuesday, in the Vatican's new Synod Hall. In this session, the 10th since Pope John Paul II established the Coordinating Council for the Pontifical Academies in 1995, the central theme -- "Christ, Son of God, Perfect Man: 'The Measure of True Humanism'" -- was prepared by the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Pontifical Academy of Theology. It is a topic, as Benedict XVI said in his message, of particular interest to him, given its "central and essential importance both in theological reflections and in each Christian's experience of faith." "Modern culture," he said, "so deeply marked by a subjectivism which leads not infrequently to extreme individualism or to relativism, drives people to consider man as the only measure by which to judge themselves, losing sight of other objectives not centered on the self, which has become the only criterion for evaluating reality and their own choices." "In this way," the Holy Father continued, "man tends to fall back ever more onto himself, to close himself in an airless existential microcosm, where there is no longer any space for great ideals open to transcendence, to God. "On the other hand, man who overcomes himself and does not allow himself to be closed in the narrow confines of his own egoism is capable of an authentic contemplation of others and of creation." Imprint In this way, man becomes conscious of "his essential characteristic of creature in continuous becoming, called to a harmonious growth in all his dimensions, beginning precisely by interiority, to reach the fulfilled realization of that plan that the Creator has imprinted in his deepest being," Benedict XVI added. "Certain cultural currents and tendencies seek to leave man in his minority, in prolonged infancy or adolescence," the Pope said. "The Word of God, on the other hand, spurs us decisively to maturity and invites us to commit ourselves with all our strength to a high measure of humanity." "The true disciples of the Lord, far from remaining in the state of children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, make an effort to attain 'to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,'" the Holy Father wrote, citing Ephesians 4:13. "Therefore, Jesus Christ, Son of God, given by the Father to humanity to restore the image disfigured by sin, is the perfect man, with which authentic humanism is measured," he stated. "Every human being must encounter him and go to him -- with the help of grace -- and must tend with all his heart, with all his mind, with all his strength, to realize his life fully and to respond with joy and enthusiasm to the very high vocation inscribed in his being." Benedict XVI urged academics to "promote with enthusiasm and passion, each in his own field of study and research, the building of this new humanism." "You have the task to propose again, with the competence that corresponds to you, the beauty, goodness, truth of the face of Christ, in which every man is called to recognize his most authentic and original features, the model he must imitate ever better," he indicated. "This is, therefore, your arduous task, your lofty mission," the Pope added, "to present Christ to the man of today as the authentic measure of maturity and human fullness." ZE05111705

Get in the Game

2005-11-17T21:04:00.000-06:00

A recent symposium on sports at the Vatican and the Pontifical Council for the Laity opening up a section on "Church and Sport" together make it look like the Church is actively seeking new areas to carry out the new evangelization. I am surprised that this did not happen under the more athletic JP the Great. The more bookish but ever brilliant and committed B16 shows that even for some of us who have been his fans for some time, he still can bring surprises. It seems to me that there is so much opportunity for evangelization in sports. Especially for those who are committed to a sport as a fan and especially a participant, the sacrifices they are willing to make for progress, the commitment they make to their goal, their single-mindedness of purpose, all of these attributes that go into making up a great athlete are virtues for a Christians zealous for holiness as well. I suppose with its burgeoning it is about time for the Church to get in the game!

Liturgi-terrorists Take Note

2005-11-17T20:51:00.000-06:00

Cardinal Arinze gave an excellent summary of the problematic thinking about liturgy in an interview for Inside the Vatican and recently carried by Zenit. Not that active dissenters would pay much attention anyway, but for those liturgists who may have an open and obedient heart and simply be misled by the predominant liturgical publications (i.e. those who want to turn the Mass into their favorite Protestant service), have them take a gander at this...

Technology and Science

2005-11-17T15:07:00.000-06:00

In line with David's fine post, and connected to the discussion of ID, I want to add here a bit about technology: The two greatest thinkers in the twentieth century to address the issue of technology were Martin Heidegger (the most important continental philosopher of the century) and Jacques Ellul (a French Protestant philosopher whose monumental work "The Technological Society" and its later re-edition "The Technological Bluff" are the most thorough studies on the subject ever produced). What both of these thinkers realized is that there is something radically "novel" about modern technology that is usually not accounted for. The standard "liberal" account of technology holds that human knowledge sputtered along until the rise of modernity, seeking to account for nature and to put it to the service of man, but never being able to do so because it lacked the capacity to detach man from his observations. It could not reach to the true causality-in-itself of nature because it projected onto nature characteristic features of man. In other words, it never truly escaped the confusions of mythopoetic thinking, of anthropomorphic projection -- though the likes of Aristotle may have tried to do so! In modernity, however, so the account goes, humanity started to look at nature as it is, in itself, without the fatal flaw of anthropomorphic projection. This gave rise to a truer form of knowledge, authentically seeing the world-in-itself for what it is. As such, this type of knowledge was able to give rise to technologies radically more efficient and useful; perhaps, even, so radically efficient and useful that they would enable the eventual elimination of labor, disease, injustice, warfare, inequality etc. Technology could be used to solve all our problems. Heidegger and Ellul -- and many others, though not expressing it as thoroughly or as well -- recognized that this picture was fallacious. Modern technology was not just a better, more authentic form of knowledge. It was not just the breakthrough development of authentic vision that the "liberal" account of it supposed. It was not the fulfillment of the ancient desires, of man seeking to know the world and make use of it but never being able to do so because he could never get beyond himself. No, both these figures tell us, modern technology was something so new, so radically different, that it presupposed not just a better, more efficient knowledge than what came before -- though going in the same direction as ancient and medieval knowledge -- but knowledge that is qualitatively different, oriented in an entirely novel direction, stemming not from a better vision of the world but from a reoriented will. That is, this type of knowledge was not the "truth" that pre-modern humanity had vainly sought for, but the object of desire of the burgeoning middle-class, whose characteristic preoccupations separated them from their pre-modern forebears. This new type of knowledge has always been oriented toward making, unlike the contemplation prized by the Greeks (among others). Art (techne, the means by which we make things) and science (knowledge) were conflated in an unprecedented manner. Knowledge could not truly be knowledge unless it was also "useful." It had to extend the condition of the middle-class, give to it all the things that it prized -- "spacious and commodious living," as Hobbes, one of the preeminent spokesmen among them, put it -- if it was to be encouraged. Thus, the new knowledge (science) became intimately tied to the new, more efficient technologies of labor and production, of commerce and industry. The entire social order eventually was oriented around this confluence of knowing and making, driven by the will for comfort and sensual gratification. Other, more contemplative types of knowledge were devalued, cast to the side, even ridiculed. "Big Science" was born. Much of the ID debate, it seems to me, operates within the confines of this delimitation of knowledge. Evolution theory presupposes it. When people tell us that science tells us "how" but not "why" their notion of science is formed by this orientation of will. The essential point, Heidegger and Ellul would agree, is this: modern science is only more "objective" than its ancient forebear in as much as it conforms to an a priori vision of the world formed by a will to mastery over nature...

Technology and Faith

2005-11-16T21:04:00.000-06:00

Venerable Aussie's link to Peter Singer's chilling prognostication in yesterday's post got my mind going again. I am especially thinking about Singer's (I keep wanting to write Sanger . . . I wonder why??) obvious animus toward those with faith in God as backward enemies of progress. There seems to be a real dichotomy in his mind between technological progress and faith. It does seem that faith is inversely proportional to technological progress in terms of current geopolitical structures. Why does it seem that the most advanced societies, technologically speaking, are the most irreligious. Western Europe is well established in its post-Christian milieu, Canada is close behind, Australia seems to be keeping right up there, and the good ole U.S. of A. may still be a generation back but, at least in religious practice, we seem to be closing in fast. Do a quick search and you will find poll after poll cited as showing that scientists are in large proportion, non-believers. Now I do not mean to sound like a Luddite. I'm using a computer over a DSL connection through a very advanced communications infrastructure that provides information access unparalleled in human experience. I am not suggesting we go back to flint knives and bear skin technology in what follows. However, there does seem to be something about technology and its affects on fallen human nature that, for those who are not careful, can be a catalyst for leading one away from God. Now I suppose there are other contributing factors as well, but I will focus on one thread. The etymological root of "technology" is from the Greek techne, which means art. It is the practical knowledge which allows one to make things. Now it seems to me that the knowledge of how to make things, the ability to free oneself from the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, tends to give us an independent streak . . . kind of like a two year old who is starting to exert his independence from mommy. The higher we get on the hierarchy the less we seem to think we need anyone else. Of course, this is an illusion since the more we become dependent upon technology the more we are dependent upon others. We have a decreasing capacity for self subsistence and basic survival skills. I think that this correlates with what we saw after 9-11 and the upsurge in church going. We were momentarily shaken from our illusory life of control and safety and recognized that we need God. But the quick fall-off in church attendance shows how quickly we forget. Hubris is only possible with the illusion of independence and control over one's environment. Science and technology provide, for some, this illusion. It is very compelling. With the progress we see being made, sometimes there seems to be no bounds. For our culture, science has become the messiah and the scientists, the high priests. Perhaps that is why we look for people to blame when levees collapse, reusable orbiters break up on reentry, world trade centers don't withstand fuel laden airplane attacks? Proper use of science and technology are completely compatible with faith. However, I believe that we do need to be ever vigilant about the ways that it can affect our thoughts and lives.

The Best Child Possible

2005-11-15T17:19:00.000-06:00

These words from an Australian bioethicist should make one's blood run cold. He stated, according to a recent Zenit article, that parents must use current genetic screening technologies for weeding out children, eliminating those "unfit" to be born, because they have a moral obligation to bear the best child possible. This is a very scary. The phrase "moral obligation" is not to be taken lightly. There are not many things these days which society recognizes as a moral obligation. Those things for which society agrees are obligatory, are most often accompanied with legislation. This ideology of eugenics according to utilitarian criteria is not new. It was part of Nazi Germany's game plan and it was championed by Margaret Sanger and her crowd. It is now becoming mainstream. I suppose that this could sound alarmist to some ears. However, I believe that we have already come to a threshold from which there is little chance of turning back in our desensitization to horrors such as abortion, a good portion of our society even advocates infanticide in the form of partial birth abortion. Those who advocated the "euthanizing" of babies up to almost two years old, instead of being dismissed as crackpots, are now given bioethics chairs at such prestigious institutions as Princeton. I think that Western culture is that proverbially frog in the frying pan. We are already so close to sizzling that I am not sure that there is much more desensitizing that needs to be done. Some think that the pressure to "screen" unborn children will come from "market pressures." However, this will not work for a sizable portion of society that recognizes this as evil. It seems to me that for those with religious convictions, eugenic society's only recourse is going to be legislation. I can see the argument now: "society cannot permit religious zealots to continue to contaminate the pristine gene pool that science and socially minded patriots have worked to achieve. We owe it to posterity to act now to ensure that we only allow women to bear the best child possible."

Christian Leadership Requires Humility

2005-11-14T08:27:00.000-06:00

Here is a good article that most might not otherwise see, by Msgr. Stuart Swetland: During the semester, I regularly meet with the student leaders at St. John's Catholic Newman Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. One of the things we discuss at each session is the attributes and requirements of authentic leadership. We look at various aspects of leadership like authority, responsibility, and accountability. One thing that our reflections routinely reveal about Christian leadership is the need for humility and the desire to serve. Jesus teaches His disciples that their leadership must be different from that of the Roman Empire:

You know how among the Gentiles those who seem to exercise authority lord it over them; their great ones make their authority felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you must serve the needs of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:42-45).

In Matthew's version of this teaching, Jesus also says: "whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Mt 23:12). But what does it mean to be humble? Humility is a virtue, and like almost every virtue it stands as a golden mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. To have too little humility is the vice of pride--the belief that I do not need God, that I am good enough as I am, that others should bend to me and my will. Pride has an exaggerated view of oneself or one's accomplishments. To have too much humility is to fall into the vice of false humility--to hold the mistaken view that I am worthless, of no real value, unable to accomplish or be anything. Humility stands between the vices of pride and false humility. As St. Theresa of Avila says, "humility is truth." Against pride's lie, humble persons correctly acknowledge their sinfulness and their need for God. They recognize that all their opportunities and talents, that even their very lives are gifts from God. As Paul writes, "All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" (Rom 3:23), and according to John, "If we say we have not sinned, we make [God] a liar" (1 Jn 1:10). Humble people recognize their need for repentance, forgiveness, and healing. Humble people know the truth that without God they can do nothing (cf. Jn 15:5). But over against the vice of false humility, the humble also know that they are not worthless, that they have been created in the image and of likeness of God, that they are unique and of infinite worth, capable of becoming like unto God by becoming like unto Christ (cf. Gal 2:20). Emphasis on this truth helped make the self-esteem movement very popular a few decades ago. We needed to hear that each of us and all of us have an inestimable worth. Humility unmasks the superficiality of the "I'm ok, you're ok" mentality. Deep down, each of us knows we are not entirely ok. We are all sinners in need of salvation. Jesus cannot be our Lord and Savior unless we recognize that we need to be saved. So I know I'm not ok (and you're not ok), but that's ok because Jesus has come to heal us, restore us, and set us free. Moreover, even if you and I were indeed ok, that would not be ok, because God wants more for us than that. In fact he is pretty emphatic about this: "I know your deeds. I know you are neither hot nor cold. How I wish you were one or the other - hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth!" (Rev 3:15-16). Jesus does not call us to be simply ok, He calls us to greatness, to perfection (cf. Mt 5:48). No one in heaven is just ok. One of the things that makes heaven heavenly is that everyone in heaven is perfected. There are only saints in heaven. God wishes to perfect and exalt us. This begins when we humbly accept our need for His transforming power of healing and restoration.

It's Just a Technicality

2005-11-13T13:55:00.000-06:00

..."They believe and try to demonstrate that it is scientific to think that everything lacks a guide and order"...The timeless words of St. Basil the Great of the 4th century, still speaks to us today. Is it just a technicality, that despite the lack of scientific evidence (Oct. 2005), activists hold so tightly to the biological causation theories as a their foundation of truth on homosexuality? Theories that brought so much promise to prove people were born "homosexuals", have yet to be duplicated, unlike the strong evidence of environmental factors . No science can grasp the human spirit, the human soul. Man is much more than the sum of his identifiable biological, structural or psychological parts. We are complex, unique creatures who respond differently to situations based on individuality, our environment, parenting, culture, etc.., so it is not likely a single cause of homosexual desires will ever be discovered. Given the lack of evidence of a biological origin of homosexuality, why is there such a strong, organized effort to accelerate acceptance and promotion of homosexual intercourse? For example, in an October issue of Time, (information on Author) reported that students who attended a retreat were given a welcome gift basket which included A DVD of the 2001 film Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in which a teenage boy is masturbated by an adult (hebephilia). Planned Parenthood among other sex instructional programs readily promote same sex acts as an option for teens. It is a scientific fact that impulse control, planning and decision making are largely frontal cortex functions which are not fully developed in adolescents. Add to the fact, that there is a significant amount of childhood sexual abuse among those with same sex attractions, and a high rate psychiatric problems. Is there any data to support this type of instruction? Is there a potential ulterior motive by some whose self-righteous actions may actually harm those, they claim to be supporting? Does there seem to be some type of inconsistency of acceptance of "homosexuals"? Why are those who pursue the homosexual lifestyle celebrated, while those who seek treatment and "revert" to a heterosexual lifestyle are ridiculed? The Church acknowledges that homosexual attraction is a psychological condition that is not chosen, and those who are affected must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. The dignity of all people should be respected from the moment of conception to the time of death. There are many on both sides of this issue who are sincerely concerned over the welfare of those affected by homosexuality, but the application of compassion seems to be focused on different outcomes. Compassion for one may mean happiness in the here and now, while the other sees healing to the spirit and soul of the awesome human person.

Suppress the Evidence

2005-11-12T21:50:00.000-06:00

Ad hominem attacks are usually the response of those who have not the intellectual resources to mount an argument based upon facts and reason. However, it is also often resorted to in the science academy when a sacred cow is threatened. Usually the sacred cow is a theory in which a scientist has a personal stake. Thus, when the editor of a small science peer reviewed journal recently ran an article by Stephen Meyer associated with Intelligent Design the response, I suppose, was to be expected. Richard Sternberg was accused by other scientists of fraud and that the article was not really peer reviewed. Sternberg says that personally he is skeptical of ID but that since it passed the peer review and evolutionary biologists are starting to discuss the subject of Meyer's paper, Sternberg thought that there could be some reasoned discussion of it. He was wrong. You would think that scientists would relish the opportunity to discuss and refute a theory of which they disagree. Apparently not. Now why is it that some very reputable scientists think that ID is real science (by this I mean the modern view which limits science to an investigation of efficient and material causality) and others do not? The supporters have some very good arguments. In fact, the problem that scientists are finding is that in trying to identify criteria (verifiability, falsifiability, etc.) in which to rule out ID as a science they end up having to rule out such disciplines as theoretical astrophysics, sociology, and paradoxically, evolution itself. Basically, ID looks at certain phenomena and tries to determine the probability that it was designed. They use three factors: contingency, complexity and specificity. Contingency indicates whether something is a necessary outcome or not. Complexity basically shows how improbable is the occurrence of something. Specificity says that the complex structure has a purpose completely unrelated to its causes. For example, a human eye does not occur necessarily by any compelling cause. It is very complex containing a lens, a retina containing a focal-plane array of cones and rods, tear ducts, ocular musculature, etc. But here is the astounding part. The complexity has a teleology, a purpose, completely unrelated to its organic efficient cause. In other words, the lens is shaped to focus the exact wavelength light at the exact spot that the retina happens to be located. The muscles have the ability to deform the lens perfectly such that, without distortion, the eye can focus from about 6 inches to the infinite focal plane. The rods and cones have the dynamic range to allow one to see in bright light conditions down to night time conditions with only starlight for illumination. All of these functions interact, and together they focus light, react (and quickly reset) to the photons impinging on the rods/cones, convert the chemical interactions in the rods and cones to an electrical signal which is then transmitted to the brain and coded such that the brain can recreate a dynamic scene into what we know as vision. These dynamic scenes also happen to correlates well enough with reality that humans can function in the world quite efficiently. This is not to mention that the wavelength of light just happens to be such that it occurs at the exact location in the spectrum at which there is a rich diversity of response to pigmentation in reflected light from environmental objects, which we call color. There is so much more complexity to the eye, but I suppose this is enough. Any way, the complexity-specificity of the eye is extremely high, much beyond what can possibly happen with random mutations even beginning from the time life first started on earth, in fact, it could not even have happened by random mutation if the starting point had been the big bang. This is evidence that the eye is a design. ID folks then say well, lets look at other science projects which depend upon the same exact reasoning. For example, SETI, which is the search for extraterrestrial life by collecting and analyzing radio signals from outer space. The SETI project had to decide on criteria for determining what were naturally occurring radio signals and which could not be naturally generated radio signals. If it could not be naturally generated, the inference is that it was generated by extraterrestrial intelligence. In evaluating patterns they look for contingency, complexity, and specificity. The signal cannot be necessary, it has to be sufficiently complex, and it has to relate to something extrinsic, for example a repeating sequence of prime numbers. They do not know whether there is intelligent life elsewhere but they are willing to admit it does if they find signals meeting their criteria. Hmmm . . . seems like intelligent design to me . . . The ID folks figure that since all they do is show evidence of design in nature, they are not making any metaphysical assertions and so they remain in the realm of science. Whether it is science or not, it will take much more debate before it is finally accepted or ultimately rejected. But whether it is accepted as modern science or not, it is a very powerful tool which provides "scientific" evidence to support the common sense observation that there is Intelligence-Hesed behind the order of creation.

Hesed: Cosmic Love

2005-11-11T20:37:00.000-06:00

Hesed is Hebrew for love but it has manifold connotations. It is a merciful love, a love by which God forms a family through covenant, it is the love He has for His people. Hesed is translated as loving-kindness, steadfast love, grace, mercy, faithfulness, goodness, devotion. B16 uses this term to describe creation in his Wednesday audience from this week on Psalm 136. We have been talking about evolution and science this week. Hierothee pointed out how B16 sees in this Psalm indications of intelligence. That is very true. But B16 also shows that this is a certain kind of Intelligence. It is a personal intelligence whose infinite Trinitarian love overflows itself and pours itself out in one eternal act from which arises creation. Far from the mistaken notion of some atheist scientists who see in the cosmos only a cold, pitiless place, through the eyes of faith man can see that it is a home created for him. In fact, the more that cosmologists understand about the universe the more they see that it is tuned ever so precisely such that it is inhabitable by man. This anthropic principle eventually convinced Anthony Flew, atheisms foremost apologist, that there must be a God (though he still does not want to believe in an afterlife). It is becoming more and more clear to science and to faith that the cosmos is for man. The findings of science then, are starting to catch back up with biblical faith. Old Testament Israel saw in the beauty and wonder of the cosmos, God’s hesed. B16 says that this knowledge is available to all, even before God reveals Himself. But reveal Himself He did. The cosmos He created for us pales in comparison to the extent of His hesed, His merciful, paternal, steadfast love. Those who open their minds and hearts enough to see the outlines of hesed in creation, see this hesed poured out, par excellence, by God made visible, by the Son made Man in the Cross.

Was Darwin Intelligent?

2005-11-10T14:51:00.000-06:00

On the one hand, a terribly confused theologian at the Vatican seems to think Darwin and Genesis compatible: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html Note: my comment is not to imply that evolution and Genesis are incompatible, only that the Darwinian mechanism, which has always asserted the epiphenomenal character of all intelligence, is incompatible both with empirically derived knowledge (which a good neo-Thomist would argue is the only type of properly human knowledge) and with revelation. On the other hand, our Sovereign Pontiff demonstrates, yet again, that he is singularly unconfused: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506390.htm

Hidden Agenda Unveiled

2005-11-09T21:30:00.000-06:00

CNA is running an article on some recent development in the newest slant to the old evolution debate. There has been a lot of bits spilt over the issue of Intelligent Design, especially over the issue of whether it should be taught in public schools or not. This was exemplified most recently in Selman v. Cobb County School District in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found unconstitutional the placing of stickers on science textbooks because it gave the impression that the board of education was supporting creationism over evolution. While the court found that the stickers, which stated that evolution was a theory and not fact, in other contexts may have been appropriate, it also said in this context it was problematic. Whether the finding was correct or not is secondary to my point. Just the fact that the issue is framed as one of science vs. religion is the problem. Our modern view of science, which removes itself from consideration of formal and final causes, by its own design limits its competence to considering only efficient and material causality. However, those who do science often make a category mistake and start to make metaphysical extrapolations based upon an analysis of their limited data. That is what is happening in this debate. What I mean is that evolution, using the tools of modern science, can use all of the available data to try to make a case for how organisms, including humans, came to look like they do today when most obviously were not around when life first appears in the geological record. The problem is that a leap from the competence of science often seems to occur and the claim is at least implied, that if we know how man "evolved" that we no longer need to look to God as the source of creation . . . a philosophical claim, not a "scientific one." The problem is not helped by those who think that they need to see Genesis as a science text book as well as an inerrant source of God's Word to man. However, the fact that organizations such the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union spastically fight against anything that calls into question evolution, and the dogmatism of certain scientists who cling to evolution as their intellectual crutch in order to not have to believe in God (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) show to me that the promotion of evolution, as was the case with Darwin himself, is too often a veiled attempt to promote an atheistic faith. Since evolution is pushed this way, I see no reason that ID should not be presented as a competing theory in public schools. It uses exactly the same evidence, the same types of inferences . . . and yes, the same philosophical extrapolations. However, it should be made clear that neither are pure "science," both inject philosophical speculation (some better than others). It is important to stop confusing categories. ID also has the benefit of pushing evolutionary anthropologists/biologists/etc. to admit to and try to "evolve" the theory to address its short comings. ID is also helping the general public to see exactly what we do and do not know, scientifically speaking, in terms of the development of species. I suppose the debate is healthy if it brings to light these issues and forces us to make proper distinctions . . . though it does not seem head that way anytime soon.

How Mainstream Are We?

2005-11-08T18:56:00.000-06:00

Well, I removed the background camouflage so at least the text is readable (I checked it with Netscape 8 and IE 6 anyway). However, depending upon your browser, the page still probably looks like something your third grader might bring home from art class. I really have been putting off getting an article finished so I will be devoting much of my time to that so the aesthetics of the page probably will not improve very soon . . . unless I hear an immediate outcry or an offer of assistance (bleg). I was over at Amy's (virtual) place today as I am wont to be from time to time (usually when Hierothee tells me to go there) and saw an interesting link. It is a map that shows the "access" to abortion of the different countries around the world. It got me ta' think'un again . . . uh, oh . . . What one notices straight away is that most countries in the world have at least some limits on abortion. Those with no limits? Well, thare ya' have: we liberty luv'n Norte Americanos, those cantankerous American hate'n western Europeans, the Aussies of course, and a few other countries here and there . . . more on that in a second. It brought to mind the polemic that one usually hears at campaign time, which now unfortunately, seems to include appointments to the federal bench. That polemic being that anyone who holds the position that there should be any limits on abortion is an extremist, religious fundamentalist, out of the mainstream kook. Back to the map . . . now what stream do you suppose those folks are wading in? Well, I suppose they must consider that the mainstream flows through the heart of western Europe, the "promised land" of secular humanist worship. But wait, there are a few other countries that that wade in the mainstream of this secular humanist rivulet, putting no limits on abortion. Who would they be? Well how about China, North Korea, and Cuba (oh, I forgot--Cuba is the home, for many of these folks, to heroes like El Che and Fidel). Looking at one's company, I would think it would give some pause to our self-appointed guardians of "mainstream" certification. When what one holds up as a fundamental right, without which we would devolve into tyrrany, the same thing that these countries use as tools of oppression it would seem that it's time to reappraise the legitimacy of that "right." Any way, whether on a local (U.S.) or global scale, the term mainstream certainly does not fit with the ideology of abortion on demand.

Well It Looks Good In Explorer

2005-11-07T20:53:00.000-06:00

For those who are using Netscape or Mozilla unfortunately, the page is not looking to good right now. I spent a lot of time getting things just right, but I only checked with one type of browser. Those sneaky Microsoft programmers give you these neat webpage building tools that work well with Explorer but not so well with other browsers. I will see if I can at least change the background for now to make the text easier to read. While I try to fix my XTML code, armed only with a working knowledge of Fortran 77 (this is somewhat akin to trying to translate German with a working knowledge of Latin) you can read about how that ever so restrained 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has once again given Big Brother more legal control over the raising of your children than they had last week. Oh well, I suppose the professional educators know better than we that asking your 7 year hold how often they thought about touching their "private parts" or touching someone else's "private parts" is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It just seems to me that if anyone else asked a young child these questions, they would be arrested as a pervert. I suppose that just reveals how old fashion I really am (as my reference to the age of my programming skills already revealed I suppose).

Liturgy and Spontaneity

2005-11-06T20:57:00.000-06:00

These are two things which do not go together. The heart of authentic worship is liturgy. Liturgy is a single, unified act performed by a corporate body--the Church. To enable it to be unified, the structure and responses must be well known to all who are to participate. Spontaneous changes to common worship eliminate the corporate action and make it the personal expression of one individual. We have all had that experience I suppose. Where the priest ad libs for what I am sure he thinks is a good reason, but especially when the ad lib requires a response it can be quite confusing and disruptive for the congregation. With all of the options introduced since the 1965 Roman Missal, I sometime think that this has led too many priests into the mindset that they have to change things up to hold peoples' interest. Liturgy sometimes is said to be boring because it is repetitive. However, it seems to me that this is like saying that loving the same person for too long can become boring because you know him so well. Novelty as a requisite for something or someone to be interesting or exciting is a sign of immaturity. When it comes to worship, I suppose that this would also be an immature faith. When one knows what the Mass is, and knows that he is participating in the one Sacrifice of the Cross, the only things that can eliminate the interest and excitement it would seem, are a lack of preparation for Mass or distractions with cares and concerns of the world. We all suffer from these at times but it is not correct to blame this on authentic liturgy but rather we should look first to ourselves. Spontaneity is very good for some things like music but it has no place in the liturgy.

Walter Kasper's Will to Power

2005-11-05T17:33:00.000-06:00

Perhaps the best way to understand Walter Kasper's frequent run-ins with the Church of Rome -- his ecclesiological debates with Pope Benedict are well-known, as well as his recent ill-timed comments regarding divorce, and his oftentimes scandalous behavior and remarks in matters ecumenical -- is to see him in light of his Tuebingen Pietist background. A fundamental characteristic of this school of thought -- his heritage -- is its voluntarism. For voluntarists, God is understood so much in terms of freedom, will, and love that He is thought to be "unconstrained" by goodness, unity, and truth. These latter attributes, of course, are traditionally thought to be equally transcendental characteristics of the divine nature. As a logical result of diminishing their divine "status," God's nature is reduced to arbitrary power.

Though Kasper is hardly an extremist in this regard, he certainly exhibits a mild intuition that pulls him in this direction, as evidenced in his God of Jesus Christ. The consequence in practical matters is to intuit a certain arbitrariness in the divine work in creation, as the historical expression of God's will is no longer thought to be unified by the infinite goodness or truth of His nature. This can easily lead to an excessive pastoral laxity, as an arbitrary will may be thought subject to fundamental change. So Christ prohibited divorce? This is not expressive of a fundamental truth, the voluntarist might think. It is subject to revision in light of God's ever-abounding love and mercy.

Again, Kasper does not take this in the radical direction of contemporary liberal theologians, who are, of course, voluntarists in extremis, but it is, nevertheless, an intuition that forms his thought, however mildly. Interestingly enough, the Protestant Pietism that so shaped the School of Tuebingen was also formative for modern Eastern Orthodox theology, whose representatives he works so closely with. Many people do not realize that in the 17th and 18th centuries, Eastern Orthodox theology took the form of Counter-Reformation scholastic theology. This was, eventually, violently reacted against, and the anti-scholasticism of the Pietist movement was then embraced by the East. Modern Orthodox theologians, like Kasper and unlike their Patristic forebears, are, as a result, palpably voluntaristic. That is all.

Conference of the Confused

2005-11-04T22:26:00.000-06:00

CNA is reporting on a conference held at a California Jesuit university attended by some 150 people from more than 40 schools "in the Catholic tradition." This conference was aimed, apparently, at promoting the "LGBT" death-style at Catholic colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, over a third of the schools represented were Jesuit. The university, Santa Clara, was part of this story. They see it as the Catholic thing to do to support LGBT agenda so they provide housing to these suffering "couples." This type of confusion is still rampant in all too many Catholic schools including in the theology departments. There is still a long way to go before we begin to see the springtime in the older Catholic colleges, especially the Jesuit schools. I have heard many a suggestion that another suppression of the Jesuits is in order. Whether all of these were serious or not, I do think, at least with the West Coast Province, that may be the only way to restore them.

Agenda Driven Education

2005-11-03T15:00:00.000-06:00

Hurray for the Spanish Bishops! They successfully managed to get government officials in the central Spanish region of Castilla-La Mancha to "provisionally suspend" a sex education program that promoted lesbianism, abortion, and . . . not to be left out, masturbation. Get them early is the recruiting mantra of the "gay" movement and it appears that in Spain as well, their lobby has successfully "converted" the government to their agenda. Strong spiritual leadership by Church leaders is needed to help counter act this. Perhaps the bishops' influence is more pronounced in Spain than in the U.S. but hopefully our bishops will take this as a template for action on similar issues here.

Sex and Spontaneity

2005-11-02T21:17:00.000-06:00

Our entertainment oriented culture teaches us that romantic sex must be spontaneous . . . which is not a problem I suppose. What is a problem is what they define as spontaneous. The entertainment media shows us spontaneity as two people tearing each others clothes off and treating each other as a piece of meat to be consumed. Sometimes, spontaneous sex can be depicted less animalistically perhaps but seldom is there any obvious distinction made between love and lust. John Paul the Great teaches that real spontaneity comes through self-control and self-mastery. One can only really be authentically spontaneous if he possess himself and so has all of himself to give. Only then does the other have all of the person to receive (vice take) as a gift. He likens real spontaneity to that of a musician who can only be spontaneous in his music if he masters himself and his craft. Through this self-control he can then let his creativity manifest itself. This is a mature spontaneity. He says:

There cannot be such spontaneity in all the movements and impulses that arise from carnal lust, devoid as it is of a choice and of an adequate hierarchy. It is precisely at the price of self-control that man reaches that deeper and more mature spontaneity with which his heart, mastering his instincts, rediscovers the spiritual beauty of the [nuptial] sign constituted by the human body in its masculinity and femininity (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 173).

Catholic Leadership Conference

2005-11-01T21:47:00.000-06:00

Great summary of Catholic obligations in the political process, don't you think?

Communion for Divorced and Remarried: Reprised

2005-11-01T21:39:00.000-06:00

There are those in the brave souls who recognize that the poorly thought out statements of those such as Archbishop Gregory and Cardinal Kasper do damage by bringing up false hopes and forestall the movement toward reconciliation that can only take place when those unfortunate souls who find themselves in this sad situation, are presented with the truth in a unified fashion from their Church leaders. Good on ya' Cardinal Trujillo!

Out of the Mouths of Babes

2005-11-01T21:35:00.000-06:00

It takes a 12 year old little girl to explain to the education experts why their views of sex and sex education are distorted. It seems that there is hope in our next generation. Our children are turning out to be much smarter than are we.

Until Irreconcilable Difference Do We Part

2005-10-31T17:45:00.000-06:00

As Catholics, we accept the covenant between the spouses as being integrated into God's covenant with man "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love" (Cf. CIC, can. 1141.) As posted by David earlier in the month, as Catholics it is essential we are taught the truth of the faith; unfortunately, many of us are poorly catechized which has resulted in very complicated situations caused by some Catholics who have contracted to new civil unions after attaining a civil divorce. The Church recognizes that the covenant of marriage is sealed by God himself (Cf. Mk 10:9); therefore, if a marriage is valid, the couple is married until the death of one of the spouses. As a sacrament, the graces we receive is intended to perfect the couple's love and to strengthen the indissoluble bond between a man and a woman. These graces will assist us in our marriage, to strengthen us in forgiving one another, to bear one another's burden, and to be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ, and to love one another with supernatural, tender and fruitful love. This is a forethought of the wedding feast of the lamb(Catechism of the Catholic Church). It is no secret that Catholics have pretty much the same divorce rate as the secular society. Here is a variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups. Which group in our society has the highest divorce rate (and it ain't "non-believers"). I wonder why that is? Who has the lowest rate of divorce of 1% - 5%? Do you think contraception is a possibility? Where much is given, much is expected. If one uses contraception during intercourse, they are not joined together immediately as man and woman, there is little essential difference between contraceptive intercourse and mutual masturbation, though the surrounding psychological circumstance make for a different situation. Regardless of our intentions, contraception is gravely wrong in of itself, because of the importance of the action which has resulted. A marriage requires a total giving of oneself to the other, as Christ gave totally of himself for His Bride. There may be valid reasons that a married couple may require separation, but this does not authorize a subsequent civil union. For sufferings now, are preparation for that perfect joy. The supernatural sacrament of marriage joins a man and a woman to one flesh, which is a sign of " the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us," a sign of the union of Christ with his Church.

"Now, I'm really into sex without intercourse. It's hot."

2005-10-29T18:23:00.000-05:00

Please excuse the title, an endorsement of "safer sex" from an anonymous contributor from the teen section of the PP website, which I think illustrates my concern for the direction of sex education in our youth. As noted in an earlier post, PP "education" assumes that teens have the full mental capacity to make an informed decision on wether or not they are ready for sex (if the teen answers affirmitively on 4 out of 8 questions, then "(they) are well on (their) way to becoming assertive enough for safer sex. Congratulations! " Perhaps more focus on age appropriate education and less recommendations of "safer sex" would be of benefit to teens. As quoted in a scientific evidence based 2005 study on the Adolescent Brain, “Teenagers are capable of enormous intellectual and artistic accomplishments, but the basic part of the brain that gives us strategies and organizing and perhaps warns us of potential consequences is not fully on board yet.” Recommendations of safe sex which includes vibrators, rubbing of genitals together through clothing, anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masterbation demonstrates no concern, what so ever, for the welfare of our children. The National Catholic Risk Retention Group (VIRTUS), which is responsible to oversee the development of the programs that address sexual abuse in the Church is also a concern to many parents. Bishop Robert Vasa, who also has concerns over the program asks, "is it true that Planned Parenthood has a hand or at least huge influence on many of them?" Do such programs involve, even tangentially, the sexualization of children, which is precisely a part of the societal evil we are striving to combat? Does such a program invade the Church-guaranteed-right of parents over the education of their children in sexual matters? The "Touching Safety" program has several phases, one which starts at the 18 month - 3 year old level, where the parent should openly discuss sensitive issues, as well as to teach the children the names and location of the penis, vagina, anus, etc. Once the child enters the school age, I fear what type of open discussions will occur. I have a quick question here, if the objective is to educate on sex abuse prevention, why is it important for little children to articulate sexual body parts? Isn't that sex education, which incidently, involves the very young and innocent? Shouldn't parents have some say in how much a child of this age should be exposed? The Church, in all her wisdom, protects the innocent and our teens by stating, "The Church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles (Planned Parenthood). That would merely be an introduction to the experience of pleasure and a stimulus leading to the loss of serenity -- while still in the years of innocence -- by opening the way to vice". Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Pontifical Council for the Family Guidelines for Education Within the Family (November 21, 1995). Sexual limitations are imposed by the Church to protect, not oppress. The potetential of divorce, depression & suicide increases dramatically when we submit our intellect to our wills of the flesh.

An Annoying Addition?

2005-10-28T18:57:00.000-05:00

This was John Paul the Great’s take on what the sexual revolution has brought us to in terms of what we think about children. In his 1985 letter to youth he writes:

Today, the principles of Christian morality concerning marriage are in many circles being presented in a distorted way. Attempts are being made to impose on environments and even entire societies a model that calls itself "progressive" and "modern". It then goes unnoticed that this model transforms a human being and perhaps especially a woman from a subject into an object (an object of specific manipulation), and the whole great content of love is reduced to "pleasure", which, even though it involved both parties, would still be selfish in its essence. Finally the child, who is the fruit and the fresh incarnation of the love between the two, becomes ever more "an annoying addition". The materialistic and consumeristic civilization is penetrating this whole wonderful complex of conjugal and paternal and maternal love, and stripping it of that profoundly human content which from the beginning was also permeated by a divine mark and reflection (Dilecti amici, 10).

When pleasure becomes the end of sexual intercourse, the other person involved becomes an object. The act becomes spiritually (and often physically) sterile. There is no total gift of self and the resulting selfish orientation leaves no openness for the fruitful expression of this love…a child. Sex has been package and marketed for our consumer culture and this has cheapened and distorted its meaning well beyond what had been possible prior to today means of worldwide communications. Oftentimes, even when having a child is pursued, it is for purposes of self-fulfillment rather than self-giving. This is not love. The beauty of love is only found in a love that makes clear demands on people. John Paul tells the youth where they can find these demands articulated—in the teachings of the Church. However, the results of acceding to these demands is true love, a love in which a child is viewed not as an annoying addition, but as a gift.

A Cry in the Dark

2005-10-27T20:18:00.000-05:00

This is how the former Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy, describes liturgy which comes from one’s own imagination and creativity. He says:

. . . real liturgy implies that God responds and reveals how we can worship him. In any form, liturgy includes some kind of “institution.” It cannot spring from imagination, or our own creativity—then it would remain just a cry in the dark or mere self-affirmation. Liturgy implies a real relationship with Another, who reveals Himself to us and gives our existence a new direction (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000], 22).

This is a profound insight. Perhaps it can help to explain the phenomenon we have seen since the widespread abuses of the liturgy began in earnest in the early ‘70s and to some degree still occur today. Since that time, we have seen a great decline in Mass attendance. Sure there are many other factors at play, including a secularization of culture and widespread public dissent since the release of Humanae vitae which works to undermine the simple faith of much of the laity. However, I cannot help but think that illicit and inappropriate innovations strike at something interior, beneath the level of consciousness deep in the soul. Of those who have drifted away and even among those who have stayed, many say that the liturgical changes they have seen deprived them of the experience of mystery at Mass. This sense of mystery now lost may lead to the intuition that they somehow feel separated from the Source. This is kind of like the unarticulated feeling of emptiness one experiences in churches where the Blessed Sacrament is no longer present. Could this subliminal feeling of separation from authentic worship be a good part of the reason we have seen a lessening in practice of the faith? After all, one can cry in the dark any place.

Sex as a Sacramental Sign

2005-10-26T20:51:00.000-05:00

This insight of John Paul the Great shows the great importance not just of sex differences but the sexual act itself for one’s personal identity, for one’s vocation, and for sacramental and liturgical life. In a word, our sex, as female and male (there are no others) establish the structure for all of creation and for everything we do. John Paul explicitly said:

In its masculinity and femininity, the body is called “from the beginning” to become a manifestation of the spirit. It does so also by means of the conjugal union of man and woman, when they unite in such a way as to form one flesh. Elsewhere (cf. Mt 19:5-6) Christ defended the inviolable rights of this unity, by means of which the body, in its masculinity and femininity, assumes the value of a sign–in a way, a sacramental sign (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 163).

In the context of this quote, “spirit” is clearly the spiritual soul. The body in its sexuality reveals something unchangeable about the “being” (or ontology) of the soul and so something ontological about the person. The body makes the soul visible not just in its physical appearance but also through its actions. The act of sexual intercourse where by the husband and wife become one flesh (and this only happens in a sacramental union) reveals and confirms the unity the spouses have by their participation in the “Great Mystery” of Ephesians 5. That is, they enter into this moral sacramental union of two persons via their union in the Body of Christ whereby Christ is joined to His Church as Bridegroom to Bride. The body and its sex, in a certain sense, gives sacramental witness to this intimate and inviolable union whereby each spouse sanctifies the other and give way to fruitfulness, in an asymmetrical but still in analogous way in which the Bride is sanctified through Her union to the Bridegroom. It is asymmetrical of course because in the union of Christ to His Church, Christ is not sanctified by the union. This truth of human sexuality and the cosmic order leave no room for the so called theological “developments” some dissenters attempt to peddle such as divorce and remarriage, homosexual acts, women priests, artificial contraception, etc. These dogmas are not something that ever can or will be reformed because they go to the heart Trinitarian love and the way that is expressed in creation and in the sex of the human person.

Ad Orientum

2005-10-25T21:21:00.000-05:00

This of course is Latin for “toward the East.” It is the traditional orientation of churches as well as the direction the priest faces during the Eucharistic prayer. That is it was up until about forty years ago. What is its significance? First, let me say what it isn’t. It is very often been mischaracterized as the priest facing with his back to the people. While it is certainly true that this is an effect of his orientation, the real problem with this mischaracterization is the same problem we have with popular expectations of the liturgy which are fueled by too many modern liturgists. The problem is that the point of departure for both is the “people” rather than the object of worship which is God. You see the priest, acting in the person of Christ, is mediating Christ’s Sacrifice on the part of the Church, to the Father. The priest is not offering the Sacrifice to the congregation, he is not reenacting a scene for their entertainment, he is sacramentally, Christ. Neither does the congregation play the part of the twelve apostles. The misguided “performance” of some priests who extend and then move the bread and wine from one side to the other during the words of consecration certainly can provide the misimpression that this is somehow a reenactment and that those of us in the pews are playing the part of the twelve apostles. But we are not. We ARE the Mystical Body, the Church. We are joining ourselves to Christ’s Sacrifice and offering the one Sacrifice of the Cross to the Father along with Christ in the person of His priest. Unfortunately, our stark but functional modern architecture, which often resembles an amphitheater more than a church, also often adds to the misimpression that we are there to be entertained. But try as they might, no liturgist with this as their goal as come close to entertaining anyone with the liturgy. A couple of years ago, then Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in an interview that he thought that a return to the ad orientum orientation would be a helpful move for assisting the faithful to better experience the active part they play in offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. Presumably, this experience would be articulated via necessary catechesis, preparing us for any such changes. He is correct of course. While many of these things are accidents, the way the priest is facing, his posture during consecration, church architecture, the future pope was still correct. Experience is mediated by some articulated structure. Because we are composite body and soul, the physical aspects of worship are an integral part of our total human experience. Knowing why we are doing what we do and having the symbols better express the reality which is taking place, are all so very important for letting the liturgical experience better represent the transcendent reality which our senses do not see. I honestly look forward to seeing a reform of the reform which will keep the good things which we have gained (vernacular, at least in the parts of Mass which change), a better sense of the need, if not actual achievement, for authentic participation (but this does not mean clericalizing the laity), and some (but not all) of the restructuring of the order of the Mass for example. As I have said before, I have no idea what liturgical changes we will see from B16, which I have also guessed would come sometime after the synod, but I would not be surprised if the priest’s orientation is one of them. By the way, in the same interview, he mentioned that a re-introduction of some Latin would also be a good thing. Some possibilities being such things as some hymns (which is already becoming more and more popular around the U.S.), for the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater noster, and Angus Dei. Hopefully, when they come the modern liturgists will embrace the changes as novelties as much as they do their other innovations?

They Still Don't Get It

2005-10-24T20:30:00.000-05:00

Well this Saturday we went to the Penn State-University of Illinois blood-letting. Being of rather weak constitution, the gore got too much for me and before the second quarter was even over, we left. Any way, on way in my brother had been given a copy of The Orange and Blue Observer (they are on-line but have not yet posted this version of their paper). While not many accepted a copy of this conservative periodical on such a liberal campus (which I suppose explains their rather in-your-face approach) my brother did not know any better. What caught his attention was an article about an on-campus residence hall that recently sponsored a reading of the Vagina Monologues. This rather course and demeaning play is supposed to be aimed at stopping violence against women. Believe it or not, it appears that what is considered violence is solely in the eye of the beholder. Even though some supporters have tried to erase the memory of the infamous "good rape" scene, not all, including the brainiacs at the University of Illinois, have clued in on this.

What is the "good rape" scene? It is the recollection of aa 13 year old little girl who was seduced by a 24 year old woman. The little girl claims, "if it was a rape, it was a good rape." Do they have a clue? I suppose not. The rest of the play continues with the diminishment of sex as nothing more than recreation and ironically, women and their genitals as objects for use. Do they not realize that this is a leading cause of violence to begin with. I do not doubt that Eve Ensler, the play's writer, is serious about ending violence against women. I do doubt that she has much in her clue bag with regard to the meaning of the human person and the gift of sex.

To Meme or Not to Meme . . .

2005-10-23T14:40:00.000-05:00

I've been memed by Clayton Emmer.

The rules are as follows:

1. Go into your archives.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag five other people to do the same thing.

Sad though it was, here was my erudite pontification from July 13th earlier this year:

Beyond the personal tragedy, those of us who daily pray for an increase in faithful vocations to the priesthood have to add the loss of this young man the loss of a vocation, by all accounts I have read, of a very good, young priest.

Click here to read more about the tragedy.

I reluctantly tag Jamie, Christopher, Eric, Becky, and Kate.

This is what Clayton said: Again, this is NOT a chain letter... no passive-aggressive threats against your life and happiness if you choose not to participate. (Don't you love those sentiments such as You don't have to send this on to five people you know... you decide if you want to be alive tomorrow.)

The Knot that Cannot Be Tied

2005-10-22T22:50:00.000-05:00

Here is a nice summary of the tie between Catholic social teaching, natural law, and marriage. It is another good way of explaining why marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Catholic Social Teaching and Natural Law
Marriage as a social institution can be viewed from the perspective of social teaching. At the heart of Catholic social teaching is the concept of the common good. The common good entails a network of social conditions which enable human individuals and groups to flourish and live a fully, genuinely human life. Collectively, everyone is responsible for the common good at the level of society and of nation.
Catholic social teaching begins with this starting point and then reflects on specific questions, such as marriage, using insights gained from natural law. Catholics recognize natural law as simply that which we can discover about the order of God’s creation by looking at nature and it is thus accessible to believers and non-believers alike. More precisely, natural law is a form of reasoning which approaches questions in terms of the ends or purposes of a thing which can be deduced from nature. Some examples of insights gained from natural law are well known: you shall not kill, you shall not commit sexual immorality, you shall not steal, you shall not lie. These values are a source of moral guidance open to everyone.
Marriage and Natural Law
Natural law sees marriage in terms of its purpose, the procreation and education of children and the foundation of the family and society. For the sake of family and the interests of society marriage is, by nature, between one man and one woman.
What does right reason tell us about marriage? It tells us that marriage is not a human invention. Marriage is a human good that perfects those called to its state. Humanity universally discovered the marital relationship as something that is between a man and a woman. While historically it took some time for humanity to recognize that the good of marriage is best fulfilled as a monogamous relationship, all of humanity has seen it as instituted between men and women. This insight was aided by Divine Revelation first given to the chosen people (see Gen 1-2) and then most perfectly revealed in the teaching of Jesus (see Matt 19:5-6; Eph 5:31-32). However, its ordering as between men and women is something that humans of all races and nations have seen.
Marriage and the sexual acts proper to marriage establish a one-flesh union between husband and wife. This one-flesh union is the normal and proper way that parents co-create children with God. The reality of this one-flesh union has historically been codified in both civil and commercial laws. A valid marriage becomes indissoluble when the married couple consummates their marriage by the marital act of sexual intercourse. This requirement for consummation is part of the common legal tradition and is reflected in the Church’s Code of Canon Law (Canon 1061) and as one example, Illinois state law (750 ILCS 5/301; 1).
But what is consummation? It is nothing other than the total gift of self of each spouse to the other, including their fertility. This fertility is made possible by their complementarity. Same sex couples can never be validly married because they cannot form a one-flesh union. These unions are not based on the natural complementarily of male and female and cannot cooperate with God to create new life and so they do not consummate marriage. The natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union, so while sexual acts between people of the same sex may simulate the marital act they can not physically or spiritually establish between themselves the covenant of a one-flesh union that is marriage. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.
Natural law reveals to us that the marital union is meant for the purpose of the perfection of the spouses and the begetting, rearing, and educating of children. The marital union is essential for the common good of society. It should therefore, be protected and enhanced by social policies and law that favor them and allow them to fulfill their mission.
The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws, because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good. Though it is regulated by civil laws, it did not originate from the state. It is an institution which corresponds to the order of nature established by God. Therefore the state does not have the competence to alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage. Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

Looking for Sex????

2005-10-21T22:18:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems that once again, that is what about half of our visitors are seeking. I am not sure why but about every couple of weeks we will get a surge of hits who happen upon us having searched for “sex.” Serendipitously, I have been researching the issue of pornography today for a talk that my boss is giving at the Catholic Leadership Conference next week and in doing so I happened upon a host of very disheartening stats and stories. Would you be surprised to hear that “sex” is the most searched on word on the internet these days? I am not anymore. If you want to read about the distressing story of pornography here is a much too long list of the sad statistics. It is no surprise that sex is the area that Satan hits us the hardest (below the belt so to speak). Not that we need a lot of help in our fallen state for sinful responses to normal sexual attraction. However, his temptations are needed to move us from normal, but sinful sexual activities, to more obscene pornographic sexual disorders. But moving on to these is becoming more and more common place. Satan’s focus on sex certainly makes sense. It is first a very strong natural drive and second, it is the most holy and intimate activity that two human beings can engage in with one another. Sex, as Karol Wojtyła says in our tagline from Love and Responsibility, is where man and woman enter the cosmic stream. Through a total gift of themselves they become one-flesh and subsequently co-creators with God, if everything is in working order any way. Sex is an act of self-gift and reception. Pornography, on the other hand, is a violent act of taking, possessing, consuming the other. In pornography, one person turns another from a person, into an object for selfish, sexual gratification. It is sterile; it is self-enclosed; it isolates those who engage in it and leaves them empty. Pornography is actually any act which objectifies the other person and so turns this act of gift into an act of taking. In the act of gift, we are satisfied because we enter into Trinitarian love. In the act of taking, one may be momentarily sexual spent but he is never satisfied. And so that is not the end; the need for taking increases and some are tempted into the need for more and more perverse acts of taking that are more and more separated from the natural order of creation. As the acts of taking become increasingly perverse, the person experiences less and less satisfaction and becomes more and more disturbed (think here of Uncle Screwtape, toward the end of The Screwtape Letters, describing demonic motivation in terms of consumption). These slaves of their own passions continue in the direct opposite direction from what they are really searching for, the satisfaction and peace that only can come by entering into a selfless, giving union with God. Those who are looking for sex in all the wrong places do not recognize that the happiness they seek is not to be found in the taking and consuming of another human person as an object for satisfaction. They are really looking for the peace, satisfaction, and happiness that only God, and an authentic union with Him, can give. Does this sound familiar? It is more blessed to give than to receive.'". . . The solution to addictions like pornography? The Eucharist: the proleptic union that every human soul really seeks.

The Real Presence

2005-10-20T19:59:00.000-05:00

John Paul the Great was fond of reminding us that Christ reveals man to himself. We cannot fully appreciate who we are or, even more importantly, who we are called to become without reference to Christ. Jesus’ revelation of Himself and who we are is spoken no where more eloquently than the Eucharist where He is physically (anyone want to debate this term?) present, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. The goodness and dignity of the human body is testified to in the Incarnation. The incomparable worth of the human soul is revealed in the Passion and death. The ultimate calling of the human person is foreshadowed in the Resurrection. The ineffable unity that God has in store for those who really love Him is both symbolized and proleptically made real in the Eucharist. It seems that there is a last gasp of dissent raising up by some who would deny the Real Presence. I suppose that this is really a scary truth, that we actually and really take God into our bodies and incorporate Him into ourselves both physically and spiritually. The need for personal holiness to make this a comfort rather than curse, not to mention fruitful, can be a foreboding thought for those following their own agendas. Zenit is running an interview with Archbishop Angelo Comastri, the Pope's vicar general for Vatican City State, who published a study on Eucharistic miracles a little while back. He discusses several issues of the Real Presence, including those who consider devotion to the Blessed Sacrament obscurantism, and the reality of Eucharistic miracles which are worth reading about. These miracles give eloquent witness that “real” means physical. God is physically present with us, and during Holy Communion, in us. That is what I call Emmanuel!

American Girls - sex, contraception and abortion

2005-10-20T19:42:00.000-05:00

What is the obsession of some organizations feeling they need assume the responsibility in educating young girls on sex, contraception and abortion. Planned parenthood is doing their part, with the Girl Scouts. It was recently discovered that the popular children's doll company, American Girls, is partnering with Girls Inc. Imagine if, instead of sex, organizations used the same educational philosophy for children on drugs and drug abuse/addiction. Programs could be set up to help our kids make "smart" decisions on drug use. If the kids decided they were ready to use drugs, than the focus would shift towards providing information and resources to ensure safe and responsible drug use. If children think they are ready to take drugs, we should respect their decision. For the sake of the children, drugs and drug paraphernalia could be provided at their local public school . Of course, the parents would not have the right to know their children decided to exercise their freedom to take drugs. If our children are going to take drugs, they should be provided with the education and means to make it as safe as possible. It's time we take our heads out of the sand and come to the realization that a program that teaches drug abstinence only, can never be effective. The drug abstinence program funds would be better spent on educating children on safe and responsible drug use.

The Importance of Preaching the Truth

2005-10-19T21:00:00.000-05:00

Here is an article on an issue related to our earlier discussion about marriage and divorce: in this article Archbishop Gregory seems to be hinting that he would opt for pastoral expedience over truth. Unfortunately, instead of the Archbishop explaining the teaching, he essentially says yea I know what the Church says but what do we say to the great folks who are divorced, remarried outside of the Church and now suffer because they cannot go to communion? I suggest the truth. Certainly, the truth in a loving, compassionate, and understandable way, but the truth. The same truth that if taught to them as children growing up, and in their pre-cana classes, in their adult education classes, in counseling during their marriage struggles, etc. then many may not be in this sad situation. Now that they are, they need to know that the situation in which they find themselves is problematic. They need to know that it is not simply a rule that prevents them from full communion with the Church but an action they took and remain in that is causing the situation. They need also to know their options, as difficult as they are. Look, I do not want to appear as though I have no compassion for those who find themselves in the situation. Not too long ago I sat heartbroken with feelings of complete helplessness, watching someone I love dearly cry because he finds himself in this situation and his wife is unwilling to do anything to reconcile it. If this were simply a matter of discipline, I would be the first to argue for a change. But it is not. The sad reality is that those Catholics who are living with someone not married to them in the Church have by that very act, separated themselves from communion with God and the Church. The most charitable thing to do is to ensure that they recognize this, and do not sin further by attempting communion without reconciling their situation. As I said, they also need to know their options, as difficult as they are. I do believe that if I found myself in this situation today, knowing what I know about the Eucharist and the truth of marriage, and if there were children involved, I would take the option of living together as brother and sister; I would at least want to know about this possibility. What positive can come from this tragedy which results especially from the poor catechesis and generally poor spiritual leadership over the last 40 years or so? I suggest that the bishops of the world ought to take this very painful experience as motivation to help ensure it does not happen to those not yet in this situation. They ought to ensure strong catechesis about the reality of the Sacraments and the indissolubility of marriage. They ought to ensure stronger and longer marriage preparation classes. They ought to refuse to marry those who are ill prepared, especially those who are living together (a sure recipe for divorce). They ought provide programs to educate those already married about meaning of married life and their vocation to holiness through marriage. They need to make the Church present in the lives of families before divorce happens. The failure to address the cultural situation in which the Church finds herself, lead to the kinds of questions that Archbishop Gregory so inappropriately and publicly posits aloud to the press. I know, all this is easier said than done . . . but that does not change the fact that done, it must be. As you might have detected, this inappropriate type of talk from leaders of the Church always disturbs me. It does nothing other than to sow seeds of confusion and to fan the flames of dissent from Church authority. O.k., I’m done. (P.S. - I do not want to minimize personal responsibility of those in these situations but the focus here is of course, the importunity of the Archbishop's comments).

Prediction: The Vatican Will Ban All “Gays” From Seminaries

2005-10-18T19:44:00.000-05:00

No, I am not becoming a source of ecclesiastical gossip. Unfortunately, we have more than enough of those blogs already. Even if I were to have learned something from a friend or anonymous source I would not publish it in search of satisfying that sinful blogger’s pride (i.e. more hits). Nor do I intend to prognosticate (even if it might sound like it). Rather, I am trying to make some distinctions. You see, it seems to me that even orthodox Catholic writers often fall into the trap of using terms like “gay” and “homosexual” in a way that furthers misunderstanding. First, the term “gay” itself is one which presupposes an agenda. Namely, it presupposes that the person not only acts on his homosexual tendencies but that he publicly advocates a political agenda which, if not giving those practicing homosexual acts pride of place in society, gays at least lobby to ensure that the public accepts homosexual actions as legitimate. In this sense, of course no gay person can be considered suited for priestly ordination. However, what about those who have the (yes it is) disorder of same sex attraction. Here, I think that there are in fact some further distinctions to be made. First, notice I say those with homosexual tendencies rather than homosexuals. That is for the very reason that too often those who push the homosexual agenda try to make the claim that their desires define who they are as persons. In other words, the person in his very being is “gay.” This is as logical as say that the desires of pedophiliac define who he is as a person. His is a pedophiliac in his very being. Will and desire do not change human nature. If it is a disorder than it can be cured, though as with addicts, sometimes a cure is much more difficult and tenuous for those who have relinquished themselves to their desires for long periods of time. In any case, these real differences bear significantly on understanding the Church’s policy. If someone’s same sex attraction is not part of their very being than it would be fair to say that one could ordain someone who, in the past, did have same sex attraction disorders and still be able to have a Church policy against ordaining a “homosexual.” In other words, someone is not homosexual if he no longer suffers from same sex attraction. So what has the Church said in the past on the subject. Well, as recently as 2002, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments sent a letter to the Congregation for the Clergy on the issue of ordaining those with same sex attraction to the priesthood. The letter said:

Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Notice the clarification on what the letter means by “homosexual.” It takes pains to avoid the insinuation that homosexuality is ontological. But on the issue of the forthcoming policy, this letter certainly does not provide assurance of what the impending document will say. Nevertheless, it does suggest that any lessening of this restriction will be exactly that. However, it could also be that further nuance is necessary. There are varying degrees of homosexual tendencies. Certainly, one who has lived a life of homosexual license would be much more pastorally imprudent to ordain than a man who has never acted on his disordered tendencies. There may also be those who have confused tendencies with attractions to both men and women but who have never acted on them. There may also be those with an occasional temptation which is quickly put aside. Within these degrees of disorder, the Church will affirm a policy based upon prudence and sound anthropology. Simply based upon sound theological anthropology, I suspect that guidelines (but probably not precise criteria) will be provided which attempts to ascertain the degree to which a disorder may be present. It seems to me that any guidelines should try to help define when a person is sufficiently “cured” of the same sex attraction disorder to be theologically and pastorally suited to act in the Person of the Bridegroom. Any way, it is from this perspective which I will read the policy when it is made public.

The Grim Harvest

2005-10-17T20:32:00.000-05:00

This term fits not just the west’s problem with vocations but the problem with faith in general. As Cardinal Telesphore Toppo, archbishop of Ranchi, India, and one of the synod’s co-presidents said: “The lack of priests is not the cause, but a symptom. The real problem is the crisis of faith, as the priesthood is the fruit of the community's faith. Without faith, there are no priests, no vocations.” I mentioned this last week in the context of the Abraham narrative. I thought that I would bring it up again because this fact suggests that everyone who has even a clue about their Catholic faith is of fundamental importance for vocations because they need to help stem the great confusion many have about the truth of the faith and its necessary place in their lives. The Holy Spirit has not stopped calling but the “noise” of the world has made it such that young men can no longer hear the call. Archbishop O’Brien, Ordinary for the Military Services (and previously my bishop) put it this way. He said that a man will give his life for a mystery but not for a question mark. This is certainly true. If one thinks about it, the priesthood is a ridiculous life to live if it is not what the Church has always taught it to be. When priestly identity came to be questioned publicly by Catholic theologians and even by many priests, that is when we saw such a large drop off in vocations. Those orders and dioceses who continued, and today still, instill a strong identity of the priest as an alter Christus, are by and large, gifted with plenteous vocations and have had little of the scandal affect them. It is overcoming the crisis of faith that is the first step to solving not just the vocations problems but the wide spread problems in society as well. We need to start planting, watering and weeding if we are to avoid another long spell of grim harvests.

Children Suffer the Most

2005-10-16T14:03:00.000-05:00

The experience of divorce in someways is like death. In others, it can be much worse. For children of divorce, the experience is often worse. A study by Elizabeth Marquardt, which Zenit reviewed over the weekend, reveals some of the problems she found in children of divorce. Sadly, most of us will either experience it ourselves, or know someone who will go through it. Thus, the Marquardt study might be a worthwhile read for all. For those marriages which can still be saved, perhaps it may provide some motivation to save them if the oath the spouses took before God is not enough. For those situations which for whatever reason cannot be reconciled, perhaps it may provide some insight into ways to mitigate the damage to children. However, I suspect that the study will help show that only the most severe of situtations should make divorce a real consideration.

Hoping Against Hope

2005-10-15T21:20:00.000-05:00

We are up in the northern Chicago suburbs today visiting my brother and his wife. We went up to Milwaukee today to see the Basilica of St. Josaphat and Gesu church at Marquette. While either was easily worth the trip, the Basilica is especially remarkable. The faith and sacrifice of those humble souls who built that Church is inspiring. That leads me to today’s thought. This morning we went to Mass at the convent of the Handmaids of the Precious Blood, a semi-cloistered order whose charism is continual prayer for our priests. Well it was the first reading from Romans in the context of the sisters’ charism that got me ta think’n again. This was the passage in which Paul talks about the depth of Abraham’s faith. Hoping against hope is very apropos for describing Abraham’s situation and perhaps a lesson for some situations today. Abraham, who with Sarah was quite advanced in age, had no earthly chance of having children. However, since this was promised by the God who Paul reminds the Romans creates out of nothing, Abraham believed. However, there is more to the story. Most of us can identify with the all too human experience of Abraham and Sarah. After a time, the exhilarating experience of hearing God’s promise began to subside and doubt crept in. They began to think that maybe God actually might need some help in living up to his promise, so Sarah gave her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham as a concubine to kind of help God, the Creator of the universe, out. We all know the rest of the story. Ishmael, the wild ass of a man, became the father of the mortal enemies of Israel. The moral of the story, pragmatism must not be used to justify contravening God and His laws. I think that often times we suffer from the same kind of thinking in our day. The call for married men and women as priests to “solve” the priest crisis is just one example (even though as the Synod intervention correctly asserted—the priest shortage is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed—the widespread lukewarm faith of too many Catholics). It seems to me that our focus must be on Christ who has sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. All that is needed is our faithfulness (and yes of course, our hard work). But God does not need our help to fix things by trying to overturn solid discipline or infallible teachings. Prayer, holiness, fidelity to the authority of the Church, and work to reenergize the faith are the parts we should be playing. That and hoping against hope.

It Was Bound to Happen

2005-10-14T22:37:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago the Brussels Journal ran a story about the first threesome union in the country. It seems that in the land of anything goes, the first to allow homosexual marriage, that there was nothing that could prevent the formation of any sort of union that one (or in this case three) desired. When nature and common sense are disregarded, and the only criteria is “what I want” there is no end to the unions that the state must sanction and safe guard. Yesterday it was homosexual marriage, today it is threesomes, tomorrow it may very well be three men and a dog…and why not? Anything else would be unfairly exclusive, wouldn’t it? I mean, don’t we want to be affirming and inclusive of everyone? Can anyone think of any good arguments for those with this mindset that would help them to wake up and find out that the coffee has burnt?

The Goal of Worship, The Goal of Creation

2005-10-13T20:02:00.000-05:00

According to the then Cardinal Ratzinger, they are the same and that would be divinization. He says this in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy. Just what might be this divinization? If you have not read theologians who have been influenced by the Ressourcement, the recovery of the original sources of theology, or Eastern Christian writings this may at first sound a little strange, even blasphemous. However, it is not an idea foreign to the Latin Church. It is essentially the result of fruitfully receiving sanctifying grace. We become partakers in the divine nature and we are changed. We become more and more Christ-like. The fruit of divinization is our goal, a world of authentic freedom (i.e. not a libertine freedom but one fixed in truth) and love. The goal of liturgy, the essence of sacrifice and worship is our divinization, our being taken up and joined in a koinonia, a communion, with God and with the Church. Man’s divinization is why God created the cosmos. It is why He allowed the Fall and why He continues to call each of us to conform ourselves to His plan for us. Love for God thus must manifest itself in our love and total immersion in authentic liturgy. If we do not surrender ourselves and learn to love and live for the liturgy, we will not be comfortable in heaven either. In other words, we must allow the liturgy to transform us if we are to reach our full potential as human persons, i.e. if we are to become saints.

The Rights of the Laity

2005-10-12T21:02:00.000-05:00

Canon law does not give very many rights to the lay faithful but of those it does, authentic liturgy and access to the Sacraments are some of them. It is no surprise. The liturgy is heaven on earth and the Sacraments are the way to our divinization. The Mass especially is our training ground for heaven and the ultimate source of our spiritual strength. Too often, liturgists, priests, even some bishops (some well meaning, some not) highjack the liturgy and turn it from a universal expression of the unified Church into a personal expression of some sort or another . . . and drag the rest of us along, like it or not. John Paul the Great, in as gentle a manner as one could imagine, has been trying to draw along the recalcitrants, to some success perhaps but not total. Now it is B16’s turn. There of course was much speculation about what he would do in this regard. However, since he did not immediately excommunicate anyone, there are some who have already written him off. I believe we will have a bit longer to wait. The Synod must occur first. In this vein, there was a Zenit article yesterday about Cardinal Julian Herranz, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and his intervention at the Synod. Here he was talking about the right to access to the Eucharist, especially the right to those gifts we need to allow us fruitful reception of grace. This includes confession, time for prayerful adoration in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and of course, reverent liturgy. This is encouraging to hear it more and more expressed. It is obvious to me that Redemptionis sacramentum is not a dead letter. I do think that there are unmistakable signs of an emerging springtime in the Church. However, I suspect that there is still much suffering left to experience before the full fruits of Vatican II and the pontificates of John Paul the Great and B16 begin to emerge. In the meantime, I wonder how it would be taken by those who still deny the faithful access to authetic and reverent liturgy, if we were to demand it as our right?

Liturgy, Person, and Act

2005-10-11T20:19:00.000-05:00

Well, last Sunday we went to southern Indiana to see some of their famous covered bridges. Of course, the longest span bridges were the most pleasing to me; amazing how they have held up over the years considering that they are made of wood. Any way, before we left for Indiana we went to 8am Mass and the Gospel reading got me to think’n again as it is wont to do (I suppose I really should wait ‘til after the homily . . . sorry Father). The Gospel, of course, was from Matthew. It was about the king who gave the wedding feast and none of the invited guests came so he sent his servants out into the byways to invite whomever they could find. Obviously, the King is God the Father and those invited were the people of the first Covenant. Those in the byways were the Gentiles and the man who was thrown out because he had no wedding garment is of course any one who would presume upon God’s mercy and die in a state of mortal sin. Clearly, the place this unfortunate soul ended up was in eternal fire. But I wonder, is there anything here to be said for the proleptic celebration of this wedding feast? Of course, the same thing applies. We cannot approach the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin (Sen. Kerry ??). However, I wondered whether this metaphor might have some application to actual dress. At first glance, this would not seem to be the case. However, thinking about John Paul the Great’s recognition of the integrated reality of person, who is a unity of body and soul, and act, maybe there is after all. It seems to me that we can also extend this metaphor to the way we present ourselves bodily to God in the liturgy. After all, our actions tell the truth of our interior disposition. In other words, an authentic piety will, all things being equal, lead one to want to present himself to the Lamb with complete reverence. Dressing up is a recognition of something special. One would not show up to the Whitehouse or dinner at the bosses house in warm-ups or cutoffs. It is not enough to say that it does not matter what I look like, it only matters my inner disposition. All things being equal, this attitude does not correspond with who and what we are. The truth is that outwardly we express our inner selves. The body expresses the soul. We are not a disincarnated body and neither are we some soul encased in a body. We are a unity; in other words, we are one single entity which is a human person who has both a spiritual and bodily constitution. Now I am not saying that a poor person is condemned because he cannot afford to dress nicely for church, though often poor people dress much more nicely for church than their wealthier counter parts. Rather, I am saying that the disregard for the awesome event which is the liturgy is what would cause one who has no other excuse, to dress in warm-ups or a tank top and shorts for Sunday Mass. This disregard may reflect (culpable I believe) ignorance but it also can reflect a lack of due regard for the Wedding Feast of the Lamb and so the Lamb Himself. It is this deficient interior disposition, reflected and lived out in the exterior manifestation I have been discussing, which can separate one from God (recall Jesus’ admonition to the lukewarm Church in Revelation). So no, it is not the fact one wears better clothes to a restaurant than to Mass that is problematic, in itself. It is that the act expresses the person.

Sex and Sin Within the Marriage

2005-10-10T08:00:00.000-05:00

Why is it sinful to use the occasion of sexual intercourse solely for the desire of pleasure? Why do we have an obligation to have sex with our spouses? Why must sexual intercourse and purity coincide? David has spent a lot of time in this Blog explaining marriage and the sexual experience, which is essential in understanding the supernatural nature of sex. Most would agree that with sex, comes pleasure. That pleasure which is proper to human nature is neither merely animal nor exclusively spiritual. It is a human pleasure that should be experienced by the whole (physical and spiritual) of the person. The complete happiness of sex is guaranteed only when the couple are bound in a relationship that is so close and powerful, knowing fully that their "union" is accepted and blessed by God. Consequently, when the sexual act is centered on receiving gratification, as opposed to a total giving of ones self, the indulgence cheapens, diminishes or may even destroy the bodily pleasure itself. Sin (self gratification) is really an attack on the very happiness we seek. In this age of sexual and pornography addiction, infidelity, etc.. sex is centered on self gratification of the body, and so many times, sex becomes the master of the will. The insatiable search for satisfaction many times may end in depression, despair and loneliness. Back to the questions, moral laws of sex are not meant to be restrictions, but are a means to achieve true freedom. When we cooperate fully with the true nature of sex, of giving totally of oneself to another, we become free to enjoy the fullness (physical and spiritual) of sex. When we seek self gratification, becoming self centered, we will become a slave to our own desires.

SEX, BUSINESS & MONEY

2005-10-09T18:33:00.000-05:00

This is a post contributed by Amber:

Well, it looks like there are some Wall Street Businessmen who say that they need to come in and clean up the finances in the Church in America. Post sex scandals, there has been quite a bit of focus on the finances of the Church in the US. Recently, Forbes reported, “the Roman Catholic Church in North America is a financial mess”. Forbes also characterized that there is a fight starting over finances between the “reformers” and the “traditionalists”. (http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2005/0919/112.html?_requestid=2441) So, the questions become: Can businessmen really help? Should they help? And, are those good old “traditionalists” just being stubborn and traditional again? We have to remember that the Church depends on the free will offerings of its members. The Church is not a business or a corporation. All financial contributions to the Church are in support of the mission of the Church. The doctrine and discipline in the Church is centralized, while the financial aspects are decentralized in the various dioceses. So, should the dioceses ask some smart businessmen for financial advice? I would think that would be smart….IF those businessmen can remember that the Church IS NOT a business or a corporation. And, that this is not about being a “reformer” or a “traditionalist”, this is about supporting the Mission and Doctrine of the Church. We come back to the sex scandals that started the whole conversation about finances, and the worries that go along with it. Well, ladies and gentleman, here is some startling news . . . unfortunately, scandal is nothing new in the history of the Church. Believe it or not, there have been worse times than this. And, some of those previous times even involved…you guessed it…Sex & Money. Nevertheless, the Church will never fail. Christ will never allow it; He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her (Matt. 16:18). And, through this time, just as in times past, there will be great saints who will bring the Church back to Her Mission and many will discover Her hidden glory. Perhaps, these Wall Street businessmen are those saints, perhaps they are not . . .

The New Feminism

2005-10-08T22:00:00.000-05:00

John Paul the Great often warned about many current strains of feminism which, in the end, became anti-feminist. They rejected femininity for themselves, attempting to appropriate masculine modes of behavior and rejecting the singular feminine genius—the capacity for co-creation with God—as a source of oppression. In Mulieris dignitatem, John Paul called for a “new feminism.” This is a feminism which promotes women’s equality and their rightful place in social participation without rejecting their femininity or their vocation to motherhood. Sister Sara Butler, MSBT and a member of the International Theological Commission, is one of those who have taken up the call and done a great service to women and the Church in developing and articulating a theology of this new feminism. L'Osservatore Romano ran a piece last year by Sr. Sara about her evaluation of the CDF document promoting the collaboration between men and women in the Church. It is a very good summary of authentic, Catholic feminism, no?

Memory and Identity

2005-10-07T21:07:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it in Crisis, a very good review of John Paul the Great's final monograph over at Catholic Exchange.

Source and Summit

2005-10-06T20:53:00.000-05:00

Of course when we are talking about Christian life—“real life”—the source and summit is clearly the Eucharist. One of the many abuses which followed in the confusion of the 60s in the U.S. and the attempts to implement liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council, was a de-emphasis of the Eucharist in the life of the Church. One post-conciliar implementation document even seemed to imply that the Tabernacle should be moved to a side altar or to a special chapel for the Blessed Sacrament. Eucharistic devotions, such as 40 hours, fell into almost complete oblivion. Until relatively recently, Benediction and Adoration were very rare in most dioceses. However, the Church is working to turn things around. Christ reveals us to ourselves. We cannot really understand ourselves until we understand the truth about our Eucharistic Lord. Here is Total-Self-Gift par excellence. This is the promise and the proleptic fulfillment, both symbolized and made real, of complete and total communion with God in heaven. This explains Jesus’ words to the Jews in Capernaum: “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you . . .” (John 6:53). This understanding of the Eucharist led, in the wake of Trent, to a massive construction boom of new church buildings throughout Europe. Rome itself saw 50 churches built in 40 years. The architectural focus of these churches was to show the centrality of the Eucharist in worship and in Christian life. John Paul the Great reached the climax of his pontificate in the year of the Eucharist, after having written a major Encyclical on the subject and overseeing the publishing of the CDW’s Instruction on the proper celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy. He did not live to see the Bishop’s Synod cap this important event in Church history. However, it is no coincidence that Providence has deigned to give us a new Pope who recognizes the centrality of authentic liturgy for Christian life.

I am making no predictions other than to suggest that I expect some significant redirections in the way we now celebrate the liturgy and guidance on the public devotion of the Eucharist in the not too distant future. As in the wake of Trent, renewed devotion to the Eucharist spelled a great springtime in the Church; it might not be too much to hope for something similar for our day—at least that should be our prayer.

Seamless Garment??

2005-10-05T18:01:00.000-05:00

This is a very politically charged term. A few days ago, I would have advised anyone who might ask that it describes a theory which is used to try to justify voting for “prochoice,” and nothing more. That was until I read the talks in which Cardinal Bernardin described his consistent life ethic which he described as a “seamless garment.” I found myself agreeing with his position. I was struck by how unflinchingly he condemned abortion and said that it could not be equated with other social justice issues. His point was that Catholics need to recognize that all of these issues begin from the same source. That is, the inherent dignity of the human person who is made in the image of God. When we recognize this dignity, we not only must defend the person when he is directly threatened but we also are obliged to promote the dignity of the human person. This really does seem to be the most effective way to consistently and coherently witness to the true dignity of the person in our skeptical world. This does not mean that different apostolates need to spread their focus to every social justice issue. Those who focus on abortion need not also lobby for a just wage for workers or adequate health care. It does not mean that there is one approved solution to social justice problems or that spending more money on federal programs is always the answer. It does mean that all Catholics need to be ultimately committed to these issues and not relegate them to the purview of the “liberals” or the “conservatives.” Nor can we just pay them lip service or rely on political theories to which the dignity of the person is subordinated. Even though I agree that this term has been used to justify unseemly schemes by not a few, it still seems to me that rejecting the term or the truth that it describes is not too unlike rejecting the authentic teachings of Vatican II because all too many have distorted its teachings to serve their agendas. It is time to take back the term and show those who distort it that they will find no support for their positions in the source that they claim as their own. Thoughts?

The Celibate Priest

2005-10-04T20:33:00.000-05:00

Is there theological rationale for the discipline of priestly celibacy? Unfortunately, Melkite Patriarch Gregoire III Laham very publicly denied such a thing the other day at the Bishop’s Synod. I can understand Patriarch Laham’s sensitivity I suppose but the fact of the matter is that there is certainly a solid theology. It begins with Jesus telling His disciples that some do become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom (cf. Mt 19:12). The context here is marriage and the fact that not all are called to marriage; some are called to celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom provides profound insights into the meaning of sex, the human person and marriage. Consecrated celibacy, John Paul the Great tells us, is not a negative statement about marriage but its strong affirmation. Consecrated celibacy is a witness to the marriage all of us will finally have with God, through the Bridegroom in heaven. It reveals that human marriage, while excellent, is not the ultimate union. It foreshadows the consummate union we will share with God. Those of forsake this earthly good testify to the reality of the heavenly good. Furthermore, these celibates have a certain share in this consummate marriage with Christ in a way that non-celibates must await. Celibates’ is a more direct union with Christ. While Christ’s grace is mediated via one’s spouse in marriage, it is given directly from Christ for the consecrated celibates. Christ is the celibate Bridegroom. Why is this? Certainly not because marriage is bad but because the ultimate marriage of Bridegroom to Bride is much greater. Jesus marries all of humanity through the Church. He does not limit this intimate union with one human person. The priest, who acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) ought to be celibate. He represents the Bridegroom, and acts as the spiritual father to his parish. Pragmatics aside—almost all of which favor the celibate priesthood—this symbolism is of singular importance in witnessing to Christ’s universal spousal love. While the priest’s celibacy is not essential it is very close. That is why the best available evidence is that married priests, even in the East has always been viewed as a concession, and even a lamentable one at that. Even today in the East, while a married man can become a priest, no priest may marry. In addition, no married priest is eligible to become a bishop. “Celibate priest” ought really to be viewed as a redundant phrase; “celibate bishop” already is.

Cohabitation and Divorce

2005-10-03T21:07:00.000-05:00

Zenit ran an article over the weekend which revealed the results of a study showing that the divorce rate is double for those couples who cohabitated before marriage. Rather than helping to ensure compatibility, the statistics indicate that the morally wrong choice is also the pragmatically worse option. How could this be? It seems so logical that getting to know one another better, in a way that only living together can provide, would have to help make marriage stronger . . . or so the rationalization goes. Getting to “know” each other is the key I think. John Paul the Great showed that biblical “knowledge,” which always precedes the birth of children, is used analogously with man’s knowing God in a covenant relationship. As I have mentioned before, as marvelous as it is, this corresponds with the truth that marital intercourse is a pale foretaste of the ultimate, ineffable union that we will have with God in heaven. God has ordered our constitution as persons made in the image of God to correspond to the proper functioning of this “foretaste.” When we violate this order, i.e. when we attempt this union without the irrevocable sacramental commitment open to fruitfulness, we damage ourselves and our relationship with our partner. Two damaged souls cannot form a lasting bond when they have attempted to nourish their relationship on a lie. It is a lie because it contradicts the way God has ordered creation and the human person. These two persons have damaged themselves by building their relationship on skepticism rather than trust and a selfish taking from the other rather than a giving and receiving of one another as a gift. Much more healing is required than the average couple gets when we see that 63% of 20-23 year old women whose first relationship was cohabitational divorced. The picture is not rosey for those who stay together either. There is a higher rate of instability, insecurity, physical abuse, and infidelity among cohabitating couples. I recognize how hard this truth is to communicate much less accept in our culture. However, for the sake of beauty, of happiness, of children, of truth we need to find ways to lovingly communicate this reality to those who have been misled by the sexual revolution.

In The Image of God

2005-10-02T21:04:00.000-05:00

This is the source of the inherent dignity of each and every human being. It is worth reminding ourselves of this on this Respect Life Sunday. Anytime this source of human dignity is forgotten, the human person becomes an enigma and the result is “bad berries” for the weak and defenseless among us. There is no debate in the field of science; at fertilization a new human being in conceived with his own unique DNA. The debate is about the meaning of this life and the protections which should be afforded him. If one thinks about it for a moment it becomes clear that this is a very dangerous, not to mention obscene, path to go down. What I mean is that when we have decided that we will play word games and refer to a nascent human being as a fetus with only the potential to become a human person we have adopted the same philosophy as those who gave us the U.S. slave trade, the holocaust, the slaughter of the Soviet gulags, and so many other unspeakable horrors. That is what our U.S. Supreme Court inflicted upon the entire nation when they played God and decided that no state could protect an unborn child, without exception, anytime before he is born. Freedom of choice is a canard because it avoids the real issue about when life begins. Instead, it presupposes the validity of the choice. When the question is begged, “don’t you trust women to make the choice,” the unstated assumption is that there is a valid choice to make. To see the problem here, back up a couple of centuries and ask the same question, but now it is about owning another human being rather than having an abortion. In our culture, we can easily see through this sophism disguised as the protection of civil liberties. No one who demands the right to choose abortion would demand the same right to own another human being. The question that must be answered then is why we believe we have the right to decide which human beings are persons and deserve the protection afforded them by law and who are not. It is a simple question with profound consequences. Any answer that would try to justify the “choice” is making common cause with the slave holder and those who gave us the “Final Solution.” The absurdity of the position manifests itself in many ways. Today, while standing in the life chain I experienced one such event. The overwhelming response of the few who even acknowledged our presence was positive. A few felt they had to provide a gesture indicating their disapproval. However, the most graphic negative response was from an older lady, perhaps in her 60s or so--someone’s grandmother it would appear, who felt the need to flip everyone “the bird.” This, to a very long line of people silently praying and witnessing to the inherent dignity of the human person and the trauma abortion causes those who resort to it. I suppose the gesture corresponds well with the vulgarity they euphemistically refer to as “a choice.” Tragically, the object of this “choice” many so desperately want to retain, is always an innocent . . . created in the image of God.

Her Little Way

2005-10-01T22:00:00.000-05:00

Today is the Feast Day of St. Thérèse of Lisieux. I deeply love this little doctor of the Church. Reading her autobiography, Story of a Soul, is an eye opener in the ways of humility, and serving God and others in the same profound way that C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters is an eye opener about temptation and spiritual sloth. St. Thérèse’s little way is a brilliant approach to the spiritual life. In fact, it is the way that we should approach all aspects of life.

EWTN began their 25th anniversary tour today. Fr. Charles Connor took the opportunity to demonstrate the way the God can use a humble servant who has no pretenses other than to serve God in whatever way He desires. He explained that Mother Angelica began EWTN with $200 in the bank and some equipment in her garage, broadcasting for just four hours a day and now EWTN is the largest broadcasting network in the world. It reaches over 100 million viewers a day, all over the world and has thousands upon thousands of testimonials of lives they have changed by being faithful to the gospel in their apostolate. St. Thérèse, on the other hand, never saw in this life the scope that her humble obedience to God would have. However, that did not stop her from giving herself totally. Both of these courageous women suffered greatly in their lives and both were humble, obedient servants who have affected millions of lives for the better. For most of us, I suppose, it would be best if we did not see much fruit from our labors, lest it puff us up too much . . . perhaps that is why God, like with St. Paul, in His great mercy will give those with humble hearts who have great success, a thorn to keep them humble. While we should not shrink from large tasks when it is clear that is where God is leading us, care must be taken to ensure that it is not our pride leading us there. However, great visible success is not the way God calls most of us. Most of us will not see, until the final judgment, the impact we have had on others. Another great and humble servant of God, Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, who by the way was named for St. Thérèse, gave great wisdom and encouragement for those of us who will never see the fruits of our spiritual labors. She reminded us that God calls us to faithfulness, not success.

Motherhood & Trust

2005-09-30T22:10:00.000-05:00

The old maxim, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” is no sophism. It is a subtle recognition of the importance of motherhood for society and the great influence that mothers, collectively and individually, have over the health of society. One of the most fundamental aspects of this influence is in their teaching their children and so the rest of society the ability to trust. Trust is essential for the health of society and for faith itself. We are born trusting and only eventually learn to distrust. Without trust a child could not learn, a society could not function, and a man cannot be saved. John Paul the Great identifies this crucial aspect of the feminine genius—that is motherhood and trust:

The moral and spiritual strength of a woman is joined to her awareness that God entrusts the human being to her in a special way. Of course, God entrusts every human being to each and every other human being. But this entrusting concerns women in a special way - precisely by reason of their femininity - and this in a particular way determines their vocation. The moral force of women, which draws strength from this awareness and this entrusting, expresses itself in a great number of figures of the Old Testament, of the time of Christ, and of later ages right up to our own day. A woman is strong because of her awareness of this entrusting, strong because of the fact that God “entrusts the human being to her”, always and in every way, even in the situations of social discrimination in which she may find herself. This awareness and this fundamental vocation speak to women of the dignity which they receive from God himself, and this makes them “strong” and strengthens their vocation (Mulieris dignitatem, 30).

The scandal of our current culture is that it is teaching women that motherhood is at most, something some women seek for personal fulfillment, at worst an impediment to their real success as a person. Both are lies. Motherhood like fatherhood and all aspects of life are only ultimately fulfilling when they are giving rather than taking. Motherhood is much more than biological but when it is understood primarily in a way that limits it to its biological function, the children suffer and so does society. The blame lies, I think in JP the Great’s view, first with men who have been responsible for establishing the basic structures of society which tend to demean the value of motherhood and family. Motherhood again needs to be extolled and structures need to be found whereby, women can return/enter the work place and social leadership in positions of influence taking into account their experiences as mothers, without requiring them to have sacrificed their nurturing of their children. We need to regain the understanding that motherhood rocks!

Men, Beer, & Sex

2005-09-29T20:12:00.000-05:00

This is normally a recipe for moral disaster. However, in this case our own John Lalley was on the scene to take care of things. No, this wasn’t his bachelor party. John recently spoke at a session of Theology on Tap in Dayton, OH on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which he entitled “The Man Show.” He made some of the same important points that we have been discussing here. One insightful observation that he made is the paradoxical other side of the coin in what is happening to our sexual identities in our egalitarian (i.e. equality equals sameness) culture. I have mentioned that women have been masculinized to a great degree in our society. In other words, all too many are rejecting their femininity as a precondition of moving into (and rightfully so) areas of society traditionally adopted by men. For example, vulgar language and interpersonal aggressiveness are fallen masculine traits. Sadly, this is extending into sexual sinfulness as well. While they are both equally sinful, these fallen behaviors are even more damaging to the feminine person then they are to males because they distort her very feminine identity. As John Paul the Great says in Mulieris dignitatem:

even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words "He shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the "masculinization" of women. In the name of liberation from male "domination", women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality". There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfillment", but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness (10).

The flip side of the coin is the push to move men toward femininity. There is now a general sense that men should adopt feminine modes of behavior, especially in interpersonal relations with women. Men certainly have a more of a task to become “civilized,” in general, than do women. However, even though they have much to learn from women, adopting their feminine traits is not one of them. The same is true of men. Men must not feel pressured to be feminized in order to be more like women, whose natural gifts do tend to make them more “civilized” on average. Rather, our interpersonal relations, by disinterestedly giving ourselves to others, expecting nothing in return, will enable us to become more authentic men. It is in fact better to give than receive or perhaps one could also so, it is in giving that we truly receive. When we give ourselves we receive our more authentic, fulfilled, holy selves in return.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah

2005-09-28T21:41:00.000-05:00

Tricia and I spent the evening with a great group of young adults this evening. The local FOCUS group invited us over for dinner and discussions afterward. They are inspiring to me because of their abandonment to God’s will. They have all recently completed college and donated a couple of years of their lives (at least) to help with the new evangelization. They are helping kids on campuses around the country to recognize and more fully live their Catholic faith. One young lady actually gave up a medical school slot to do this. She is applying again to go when she finishes her mission "tour." Any way, I guess that I have not taught any sort of class in a while, unusual for me. Not unusual is my taking it out on these poor people. I went into lecture mode, kind of, and what else, shared my dissertation on John Paul the Great's theology of Fatherhood. This “teaching” together with something another person said about their missionary work as spiritual replication, brought to mind a significant point John Paul makes. I have mentioned previously the constitutiveness of our sex for our personhood. John Paul says that, fundamentally, all men are created to be fathers and women to be mothers. Our vocation in this regard is also our uniqueness, in the end. Even if we do not become biological parents, we still are called to be fruitful and multiply others as spiritual children in Christ. Teachers do this by begetting spiritual children in an intellectual manner. But they and everyone else are called to live a life of holy witness such that others see and live the truth because of their example. We are charged with giving others less spiritually mature than we the benefit of our journey and acquired wisdom (even if we do not particularly see ourselves has having much of the latter). Spiritual parenthood is not optional. It is something that everyone is called to. It is an important way that we give ourselves to others which in return completes and fulfills us. God will judge us individually, but he saves us together. That is the reason He created a Church. We are called to grow in love and holiness as a family. One need not go on like I often do, Blah, Blah, Blah Blah, Blah. . . but spiritual parturition is still an essential part of authentic, mature, personhood. Whether God has blessed you with biological children or not, perhaps it is time to start looking for the opportunities God is putting before you to be the medium by which someone else will be saved and sanctified.

More Sad Evidence

2005-09-27T21:36:00.000-05:00

LifeSiteNews is reporting on a Canadian law which pro-family groups point out falls short of adequately protecting children from pornographic exploitation but is being challenged by several homosexual "rights" groups. The latter complain that, among other things, homosexual artists will be unfairly restricted and that children will be denied their “right to choose” sex and “discover” their sexual identities. This is more sad evidence of the confusion associated with those who suffer from same sex attraction disorder. Call me a curmudgeon, but it seems to me that there are reasons that children are restricted from drinking, driving, voting, holding public office, and, in sane societies, from engaging in sexual relationships. It is called immaturity and innocence. There is so much evidence that children exposed to sexual contact damages them for the rest of their lives that other than ideologues, very few would require being pointed to the vast body of studies which demonstrate this. Nevertheless, "chicken hawks" are so much part of the "gay" subculture that ephebophelia is accepted as normal by a large percentage. This disordered subculture makes disorder appear to be natural and that is what they want to convince the rest of society of. I am sure that there are those who could better explain to me what the homosexual response to this law is not as obscene as it appears?

Moral Truth: Usually Hard, Always Right

2005-09-26T19:11:00.000-05:00

It often seems that taking the morally correct choice often demands a considerable amount of moral courage and a considerable bit of moral strength. I suppose that this is because we live east of Eden. Living outside of the Garden, we are not only faced with our own concupiscent desires, we are also pressured, cajoled, threatened, persecuted, even killed by those who seem to require our assent to their submission to their concupiscent desires. Sometimes the assaults come from those who bring with them “science” and “common sense” to support their ideological agendas of making the world free from those who would oppose libertine orthodoxy. One such example is the assault by many, some well meaning—most not, against the Church for Her stand against using condoms for any purpose, even to stop the spread of AIDS. The canards that have been slung are astounding, including those critics who try to place the AIDS epidemic at the feet of John Paul the Great. There are many unstated and unproved presuppositions which go with these criticisms proceeding from the presumptuous to the absurd. For example, many assume that condoms are effective, theoretically and practically, in stopping the spread of AIDS. Zenit published an article over the weekend which shows that those who make this assumption do so without data to support their view. In fact, the data points in the exact opposite direction. The rates of AIDS infection in African countries which push condom use ranges from 37-43%. However, in Uganda which pushes abstinence only and has the highest percentage of Catholics, is down near 4%. So much for ideological ignorance. As for the absurd, is one actually supposed to believe that Catholics, or anyone else, will listen to the Church’s opposition to condoms and so not use them when they would disregard Her teaching against sex out of wedlock—the primary cause in spreading of the AIDS epidemic? As it turns out with a host of other issues, including embryonic stem cells, the morally correct choice is also the best—even more, it usually seems to be the most pragmatically correct choice as well.

Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex . . .

2005-09-25T20:55:00.000-05:00

I suppose that it should have occurred to me that with a blog title like ours we would eventually start getting hits from people trolling the internet for pornography . . . but it did not. For some reason it took quite a while but recently we started getting a good percentage of our hits from people searching on the term “sex.” With the Model of purity staring them in the kisser when they get to our page, the majority do not stay long, though a few do. This got me to thinking about the fixation our culture has with sex. Most television and movies that one might turn on seem to treat sex in a reductionist manner, portraying it as a biological function whose primary purpose is pleasure. Many of them act as if one cannot live a healthy life without it. Archbishop Sheen once said that if he were looking for the Church that Christ established, he would focus his attention first on the Church which the world spent most of its time attacking. After all, this would be Satan’s the biggest threat. It seems to me that this could analogously be applied to sex. What I mean is the fixation that we have with sex indicates that there is something about it which is beyond ourselves. It is sought in ways that ordinary pleasurable experiences are not. This seems to suggest the recognition of a transcendence (i.e. a going out of and beyond ourselves) associated with the act. Sexual intercourse draws us in ways other experiences do not. The fact that it is perverted in ways that are not found with most other pleasurable experiences also suggests that there is something unique about it. It is unique in such a way that Satan seems to have most of his success with it. John Paul the Great’s theology of the Body, I believe, provides some important insights which can help to explain this. The Epistle to the Hebrews says “let the marriage bed be undefiled” (13:4). Well you cannot defile what is not holy. Why is marital intercourse holy? Well look at Ephesians 5. Here St. Paul shows us that God wants to marry us. Jesus is the Bridegroom, who totally gives Himself for His Bride, the Church. Of course, this is not a biological union but it is much more intimate and intense a union than marital intercourse. In fact, marital intercourse is a foretaste of the intimate, intense, complete union of which eye has not seen and ear has not heard. God has created us to be His spouse in this sense. Marriage and family life is the training ground for us to prepare for this ultimate union with our Bridegroom. Is it any wonder that it is Satan’s primary and most effective means for distorting and perverting us and who we are? So why is pornography one of the worst scourges we have today? Why is the sex industry one of the most prolific and prosperous, especially on the internet? Sometimes blogger, John Lalley recently reminded me of G.K. Chesterton’s quote in which he said that the man knocking at the door of the bordello is, unbeknownst to him, searching for God. Sex draws us out of ourselves toward another person. However, if we violate the grammar of our body-persons, we destroy the beauty of the act and we end up in a sterile, inward turned action which leaves us unfulfilled and when it is a grave violation, quite damaged. Sex is glorious, it is holy; but like Uzzah found with the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:6), when we defile it we are the ones who will get burned.

The Mind of Christ

2005-09-24T22:37:00.000-05:00

No, I am not so bold as to propose that I personally know the mind of Christ. However, in the second reading for tomorrow’s Mass (Phil 2:1-11), St. Paul gives us the mind of Christ in a very important way. I think that this text reveals in a very profound way what John Paul the Great has called the “Law of the Gift.” This law is the fundamental orientation of Christ’s mind. St. Paul writes (I am using the RSV instead of the NAB which most U.S. Catholics will hear in Mass because it is a generally better translation and I do not want to incur the wrath of the USCCB lawyers):

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We must have one mind with Christ. The sense of the Greek is that this oneness is more than intellectual but a complete agreement of the entire person. In order to share Christ’s mind, we must recognize that we cannot be inward turned but we must be oriented as was Christ, to give ourselves to others. This self gift is what we were created for. Christ, though He was God, emptied Himself to become Man and then humbled Himself even further in order to serve us by emptying Himself completely on the Cross; sparing not even the last drop of His most Precious Blood. In this He revealed Trinitarian Love; the total emptying of the Father by giving Himself completely to the Son. The Son then received the Father and returned Himself completely to the Father. The result of this total Self-Gift of Father to Son and Son to Father, the Love that binds Them, is fruitful. It is a Third Person—the Holy Spirit. Because we are made in the image of a Trinitarian God, we are made to give ourselves totally to God and to others. Jesus demonstrated this truth, par excellence, on the Cross. St. Paul puts this in terms which we often cringe from—obedience. We are obedient when we act in a manner for which we were created. We are disobedient, we rebel against our natures and therefore against God by choosing to act in a contrary manner. This very act is the cause of our separation from God; whether explicitly or not, it is what we choose. When this act is grave, we completely cut ourselves off from divine life. We must recognize this . . . and it should be frightening—though fear should not be our primary motivation for giving ourselves or loving God. After all, we have complete freedom, which is a necessary precondition for a total gift of self. This freedom means that God wants us to choose but He will not force us. It is God’s will that all men be saved; but there is one way that we are stronger, in a sense, than God. That is, He will not force unity with Him upon us if we choose to live for ourselves and not for Him. By our very wills, disordered though this may be, we can thwart His will for our salvation. However, when we see that this total obedience, this total gift of self is the mind of Christ, and the love with which He manifests it, how can we choose anything else?

Sexual Difference and the Law of the Gift

2005-09-23T20:51:00.000-05:00

The “law of the gift” is a phrase which comes via John Paul the Great and it means that we really only fulfill ourselves when we give ourselves unselfishly to others. This truth is found, par excellence, in marital union. In his theology of the body, he shows that this is revealed through sex differences, masculinity and femininity:

The body which expresses femininity {“through” masculinity and vice versa masculinity “through” femininity,} manifests the reciprocity and communion of persons. It expresses it by means of the gift as the fundamental characteristic of personal existence. This is the body—a witness to creation as a fundamental gift, and so a witness to Love as the source from which this same giving springs. masculinity and femininity—namely, sex—is the original sign of a creative donation and an awareness on the part of man, male-female, of a gift lived in an original way. Such is the meaning with which sex enters the theology of the body (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 61-62).

The ability to recognize the law of the gift in the body’s sex differences is what John Paul refers to as the nuptial meaning of the body. The body shows that the human person is made for love—that is authentic love. Authentic love is one that gives the whole of oneself and receives the whole of the other person, soul and body—including fertility. Obviously then, It is most perfectly expressed in marital intercourse open to fruitfulness. This grammar of the body is falsified when intercourse is engaged in when there is no irrevocable, lifelong commitment to one another or when this exchange is centered on pleasure and closed to fruitfulness. It is also clear that there is no nuptial meaning to be found in same sex intercourse. It is sterile by its very nature. When we refuse to recognize that we are in a fallen state and that not all of our inclinations may be authentic, then it is inevitable that we will embrace the lowest temptations of our fallen nature. The solution is Christ through His Sacraments; the intellectual evidence is found in returning to this nuptial meaning of the body which shows us we are made to give ourselves as gifts in authentic acts of love.

This Is Scary

2005-09-22T21:41:00.000-05:00

O.K., I am starting to see a pattern here. I have discovered that there is an inverse relationship between the amount I write and the number of comments I get. In the limit then I guess that I would get an infinite number of comments if I were to stop posting completely. Maybe I should try it? Any way, continuing with the theme from yesterday’s post, LifeSiteNews today has a very scary article about pre-teens in the U.K. who are taking as role models and idols—get this—porn stars. A survey found that 25% of preteen girls said they aspired to be lap dancers. What is happening over there? While in the U.S., a researcher they interviewed found that women are accessing porn in steadily rising numbers. Women, on average, are not attracted to porn; at least not in the same way, as are men. However, this seems to be changing. It is not by nature, even fallen nature, but by cultural pressure. A previous post discussed the confusion young girls experience when they are told by the culture that they should experience sex (and often) the same way do boys. This problem seems to be escalating. The researcher interviewed traces the widespread acceptance of porn to actions by the ACLU who treat this as an issue of freedom. This canard has been adopted by the culture as a “pc” issue says she. I suppose if we as a culture can turn on the most defenseless, the unborn, there is no reason we cannot also offer up our young pre-teen virgins on the altar of the gods of sexual license disguised as freedom. Sometimes it seems that we are getting very close to the point that God is going to say well lets just scrap this whole thing and start over...

Corruption Disguised as Freedom

2005-09-21T22:27:00.000-05:00

So goes a portion of the subtitle of a book LifeSiteNews reports about. I cannot vouch for the accuracy or perspective of the book, but in general as the article describes it, there is much truth in what they say. A recent discussion at work brought to mind the danger we face in the U.S. given our cultural heritage, or perhaps more accurately, our undifferentiated understanding of our heritage. In this discussion, I recalled seeing the founder of the “Church of Satan” being interviewed a number of years ago, on TV. I was curious so I watched it for a while. I thought, what could this guy possibly say that would compel anyone but the socially disaffected to have any interest in what he was trying to sell. What he said was something of an eye opener. He said that all Americans should be Satanists. In his thinking, the U.S. was founded by rebels, our heroes are the individualist/rebels . . . well, he stated, the master of his church was the ultimate rebel. I wonder to how many people this would appeal? An undifferentiated view of rebellion would certainly make this a compelling argument to some. This is the same problem with an undifferentiated view of liberty or freedom. The theme of the book is that certain segments of society have a particular agenda which is to subvert the religious heritage of the U.S. in the name of freedom. It is the type of freedom advocated by the purveyors of the Enlightenment, made bloody by the rabid ideologues behind the French Revolution, and turned into a philosophical and practical hatred of God and religion by the atheistic humanists. Monsignor Robert Sokowlowski, a phenomenologist philosopher at The Catholic University of America, likes to say “have you made your distinction today?” It is critical to understand the distinction between true freedom and libertine freedom which, as the book title suggests is a masquerade for corruption. The key to making this proper distinction is to understand the truth of the cosmos; that God has created it with an order that reflects His perfection. In other words, it is not arbitrary but is, in a certain sense, patterned after Him. St. Thomas called these “patterns” the divine ideas. Furthermore, man was created in a special manner, different from the rest of creation. We were made in the image of God. We have an intellect that can reason; we have a will that can choose, and we have the freedom to choose as God does. However, this is not an arbitrary, capricious freedom, but the freedom to be oneself; that is, to act in accord with the truth. This freedom gives us the capacity to love. Love is not authentic if it is compelled. It must be a gift; a total gift of oneself. Of course the result of this is that because it is a free act of the will, there must be the possibility to reject God and His gift of love. Satan did that and so do we every time we choose our wills in direct contradiction with God’s will. It was the result of Adam and Eve’s choice that we all are in a condition that makes it very difficult choose God’s will with each and every choice. However, if we are to move from who we are to who we ought to be, be are obligated to choose Truth and Life. That is, we are obligated to give ourselves to God by taking control of our disordered desires and aligning our wills to God’s will. The happy truth for humanity is that Christ has given us a remedy; that lack of which made this an impossible task for our elder brothers and sisters in the Covenant. Christ has restored us to grace. We have the Sacraments which provide the grace, ex opere operato. Our cooperation with this grace is the key to our becoming our authentic selves; to becoming holy; without which no one will see God (Heb 12:14). The siren song of modernity and its libertine view of freedom is indeed corruption. It is corruption of the order which God created. However, it is corruption or our souls when we succumb to it. The corruption of a soul in grace, one that moves into the blackness of mortal sin, is the worst tragedy imaginable. Just one soul in mortal sin is infinitely worse than the disaster of Katrina and all others put together. Those who would reject this statement need to understand more clearly the gospel message as taught by the Church. If one does not understand the seriousness of mortal sin then I suspect he is not all that concerned either, about those who peddle corruption disguised as freedom.

Relation and Sex Differences

2005-09-20T21:52:00.000-05:00

I am debating whether I should bring up this idea because I may have trouble concisely making my point . . . but I rarely see angels where I tread any way. O.k. what do I mean in the title by relation? Hold on to your hats because I am going to try to briefly explain some metaphysics which I realize is fraught with danger (Hiérothée you had better turn away). When we are talking about reality (both visible and invisible, material and spiritual) there are two categories of “being.” Things can be either substances (this does not necessarily mean material substances, there are spiritual substances—e.g. the soul) or accidents. Substances exist on their own but accidents only exist by inhering in a substance (e.g. black only exists in conjunction with a substance such as a piece of paper). So the question arises about masculinity and femininity. Are these substances or accidents? If a substance then men and women would be of two different substances. The significance of this is that this would mean man and women possess two separate nature—which cannot be. If that were the case there, Jesus would have only assumed the male nature and only males would have been reconciled to God. So what are masculinity and femininity. They are relations. This is analogous to the (but still different) to the Trinitarian Persons who are not separate substances, there is only one divine substance/nature, but they are Three Distinct Relations. For creatures relations are accidents in the realm of being but they are essential to personhood. The human person is a substance but it is also relational. The person is created in relation to God and others and made for volitional relationships. In fact, these relationships are necessary for holiness, for perfection. One can only fulfill himself by giving himself away. This is a necessary aspect of relationship. John Paul the Great finds in the Genesis narrative the relationality between the sexes revealed:

As Genesis 2:23 already shows, femininity finds itself, in a sense, in the presence of masculinity, while masculinity is confirmed through femininity. Precisely the function of sex, which is in a sense, “a constituent part of the person” (not just “an attribute of the person”), proves how deeply man, with all his spiritual solitude, with the never to be repeated uniqueness of his person, is constituted by the body as “he” or “she.” The presence of the feminine element, alongside the male element and together with it, signifies an enrichment for man in the whole perspective of his history, including the history of salvation (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 49).

In the above quote, he says that Adam and Eve discover their personal identity in the presence of the other; they only discover masculinity in the presence of femininity and vice versa. Sex differences only have meaning in relation to the opposite sex. Here he shows that we can see how sex functions as a part of this self-discovery/self-identification. In our bodies, the fullness of our persons is made apparent, as an unrepeatable person who is either female or male. This has application for the discussion of those suffering from same sex attraction and so-called transgender identities. For these, there is no self-discovery or self-identification. There is no complementary other. Each confused person remains an enigma to himself and the other. This frustration prevents the gift of self from taking root and leaves the two confused persons to take rather than receive, and to try to possess and consume the other. This leads to the physical, emotional, psychological, and social damage we have been discussing for the last few months. I hope that this is not too opaque. It is worth the risk and the effort to understand this because it helps to show how all of creation has order and meaning to it. All parts of creation are created with a purpose, an end, and they must interact in the manner for which they were created or all hell breaks loose . . . literally!

So There You Have It!!!

2005-09-20T07:58:00.000-05:00

B16 reconfirms Church discipline regarding the priesthood and those brothers of ours who tragically suffer from same sex attraction. We need to pray for them as they are sure to be bombarded with a contrary message from the secular media very quickly.

For those of us who do not agree with this policy, perhaps this is an opportunity for humility and obedience and learn from the Church's 2000 years of wisdom.

Let Freedom Ring

2005-09-19T21:37:00.000-05:00

I was watching Journey Home tonight and listening to the experience of Fr. Terry Kraychuk. He was an outlaw biker who lived a life of total dissipation. A friend of mine, Fr. Don Calloway describes a very similar experience in his testimony. I noticed that later next month, Marcus will be hosting someone who was addicted to pornography. I have not heard the last person’s story, but I will bet that he describes it in the same terms as the first two gentlemen: they all recognize the slavery what comes with putting one’s will ahead of God’s will and living in a manner contradictory to the manner for which we were created. Biblical witness describes this in terms of obedience. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned many times already, obedience has negative connotations. The reaction almost seems to be a teenage rebellion which often is articulated something like “I am an adult, I can decide for myself.” However, we need to rise above this immature message of society and temptation from the original rebel. Obedience is not anything to be sneezed at (the freedom of a blog . . . to let one’s prepositions dangle with near impunity). For Jesus, obedience was central to who He was as Son of the Father. As I have pointed out before, He said that His food was to do the will of His Father (John 4:34). St. Paul talks about the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 5:19). Faith is obedience because we are being obedient to the way we were created—to trust in God. Jesus says it similarly: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (Jn 3:36). Faith is obedience to our human nature, lack of faith is disobedience and rebellion against the way we were made (succumbing to the temptation to skepticism and pride) and therefore, can condemn us. Paul goes on to articulate what folks in every time and place who have hit bottom have come to realize: we become slaves to the one whom we obey (Rom 6:16). We are either slaves of Christ or slaves of Satan and our passions. The latter he says, leads to destruction. Indeed, obedience is an critical truth for St. Paul and St. Peter as can be seen throughout their epistles. Hebrews even tells us that Jesus learned obedience through what He suffered (Heb 5:8). This obedience to Christ extends to the authority He left in His Church. St. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch and probably a disciple of St. John the Divine, bears witness to this ancient and continuous Christian teaching around the year A.D. 110. “Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore,--and such is your practice,--that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him” (Ignatius of Antioch, St., Letter to the Trallians, in Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. 1., William A. Jurgens ed., (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1970), 20). He makes his assertion of Church authority even more forceful later in the same letter: “In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church” (ibid., 20-21). There is no one who has not hit rock bottom and found their way back to authentic freedom who does not recognize the slavery of sin. The only true freedom is the freedom to be daughters and sons of God. This occurs only by being obedient to Christ and the authority He left here to guide us is the sure path to true freedom (cf. 1 Jn 3:24). So then, in our hearts and actions let true freedom ring!

Obedience

2005-09-18T22:16:00.000-05:00

In our immature legalism, most of us are apt to see obedience as the attempt of some to infringe upon our freedoms and the rightful exercise of our free will. It has almost completely negative implications for most of us, furthermore, because it seems to circumvent our ability to think and choose for ourselves. I am not sure that obedience is in the American vocabulary. If it is, the term certainly is not put in the category of a virtue. However, among some Catholics there is at least a real sensitivity to being called disobedient. This might be a vestige of the sense that it has some importance. Perhaps there are some situations where obedience is the oppressive burden that comes to mind. However, when it comes to the teachings of the Church this should be the furthest thing from our minds. God has revealed Himself to us for the sole purpose of giving us what we need to move from the persons whom we are to the persons whom we ought to be. All of the Church’s teachings on Who God is, what we must avoid, and even the disciplines which tell us what we ought to do are intended to help us toward this goal. Obedience is nothing other than recognizing who we are and who we must become and living in accord with this truth. That is the reason the Church is given this authority to bind us, even in disciplines, under the pain of mortal sin. Vatican II itself, though not in these words, makes this clear. Obedience is possible only when we trust God and therefore, trust His Church. Therefore, for Catholics holiness, because it is a fruit of obedience—rightly understood (i.e. not an immature legalistic view of it),—is only possible by means of a total surrender of oneself to God and so an authentic trust in and obedience to His Church. Trusting first in ourselves was the fault of Satan, of Adam and Eve, and so the fault which is the source of every sin of ours. I know it is the American way. It is the Calvinist, individualist culture which we have grown up in. We all are guilty of this fault because we are all sinful. I think that the big change in one’s spiritual life comes when one comes to terms with this and he no longer willfully takes himself as the absolute authority. I know, what about conscience. Conscience is not the source of revelation. Conscience is the process of taking absolute moral norms (which we receive) and judging our actions against them (at least in a nutshell, but I could be faulted for not being more precise). Thus, we still have to receive these norms. It is a false understanding of conscience when we try to pit them against Church authority. I have found it also much more intellectually satisfying and much more a comfort to have a trust in the Church and to willfully, follow and embrace the Church’s authority. Certainly, one should know the why of what the Church teaches because of its beauty and for the purpose of evangelizing; but knowing the why can never be the prerequisite to our embracing any particular teaching or discipline. It is to our peril, and maybe those to whom we are closest, when we take upon ourselves the authority given solely to the Church.

Sex, Personhood, and the Priesthood

2005-09-17T22:15:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of discussion lately about same sex attraction and the priesthood with the coming of the Apostolic Visitation. Many Catholics who usually are obedient to the Church seem to be balking at Her policy of not ordaining men who suffer from same sex attraction but are committed to living chaste lives. I discussed this earlier this week and have posted on it in such articles as whether there will be sex in heaven (this one is worth looking at if for nothing else the link to Peter Kreeft’s article on the sexual order of creation—a must read!), and in an article on women and the priesthood. I will not repeat these here but I would like to emphasize the importance of sex and healthy sexual identity for human personhood. First, I would like to make some distinctions in terminology because this will clarify the disorder of homosexuality. The term “gay” was coined in the late 60’s – early 70’s to identify an agenda to make the homosexual lifestyle not just accepted but lauded. Thus, it is not just the pc term equivalent to homosexual but brings with it an agenda. Homosexual is a term used for those with same sex attractions. However, the danger of the term is that it seems to imply that same sex attraction goes to the core of personal identity (for those philosophers-it is assumed to be ontological). The paradox is that most who advocate the gay agenda will deny this same significance of sex for personal identity to masculinity and femininity. However, same sex attraction is a psychological disorder, not a state of being. Significant enough, Scripture never talks of “homosexuals” but of those who do homosexual acts. Among homosexuals, one can identify those who push the agenda, those who are simply content to engage in homosexual acts, and those who experience same sex attractions but are committed to living chaste lives. Generally, among faithful Catholics there is no argument about the first two groups. However, unfortunately, even the third group must not be ordained until they have been “cured” of their pathology (which, by the way, the Catholic apostolate Courage reports happens at a very high rate for those who pursue treatment). However, it is important to recognize that same sex attraction is of a completely different order from heterosexual, concupiscent lust. The latter is natural, the former is disordered. The struggle with the disorder as I have said, is a struggle to find oneself, not just a struggle to overcome lustful thoughts. Even without the theological restrictions, the pragmatic/prudent concerns weigh against this. But there are some other insights about sex and human personhood which can help illuminate the importance for sex for personal identity. Who else: John Paul the Great provides insightful understanding of sex and personhood. In his theology of the body catecheses he points out that sex is more than just an attribute of the person, it in part, constitutes personhood.

As Genesis 2:23 already shows, femininity finds itself, in a sense, in the presence of masculinity, while masculinity is confirmed through femininity. Precisely the function of sex, which is in a sense, “a constituent part of the person” (not just “an attribute of the person”), proves how deeply man, with all his spiritual solitude, with the never to be repeated uniqueness of his person, is constituted by the body as “he” or “she.” The presence of the feminine element, alongside the male element and together with it, signifies an enrichment for man in the whole perspective of his history, including the history of salvation (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 49).

It goes to the very core of the person. We are constituted as a concrete, unique, and unrepeatable person only as a he or she. Later he says that it determines one’s personal identity.

Sex decides not only the somatic individuality of man, but defines at the same time his personal identity and concreteness. Precisely in this personal identity and concreteness, as an unrepeatable female-male “self,” man is “known” when the words of Genesis 2:24 come true: “A man . . . cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The knowledge which Genesis 4:1-2 and all the following biblical texts speak of, arrives at the deepest roots of this identity and concreteness, which man and woman owe to their sex. This concreteness means both the uniqueness and the unrepeatability of the person (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 79).

Our sex even has implications for how we should act:

The fundamental fact of human existence at every stage of its history is that God “created them male and female.” He always creates them in this way and they are always such. Understanding of the fundamental meanings contained in the mystery of creation, such as the nuptial meaning of the body (and of the fundamental conditions of this meaning), is important. It is indispensable in order to know who man is and who he should be, and therefore how he should mold his own activity (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 74).

If we are not sure of our sexual identity, we cannot know who we really are or how we should properly act. This loss of self is a pathology, the turmoil of which cannot be underestimated. That at root the reason that we see suicide rates 300 percent greater for those suffering from same sex attraction than for heterosexuals (lest any one say this is due to so-called homophobia, this holds even in “gay friendly” countries like the Netherlands and in very accommodating U.S. cities like San Francisco). Until one suffering from same sex attraction finds himself, he cannot be a spiritual father over others. This is both pragmatic and theological. Those already priests, are validly and licitly priests but they have a tough situation to deal with. I would encourage them to join their local Courage group. God does not call those who cannot be priests. He will not work against His Church. I hope that we all can do more to understand the why rather than to assume, for example, that the Church must be wrong in this because barring these men from the priesthood does not appear to be the charitable approach.

Altar Placement and Confused Thinking

2005-09-16T21:27:00.000-05:00

I have to admit that I can become quite distracted by liturgical “innovations” which are theologically suspect and especially, disobedient. I have been to several churches in which the Altar is moved to one side of the sanctuary, with the ambo placed in a position on the other. The candles are then placed on the far sides of both the ambo and Altar. I suppose that this might be done innocently by some who want to show the integral unity of the Liturgy of the Word with the Liturgy of the Eucharist. However, the original idea was proposed by “liturgists” who wanted to, in their minds, increase the prominence of the Word and to attenuate the attention paid to the altar lest the idea of the Sacrifice of the Mass remain too much in the minds of the congregants. Regardless of the motives, this is both disobedient and indicates faulty liturgical theology. The current General Instruction of the Roman Missal explicitly states that the “altar should . . .be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns” (paragraph 299). In other paragraphs, it explains why: the altar is where the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present in the Eucharist; this is the center of the thanksgiving which the Mass accomplishes (see pp. 73, 296). Certainly, it is correct to say that the Mass is a unified whole. However, trying to symbolize this by placing the Altar and ambo in balanced opposition to one another reflects confused thinking. First, it supposes that there can be no hierarchical priority in this unity. The Trinity shows us this is not the case. It is no wonder that the same folks who push this kind of thinking also want to reject the hierarchical structure of the Church because they do not see that it can coexist with an authentic communion. This egalitarian thinking in which equality means sameness is problematic. This thinking of course extends even to the area of sexual differences, where if men and women are to be equal then they necessarily must be the same. Christ is present, par excellence, in the Eucharist. He is present in His word but not in the same excellent manner that He is present in the Sacrifice of the Altar. He is really, truly, and substantially present: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. To get this wrong is to lose the reality of Christ’s love and His saving action of the Cross as it is applied, throughout time, to His Church. This sacramental reality is fundamentally what separates us from the ecclesial communities of the Reformation and what makes us so close to our separated Sister Churches of the East. If we get this reality wrong, we get ourselves wrong. We become only metaphorically, only symbolically God’s children. However, that is not the case. We are God’s children (see 1 John 3:1) because we share His Flesh and Blood. We are what we eat; we are the Mystical Body of Christ because we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The Liturgy teaches and it also makes present the saving act of Christ. Misguided innovations too often teach falsehoods which make understanding and entering into the saving mystery of the Mass less and less likely for today’s generally poorly catechized and poorly formed Catholics.

Spiritual Schizophrenia

2005-09-15T19:00:00.000-05:00

My wife and I took a trip to Europe just after the first Gulf War. Not many people were traveling due to terrorism concerns and so there were some rather good airline deals. I had just finished my first masters and so this was a kind of celebration. I had also recently been reawakened to my faith, which I call my holy 2x4 experience (I thought the term was original but I have recently heard it used by others), but I had not put it all together yet (in fact I am still working on that). Any way, we were in Dublin, Ireland going to Sunday Mass when the visiting bishop said something in his homily that was eye opening for me. He said that many of us were spiritual schizophrenics. I suppose that is more charitable than calling us hypocrites but I do not think that these terms are necessarily equivalent. There is a certain pathology in both but the former case seems to me to be more one of honestly (but perhaps still culpably) not recognizing the fact that we act one way in church and another in our everyday world. Our faith often has little influence on us the rest of the week. Even to the point that we can act as practical atheists the rest of the week. That realization was the beginning of a long, ongoing effort to make my life correspond with what I profess. B16 made a very similar statement about us as Catholics to a group of Mexican bishops he received for their ad limina visit recently as reported by Zenit in today’s issue. In fact, B16 recognizes that “For the Bishop of Rome, ‘The separation between the faith professed and daily life of many is one of the most serious errors of our times.’” This is an eye opening statement; it is one of the most serious errors of our time! There perhaps is no problems in society that could not be positively impacted if we as Catholics were not such spiritual schizophrenics. Making up almost a quarter of the U.S. population, we could make tremendous strides on social justice issues, on improving the moral sense of the entertainment and news media, and in returning our culture to one that respects all human life. Unfortunately, too often we fall for that old canard that we need to be able to think for ourselves. The statement is true but if we were to really follow it then we would recognize that the only sure source of truth is not through our tortuous rationalizations but from the gospel revealed by Christ and kept pure through His Catholic Church. Too often though we do not think for ourselves. We are led by the thinking of others in the news and entertainment media, by our fallen feelings, or simply by the inertia of our life style. There are signs of hope today but the solution will only come when the majority of Catholics close this gap between faith and action. We must be guided by our faith by endeavoring to live our lives guided by the gospel which includes lives of self-giving love, service, purity, and obedience. I sometimes wonder why some seem to be given these wake up calls, some of us with spiritual 2x4s, and others do not. I suspect that perhaps we all are given the gift but not all of us want to recognize them.

I Can Love You Like That

2005-09-14T21:05:00.000-05:00

The title to this song by John Michael Montgomery (though I recall that some pop group subsequently recorded it) came to mind today during the homily for the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross. Monsignor was very animated; he actually slapped the podium a couple of times at the end asking if we ever knew that God “loves us like that.” He made an interesting point. This feast does give us the opportunity to celebrate the Cross’s triumph in a way that we simply cannot during Lent and especially on Good Friday. Regardless of the season, it is important to remember that the Cross is all about love. You know all the hullabaloo (errr . . . maybe that sounds a little too aggie??) about The Passion of the Christ reminded me of St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:23). The Cross is a scandal and folly to the world. Only to Christians is this sign of defeat and humiliation turned on its head. Only in Christ can death be turned to life. It certainly is a sign of contradiction. Death has turned into life because of Love. Love is more stern than death (Sg 8:6). Can you even imagine love like that? To die for us in such a horrible, humiliating, unimaginable way, while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:8). It is frightening; it is a love that makes demands. We cannot bear to think of it. No wonder those, even professed Christian scholars, who are so attached to the world cannot bear to hear about this kind of love. It is a love stronger than even our love for ourselves. Why the Cross though? There are many reasons I suppose. However, this instrument of torture, par excellence, is perhaps the most fitting way for the Son to reveal the Father’s love. Trinitarian love is the total gift of Self. Jesus has to visibly reveal this love to us because we will not listen when we are simply told about it. What can He give to the Father other than everything that the Father has given Him. He has already done this in the eternal processions, now He must do it in His human nature. He can give His life, but that is not enough. He can give his obedience, but that is not enough. He must pour out every last ounce of himself for all to see, for love of the Father and so for love of us. The Cross drains Him of Himself one agonizing drop at a time. As His Precious Blood drips to the ground and He responds with “Father, forgive them . . . “ only then can we understand what it means to love. Only then do we truly understand who we are. We are called to love Him like that and so love each other like that. Could we sing the title of that song? This is the reason when the world sees a crucifix they see death; when a Christian sees it, he sees life, love, and Triumph!

Homosexuality and Spiritual Fatherhood

2005-09-13T19:35:00.000-05:00

The press is all abuzz about Archbishop O’Brien’s statement that those suffering homosexual attraction should not be ordained as priests. According to the secular press reporting (which always seems to lose a lot in translation) the Archbishop identified several reasons for this, including the difficulty it poses for those struggling with their sexual identity and the ill fruits it has born with the numbers of homosexual ephebophilia cases which came to light starting in 2002. However, there is a deep theological issue as well that goes to the heart of what it means to be a male person and what the priesthood really is. The genius (to borrow JP the Great’s term) of masculinity is fatherhood. All men are created to be fathers, whether biological or not. Jesus is a male for a reason. It is for the same reason that all priests in the Old Covenant were male. Priesthood is an office of spiritual fatherhood. You see God the Father is not male but He does relate to us as masculine to feminine. Masculinity is marked by an initiating offer of love; femininity by a receptiveness to this love and a return of the love. In the Old Testament Prophets, every time Yahweh was presented as a Bridegroom it was in the context of God redeeming His people. The vocation of a priest is to mediate between God and man, and this mediation is God’s love to His Church. Jesus, the Son reveals the Father; He is the image of the Father. That is why He is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. Jesus offers to the Church God’s all giving love, manifested through His total gift of Himself on the Cross. New Testament priests, are alter Christi, they are other Christs. They offer Christ’s Sacrifice of the Cross in the Mass and do it not in imitation of Him, but they actually lend themselves to Him. It is Christ on the altar saying “this is My Body . . . “ It is God who saves His people by applying the one redeeming Sacrifice of the Cross, in time through the Mass. So one who suffers from homosexual urges is a man, so why can he not be a priest? It is for the reason that if he is confused about his sexual identity he cannot be a spiritual father. He cannot mediate God’s masculine love of initiative to His Church. He cannot any way, while he still has this confusion. However, Courage reports that they have a very high success rate in helping those who want to, heal from this disorder. Homosexuality is a pathological condition, not a state of being. It can be treated and in many cases resolved. The guidelines for these folks being admitted to the seminary must be done on a case by case basis but if they no longer have a confused sexual identity, this aspect of the problem is resolved.

Male and Female He Created Them

2005-09-12T21:45:00.000-05:00

As it usually happens, every time I think I have come up with an insightful thought I find that it was most likely an unconscious recollection of something I had read. Karol Wojtyła wrote much the same thing as I recently commented in a thread a few days ago (see Mass Confusion below). I found it was in some notes I had taken as I was preparing to write my dissertation. In Love and Responsibility he writes:

Every human being is by nature a sexual being, and belongs from birth to one of the two sexes. This fact is not contradicted by the phenomenon of so-called hermaphroditism – any more than any other sickness or deformity militates against the fact that there is such a thing as human nature and that every human being, even the deformed or sick human being, has the same nature and is a human being precisely because of it. In the same way every human being is a sexual being, and membership of one of the two sexes means that a person’s whole existence has a particular orientation which shows itself in his or her actual internal development (Love and Responsibility, 47).

To treat anyone differently than a human man or a human woman (and these are not interchangeable based upon the desire of the person) is to treat that person as less than human. It makes no sense to follow the current scientific theories about human personhood when they conflict with Church teaching because science admittedly reduces the human person to biological phenomena. They have not the competence then to make proclamations about the whole human person because they neglect his spiritual reality. Anytime you have a choice between having something explained to you by someone who sees the whole picture or just a part of it, pick the former. In the case of the human person, lives and spiritual wellbeing could depend upon it.

Showing One's Stripes

2005-09-11T21:57:00.000-05:00

It has often been said that a person's (or organizations?) true colors can be seen by the way they respond in crises / tragedies. There is much to be said of that. In these situations, there is less chance or concern for putting on false pretenses perhaps. Maybe there are other reasons. My Aunt Bev sent me an article the other day about a particular organization trying to collect money to help people affected by Katrina. It seems that Planned Parenthood is showing their true stripes. They say "Help Those Affected by the Hurricane," in a headline on their website, but if you read too closely you might find out that 100% of the money will go to help their local affiliates to help offset the huge legal expenses they are now incurring. Perhaps most people who know about Planned Parenthood will not be confused by this but for those who have no clue about them and want to help those who have been displaced, this subterfuge is calculated to separate them from their money for a purpose not likely what the charitably minded donor had intended.

The Man of Lust

2005-09-10T22:46:00.000-05:00

Well, another change in the color scheme. With two back to back Longhorn turnovers in the second quarter and another to start the third, squandering a 10 pt lead, it is time to take down the burnt orange. That, and it got bad reviews anyway. I would have suspected that I was getting inputs from some Aggies but for the .au country code in one of the e-mail addresses. Any way, any thoughts on this color scheme? The man of lust is a term that John Paul the Great uses in his Theology of the Body catecheses to refer to the fallen human person who is subject to concupiscence. He speaks of this in terms of the three-fold lust St. John the Evangelist speaks about (1 Jn 2:15-16). These are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. I will let those who are not familiar with JP the Great’s treatment of this read the link, but the short of it is that in our fallen state we tend toward reduction of the other and selfish benefit. Life and the human person are unintelligible without acknowledging original sin and concupiscence. Life East of Eden can be confusing without reference to God and to our fallen state. I thought I would make a list of some of those common confusions which arise because original sin and concupiscence are not recognized: Authenticity is not acting as you feel. Being “authentic” is a post-modern virtue which essentially means one must be true to his feelings. Your feelings are your guide. I suppose that domestic violence should not be illegal then? Rather, being authentic is being and acting as we were created, to give ourselves totally to God and so to one another. Love is not the same thing as feelings. Feelings change as relationships mature. When the feelings associated with the novelty of a new relationship are mistaken for love, it is no wonder that we have such a high divorce rate. Love is an act of the will. You must choose to love or not to love someone. Lust is not the same thing as love. Lust in fact is the opposite. Lust wants to possess someone as an object for selfish motives; love gives oneself and receives the other as a gift; that is not as a possession. Experience is not truth. This is especially a problem with some feminist theologians who make their personal experience the criteria for discerning what is authentic Divine Revelation and what they can reject as the product of oppressive patriarchal institutions. Experience must be evaluated and view through the lens of truth as presented by Divine Revelation, not vice versa. Sexual attraction can be distorted and acting on it can be personally damaging. This includes homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, etc. For those who do not recognize we are in a fallen state, they must assume that their feelings of attraction are normal but the results are physical, psychiatric, and spiritual mayhem. Because the goal is purity, there is no such thing as a mature audience. We fool ourselves if we think that we can subject ourselves to sinful temptations in the media and be unaffected by it. Sure adults are more capable of dealing with “mature” material than are children but that does not mean that we can do so without negative spiritual consequences. Anyone want to add their favorites? O.k. so the Horns pulled it out but I think I will stick with the current color scheme . . . for awhile . . .

Tyler Again . . .

2005-09-09T22:11:00.000-05:00

If you have been reading here regularly you saw a couple of posts about my nephew Tyler a while back. We went down to FL and saw my brother and his wife and boys in July. Unfortunately, Tim and his family have not caught a break since then. They are in the midst of several more difficult challenges. Right how his wife, Sheri is in Texas with her mom who is on her death bed. His other son, my godson, may have a disease that causes sudden death. The doctor bills are piling up. If you have any extra prayer time, please add them in. Back to Tyler. Tim relates it better than I:

I do have to tell you a quick story about tonight… Tyler was doing his homework at the table before dinner tonight and he heard me talking to Sheri. When I got off the phone, he told me that he did not want to grow up and get older. When I asked him why not, he said “because I don’t want Uncle David to die.” I must admit I was not expecting that answer. David, you sure did have an impact on Tyler!

I am not sure what this means but if you don't see me posting anymore, Tyler may have gotten older.

Pietas

2005-09-09T21:49:00.000-05:00

As you can tell, we have changed the look a little bit. We had a few complaints that it was hard to read. Given the few readers we are down to right now, we certainly don’t want to lose any more. Why the burnt orange background? It’s football season—Hook-em Horns baby! Well not really, it is football season and I do root for the Longhorns but this was the first unobjectionable background I hit upon that did not require changing all of the other fonts. Any comments, recommendations? On to the topic of the day: Pietas, or piety. You know, I have noticed recently that many otherwise orthodox Catholics seem to shy away from or even belittle people, writings, etc. as “too pious.” Huhh? I am not sure where that comes from. Are they being influenced by secular minded people that public displays of religious life is verboten? Is it left over from their pre-awakening days when you would be called a Jesus Freak for being too religious? Perhaps it’s a judgment that everyone expressing himself publicly is insincere and so all public expression of piety is a false piety (but I hope not). I have no clue. Maybe it’s a bit of all of these, or maybe it’s something I haven’t considered. What is piety? It comes from the Latin, pietas, which means love, loyalty, devotion. Piety was commonly associated mostly with a love, loyalty and devotion to one’s parents, country and to God. In fact, piety originates with our love of God. Religious piety is our love, loyalty and devotion to God. Piety is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. To eschew one of these gifts, for any reason, makes absolutely no sense. If piety is real, it takes a visible expression. Those who fall into the trap of thinking that one can express themselves mentally/spiritually without incorporating their bodies haven’t thought about what would happen if they treated their loved ones that way. If you did not hug, kiss, touch, or caress your parents, siblings, spouse, children, then your words would soon begin to become suspect. Again, at a sporting event when your team scores, you do not sit passively, rejoicing interiorly, spiritually. We are a composite beings, our nature is to be a unity of body and soul. Without either, we are not human persons. Our bodies express our person, our souls. Our souls can be seen only through our bodies. With whatever is happening in our souls, our bodies want to follow. We become frustrated if they cannot. It is Platonism, not Christianity, to try to separate the spiritual life from bodily expression. Pious expression may be at first uncomfortable for us if we are not used to it. Stoicism within U.S. Catholicism seems to be an Irish inheritance that some have traced to the penal days in Eire when Irish Catholics could not publicly practice their faith without risk of imprisonment or death. However, stoicism in religious expression is not Christian doctrine, nor is it healthy. We need to get over it. I can sympathize with this comfort with stoicism. Being stoic is very comfortable with my personality. I can empathize with the fear of being considered too religious, it took me some time to overcome that fear. I can understand that some folks may seem to be showboat ’in but that is not a judgment that we need to (or should) make unless we are very sure and have the opportunity for fraternal correction. Piety is required for heaven, one way or another. If we don’t develop it here, we will get the opportunity (God willing) to become very pious in Purgatory—if we die in a state of grace. Being pious is nothing more than giving yourself totally to God. It should be visible to everyone around you, in some manner. While not everyone need run down to their local Charismatic Renewal meeting and pray for the gift of tongues, no one should eschew piety as something extraneous to authentic faith, or even something optional. The first step to piety is to surrender yourself completely to the Holy Spirit (an ongoing project—but it is not quietism). He will take care of the rest.

Mass Confusion

2005-09-08T20:20:00.000-05:00

As a society, we are awfully confused. Let me explain why I say that. Today I went to an ecumenical/ interreligious collegiate group meeting on campus here at UIUC. All went well at first, until one lady took the floor for 45 minutes. Ostensibly about a global interreligious group of which she is president, the discussion quickly and almost completely become a discussion about oppression of “gay-lesbian-transgendered” people because of the hegemony of traditional religions. I do not do well keeping quiet when I do not have an opportunity to respond. Since I was representing my organization rather than myself and our ecumenical liaison did not say anything I decided that I would keep quiet. Probably the best thing because this is a very difficult issue to respond to very quickly. Then again, maybe it was just moral cowardice on my part. After ward, I was discussing this with a colleague who mentioned a philosophy class one of the priests on campus attended, in which the professor introduced the class to the “fact” that there are five (count them) “genders.” I am sure you can figure out what they are: female, male, gay, lesbian, transsexual. The priest mentioned that he did not see five latrines in the campus buildings . . . he spoke too quickly, I understand that all new buildings have to have them by state law here in IL. I hope this is a false rumor. Of course, when we start letting our disordered, lustful desires dictate what defines human nature, there is no end to the number of genders we can have. I suppose that we can soon expect a proliferation of genders. There will be the polygamous gender, the bestial gender, the ephebophelia gender, the pedophilia gender, the foot fetish gender, the self-sexual gender . . . you get the idea. Revelation shows that God created us male and female (no transsexual gender here). Biology shows us that there are only two complementary sexes as well. Common sense shows us that we the only thing that differentiates a male or female homosexual/sexually confused person from anyone else is his human will to act in a way that conflicts with his sex. Those who fall prey to this cultural confusion most likely do so for what they think are benevolent reasons but I would suggest a closer look reveals that they are really selfish reasons. We make ourselves feel good when we make others feel good. This is in one sense, a manifestation of the “law of the gift.” But when we affirm others at the expense of their well being and the truth, in reality we are only serving ourselves. We avoid hard feelings and gain the good feelings of mutual affirmation. However, this is not the loving, authentically charitable thing to do. John Paul the Great has an important admonition when it comes to playing around with one’s sexual identity:

The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her “fulfillment” as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the “image and likeness of God” that is specifically hers. The inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible— “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”—can be conquered only by following this path (Mulieris dignitatem, 10).

While this is addressed specifically to women, it applies equally to men. We can only fulfill ourselves as persons when we use our feminine or masculine gifts (notice he does not mention gay-lesbian-transex gifts because there are none proper to these disorders). We can only defeat the temptations and disorders which are due to fallen nature and concupiscence when we recognize who we really are—a male or female, human person—and act accordingly. Real love is sometimes tough love. That does not mean not being sensitive and loving in trying to bear witness to the truth. Perhaps in some cases it may even require 0nly silence and prayer. But in the end, the world will not get the truth from itself. It requires faithful Christians to bear witness to the truth in a manner keeping with real Christian charity.

Equality in Difference

2005-09-07T20:41:00.000-05:00

One of the most unforgivable terms that you can use among the politically correct Christian anthropologists these days seems to be the term “complementarity.” I am pretty sure that defending JP the Great’s use of the concept was a killer, at least in part, for me at one Catholic college I interviewed with earlier this year. Why might this be? Perhaps I should say what it is. There is natural complementarity between men and women. God has created us this way. Women have gifts that naturally complement men’s gifts and vice versa. The generative organs are one biological manifestation of this but this complementarity extends beyond physiology to emotions, psychology, etc. Women are naturally better at some things and men better at others. Ouch! This is where the problem comes in. For various reasons, some feminists (well maybe a lot more than some) are quite suspicious of any talk of inherent differences between men and women. One reason is that they fear that the differences will be used to justify exclusion of women from some areas. They also are influenced by the French Revolution’s view of equality—which in a word means sameness. This thinking still imbues French society and is behind their attempts to restrict religious symbols from the class rooms (recall the prohibition against Muslim girls wearing head scarves). They may be justified in the first concern, at least to some extent. However, the danger of abuse cannot justify the rejection of truth. I for one know for certain that women are much better than me at many different things (in general that is—there is much room for variation within the envelopes of maleness and femaleness). I am very happy that my wife and I do naturally complement each other in our various strengths and weaknesses. For all of the arguments against complementarity, none hold up to common sense. Study after study has come to the conclusion that the general “stereo types” that people have about what is masculine and what is feminine generally hold up across cultures and societies. These differences also resist manipulation by misguided “gender homogenists” . . . those who experiment on the young trying to prove that it all gender identity is culture driven. John Paul the Great provides important advice to women and men about complementarity. He says that equality does not need to mean sameness and that those who think it does risk losing their specific qualities as a woman (or man I suppose). In commenting on Genesis 1:27, he says:

“One could say that the sacred author was eager to assert, once and for all, that woman bears within her a likeness with God no less than man does, and that she was created in God’s image in her own personal characteristics as a woman and not only because of what she has in common with man. This is equality in diversity (cf. CCC 369). Therefore perfection for woman is not to be like man, making herself masculine to the point of losing her specific qualities as a woman. Her perfection—which is also a secret of affirmation and of relative autonomy—is to be a woman, equal to man but different. In civil society and also in the Church, the equality and diversity of women must be recognized” (John Paul II, The Church, 480 [June 22, 1994]).

Free to Be Me

2005-09-06T21:32:00.000-05:00

Freedom is essential to authentic human flourishing, it is essential for holiness, it is essential for self-fulfillment. So says John Paul the Great. So why does the Church also teach that people are not free to do as they please. The vanguards of a libertarian view of freedom make it clear that they think the Church is the enemy of freedom. Leading up to the confirmation process for John Roberts for (now) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, these pundits are making much of the fact that he appears to be a faithful Catholic. Nina Totenberg on NPR, July 23rd appeared to be concerned over his ability to be a judge who is free to decide cases on their own merits because he is a “conservative Catholic.” Christopher Hitchens, writing in the August 1st edition of Slate, says that Roberts can legitimately be singled out for questions about his faith that others cannot because he is Catholic and “the Roman Catholic Church claims the right to legislate on morals for all its members and to excommunicate them if they don’t conform.” Sure, everyone knows that there is no freedom in the Church. Is John Paul the Great’s position then, a contradiction? The key of course is an authentic view of freedom. Our modern view of freedom is an immature, infantile, or perhaps more accurately, an adolescent view of freedom. It is a demand for autonomy from any sort of responsibility or ramifications for the choices one makes. This autonomous freedom extends to a freedom from reality, from the natural law, the moral law, and for some even from the laws of physics. Our culture’s understanding of freedom is that of a teenager who demands to be treated as an adult; which means—I don’t want any responsibilities, I just want to do as I please without having to answer for it. It is the freedom that Cafeteria Catholics demand; that is, the desire to be considered “good Catholics” but on their own terms. If this is an authentic view of freedom, then the answer to the question is definitely—yes. There is most definitely a contradiction. However, the answer of course is that there is no contradiction because the adolescent dream of freedom is a sterile freedom. In fact, it is no freedom at all. Freedom can only come from God Who is the Source of everything. We are truly free only when we are not encumbered by inhibitors to our true fulfillment. These obstacles are solely found in sin. Sin is the only thing that separates us from being who and what we were created to be. Our freedom is one of those ways in which we are created in the image of God. Without freedom there would be no love, no morality, no saints, no heroes, no friendships, no culture, no poems, no art, nothing that makes us who we are. Without freedom there would be no you or me. However, without freedom there also would be no sin. If you were the creator, would you have allowed the possibility of sin to provide the space for all the rest? I’m glad He did, even though the results of sin can often be unthinkable, unbearable, and inhuman. You see we need this freedom if we are going to be free to be you and me; but with it we also get the freedom to become an inward turned, stunted human person. If we die that way we have chosen our condition for all eternity (which makes me shudder to think about). The immature view of freedom is correct in one regard; no one can stop them from choosing the acts they wish to do, but they are wrong when they think they can choose the consequences too.

The Master of Suspicion

2005-09-05T21:10:00.000-05:00

It seems in every crisis on which the mainstream news reports, it becomes almost unbearable to watch their machinations. Whether due to ideological agenda or because of a culture of sensationalism—maybe it’s a bit of both—it seems that the major news outlets seem to seek out the worst that people have to say about the leadership which has responsibility in the matter. Most of us probably have not been able to miss the conspiracy theory that the press seems to fanning, that racism was at the core of the human losses because of a perceived slow response in rescue efforts. I suppose that since our country was founded on the suspicion of authority, our culture makes us susceptible to this type of thinking. This brings to mind how central trust is to being a human person. For example, we possess most of what we know because we have trusted those who have taught us. We leave our houses, buy food from the grocery store, or get behind the wheel of a car only because we first trust in the general good intentions of others in our society. God created the human person to trust. We are born trusting and learn as quickly as we do, in part, because we trust. In fact, we call innocent, children who have not yet learned that they cannot always trust others. Trust is central to family life, it is central to social life, it is also central to faith. One cannot have faith without learning to trust. This by the way is why divorce is so destructive to children. It undermines their ability to trust in others. If their parents (those they trust the most) abandon them, and regardless of what one might tell them this is what they experience, they lose the ability to trust. This makes forming lasting relationships very difficult for them. The reason that divorce begets divorce. The lack of trust is also at the root of original sin. In Genesis, we see that Satan was able to convince Adam and Eve that they could not trust God. God was depriving them of something so they had to take matters into their own hands. This was the first breach of trust. Satan is the master of suspicion. He recognizes the fragility of trust and preys upon its fragile nature. Suspicion forces us to take matters into our own hands. We become the final arbiters of everything, including truth. This is what happened with Adam and Eve, it is what happened in the East-West schism, and it was the crux of the Protestant Reformation. One can see it so clearly in the satanic carnage of the French Revolution when suspicion finally overcame the purveyors of the revolution, and ultimately finally turned on themselves. Suspicion is the foundation of Enlightenment thinking and rationalism. Paul Ricoeur called Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche the “masters of suspicion” because they came so close to Satan, I suppose. They taught that to affirm man, one had to reject God. This is exactly what Satan convinced our first parents and is at root of all of his temptations. I do think that this is also at the foundation of those who think that they must pick and choose among Church teachings. A logical look at this thinking shows that it is not faith but only a happy coincidence. Those suffering from this disorder simply find that in some (maybe even many or most) things the Church just happens to teach that which fits with one’s world view (which ultimately comes from who know what source). I should say a word about the difference between suspicion and prudence. Of course when the consequences are grave if we are deceived, or if the probability is high that we might be, then we must prudently exercise caution. However, this is not the same as fomenting a perpetual attitude of distrust (which really is only conveniently applied when demands are made on us to which we are not willing to yield). Prudence is judiciously applied caution; skepticism is a pathological setting of subjective barriers that we dynamically adjust to keep unwanted demands at bay. Prudence comes with a heart open to truth and love; skepticism is closed in on the person who is alone to decide for himself what he will or will not believe. To be authentically human, to be able to give yourself completely to God, you must trust Him. To trust Him is also to trust His Church, which St. Paul calls the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Without this trust, we cannot complete ourselves by giving ourselves away. It takes much grace, and our cooperation with it, to overcome experiences which have taught us, so seemingly indelibly, not to trust. But it is possible, I am living proof. The first step is to recognize the sources of our suspicion (temptation and experiences) and to flee to Christ for salvation from both of them. He will defend us from the first and help us come to terms with the latter. We best flee when we make use of His gifts of Mother Church, Her Sacraments, the Communion of Saints, and especially the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Master of Trust has already defeated the Master of Suspicion. The only task remaining is for each of us to decide in which company we will choose to abide.

Kant Got Somethings Right

2005-09-04T20:33:00.000-05:00

While Immanuel Kant was the source of some significant, erroneous philosophical thoughts which have permeated our thinking today, he also articulated some important truths. Karol Wojtyła in his book, Love and Responsibility, reveals that in one respect that Kant was a positive impact on his thinking:

. . . Immanuel Kant, at the end of the eighteenth century, formulated this elementary principle of the moral order in the following imperative: act always in such a way that the other person is the end and not merely the instrument of your action. In the light of the preceding argument this principle should be restated in a form rather different from that which Kant gave it, as follows: whenever a person is the object of your activity, remember that you may not treat that person as only the means to an end, as an instrument, but must allow for the fact that he or she, too, has, or at least should have, distinct personal ends.

The Battlefield between Love and Lust

2005-09-03T22:39:00.000-05:00

John Paul the Great, in his theology of the body catecheses, described the heart as the battlefield between love and lust. I don’t suppose that many in our culture today are even aware of this battle. The popular media seems even to equate the two. However, the difference between them is like night and day. The battlefield is due to concupiscence. Under the influence of concupiscence men and women, in different ways, will tend to turn the other into an object for self gratification. For men, the gratification is usually focused on pleasure. With women, it is often a somewhat more integrated sense of self-fulfillment. In any case, when the motivation is to take and possess the other person rather than to give oneself and to receive the other as a gift, the result is this “objectification.” If the circumstances of copulation are not between husband and wife who have an irrevocable, lifetime commitment to one another, an openness to receiving the whole other person, including his fertility (which means an openness to the possibility of the full fruitfulness of the act) then love is defeated and lust wins out. Yesterday’s thread contained a discussion which touched on this in discussing the problem of homosexuality in the context of marriage. Homosexual relations can never go beyond lust. Authentic love is by definition, a total self gift. When it is expressed genitally, it must correspond to the created order. Here of course, common sense shows that in the created order, genitals (whose Latin root means generative or fruitful) point to the possibility of procreation. Homosexual, genital expression is by its very nature, sterile (as would be heterosexual, anal intercourse). There is no mechanism for fruitfulness. It of course, differs from heterosexual copulation in which one of the spouses in infertile in that intercourse in the latter corresponds to the created order but a biological defect prevents fertility. In homosexual intercourse, it is the act itself which is defective and not a biological pathology which inhibits fruitfulness. Marital intercourse is the most perfect reflection of Trinitarian love when it is open to the fruitfulness of bringing forth a third person. Notice I say open. This means taking no unnatural measures to interfere with fruitfulness. The very act of impeding fertility is a closing off of oneself to the fullness of the other person. I suppose that while it is much less likely, even a couple using natural family planning could possibly use NFP with the intention of thwarting God’s will. However, I would not think that they would bother using NFP if that were the case. Any other use of this most holy act other than that reflects Trinitarian (i.e. fruitful) love is a grave distortion of the purpose of the act. The Christian must cooperate with the grace of the Sacraments if he is to overcome the fallen inclination to satisfy himself at the expense of fulfilling the more human orientation to give himself and receive the other as a gift. Without the Sacraments and cooperation with the grace (i.e. practice of the virtues), he is destined to be a casualty on the battle field, where lust triumphs and authentic love dies.

Hmmm . . .

2005-09-02T18:33:00.000-05:00

The divisions which we see in society seem to revolve not around the traditional “haves and have nots” but between those who believe in the sanctity of each human person and in the sanctity of human sexuality and those who believe that all morality must yield to the capricious will of each person. This almost satanic demand for the absolute right for "choice" was the main reason for the vitriol against President Bush and for the on-going resistance to orthodox Catholic judges in the U.S. In Canada, there is strong resistance to Christian moral teaching at the government level. It is clear that there is a strong push in Canada to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. A visit on any day to LifeSiteNews will give you story after story of Canadian government action against anyone who would publicly disagree with homosexuality as something natural. This widespread, diseased thinking has led to dire predictions from many. Even some very stable personalities have seen the trajectory of western culture and predicted calamity ahead. Fr. Groeschel has said that he believes that within the next 50 years (he said this sometime before the beginning of the new millennia) the only recognizable institution from today will be the Catholic Church. John Paul the Great said at we are standing at the crossroads of history. He said that what we do in the next few years will decide if we follow the path to ruin or renewal. Mind you, that the context of both of these are the demise of Western society but not necessarily the end of the world. LifeSiteNews has an article about an otherwise stoic editor of a Catholic magazine who regularly criticizes predictions of the end times. He seems to have changed his mind. He editorializes that homosexual marriage will inaugurate the final judgment. I am not sure about that myself. Even if he is correct about the criteria which has to happen before the final judgment, it is not ours to predict. However, I do believe that we are taking giant steps down the path which leads to destruction. I do not know if we are irretrievably lost or not. Nevertheless, whether the final judgment is right around the corner or not, our particular judgments are quite close. When it comes our time to answer for our actions, we need to be prepared to give an account for why we (or maybe it is just me) failed to spread the truth of the Gospel (by deed as well as word) to a world in such desperate need of it.