Romish Potpourri

Where is All the Righteous Indignation Now?

2013-04-11T17:12:00.002-04:00

The trial of corrupt abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell has produced some horrifying testimony: articles.philly.com/2013-04-09/new…
— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) April 11, 2013

You know. One really does try to be fair and not give into conspiracy theories, but the continued utter lack of reporting on anything that can be construed as against abortion by all of the major news media outlets does give one pause.

I truly think that if more people understood the horrible reality of abortion (and didn't just argue about it abstractly in terms of rights and choice and life), we'd have precious few advocates of that obviously evil practice. The problem is that it is so horrific, so utterly despicable and disturbing, that you literally cannot stomach to think about it very long, much less see the results of so many mangled little human bodies. It is literally the same level of disturbing as the videos the Allies took in WWII after entering concentration camps. It is a Holocaust, one that is swept under the rug, probably much like the Nazi one was swept under the rug in Germany.

Oh look, HuffPo did finally pick up a story on it. Just look at the comments. One person says, "why have I not heard of this before?" But then you have the absolutely incredible assertions that "this is the kind of thing we'll have if abortion is outlawed." Hello? Abortion is LEGAL, and it happens. In what alternate reality does it make sense to say, "we need to make it more legal so this won't happen"??

People who support abortion generally are not monsters. That is because they either willfully ignore and suppress the horrific reality or have been so duped by our society that hides it that they don't really even know about it. Very few people who face the reality of abortion could possibly still advocate for it without some serious mental gymnastics and a large does of turning a blind eye. It is simply that disturbing and evil.

And yet these same people will, as a rule, treat you like you are some evil KKK white racist homophobe if you don't support what they, again euphemistically, call "marriage equality." Oh, they very nearly shudder with indignation if you dare to even question the matter. But barbarously butchering babies by the billion? No problem for them. No outrage. No indignation.

Talk about having things bass ackwards...

UPDATE (12 April 2013): This article also compares coverage to the coverage of serial and mass murderers. Another analogy is the coverage of the "bullying" at Rutgers. Another example is the coverage of the Penn State scandal. Of course, there's also Sandy Hook, and countless other examples. There was even more coverage of Philly's own Michael Vick and his abuse of dogs..

Again, where is the moral outrage about Gosnell? Why isn't this plastered over every news media outlet daily for weeks or longer, as in the case of these others. Why? Because it might cause people to question their thinking on abortion and come to terms with its brutishness, its evil, its utter unacceptability.

There's also this--a pro-choice reporter essentially admitting guilt--that they haven't been covering it but should.

We Believe in the Resurrection of the Body

2013-03-31T21:37:00.001-04:00

The New Jerusalem by Nicolas Bataille (1373-1387)

Some time ago, my lay Dominican chapter president asked me to prepare a study "on the Resurrection" for our March meeting. That meeting was Palm Sunday. The study went well, I thought, but it occurred to me that maybe others would be interested in it. So here are my study notes, slightly edited.

I asked chapter members to find and bring a favored Scripture passage on the Resurrection. Maybe you can think of one that you like now.

What do we mean by Resurrection?
I think when most of us think about Easter, we think about the Resurrection of Christ. It is after all the historical event that we are remembering. Most of the chapter members, as I expected, shared passages about this. One that I liked in particular focused on Mary Magdalene, whom we call "The Apostle to the Apostles" because she shared the Good News with the Apostles. She is also co-patroness with Our Lady of the Dominican Order, for this reason.

So yes, absolutely when we speak of the Resurrection, the first and most natural thing we think of is the Resurrection of Christ. It is a good thing for us to remember, but despite how awesome and amazing the event is itself, what is even more amazing is what it means for us.

READ 1 Cor 15:1-4; 15:12-22

Then also:

Ro 8:11
1 Cor 6:14
2 Cor 4:14; 5:1-5
1 Thess 4:13-18
Rev 20:12-21:5 - this is really amazing; just let it sink in and dwell on it ("selah")

I think sometimes we can get caught up in the recounting of the story of the Passion and Death of Christ, that it becomes more of a story about someone else, or maybe we personalize the story, so that we put ourselves in the feet of the Apostles, imagining what it must have been like for them. The sadness, the fear, the disappointment, the guilt--and then the elation of Easter, that Christ is not dead; he is raised from the dead. Again, we are overjoyed at his Resurrection--what a relief! He's not dead; he is risen!

This is all very good, but it is just a nice story if we stop there, if we do not go on to consider what it means for us. The significance of Christ's Resurrection lies precisely in that by his Resurrection, his conquering death and hell, we too can take part in it. Our Christian hope is in this--the resurrection of our own bodies.

But what does this mean? It is interesting how this fundamental aspect of the Christian faith is so often obscured and, in a sense, minimized, while it is actually the core, the kernel, the essence of the Gospel. It comes towards the end of most of the creeds, and it is easy to just rattle it off without really thinking about it. So in this study, I thought it could be helpful to focus on this aspect of what we mean when we say "the resurrection," in particular, what is referred to as "the general resurrection," meaning that which will occur for all people (hence "general") at the end of the world.

THE GENERAL RESURRECTION

Read Catechism 988-1004

Read 1015-1019 (Follows)
1015 "The flesh is the hinge of salvation" (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2:PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

1016 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.

1017 "We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a "spiritual body" (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" (GS § 18).

1019 Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.

This is the basic outline of our doctrine, but let's dig deeper, with the help of good ol' Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. If you recall, I recently drew from this book for a study on theological grades of certainty, so the bits in parentheses speak to that.

FIRST PROPOSITION
All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies. (De fide.)

Nearly all of the most ancient creeds specifically say "resurrection of the body" (or of the dead, which can only mean body). (I followed Ott's references to Denzinger to find that out.) Now let's go to the Scriptural references.

OT
Jo 11:24 - Martha professes faith in the resurrection.
2 Macc 7:9-11 - Maccabee martyrs profess faith in it.
Dan 12:2-3
Is 25:8; 26:19

NT
Jo 5:28-29; 6:39-40
Matt 22:29-32
Lu 20:37-38
Acts 24:15
And the passages already referenced above.

You can see this is one of the better attested teaching, and that is of course why it is considered de fide--as being directly revealed by God.

You may also want to read Summa, Supplement, Q75, a1.

Many of the Fathers wrote treatises on it, by way of apology and instruction of the faithful, some of them extensively: Pope St. Clement I, St. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ephraem, St. Basil, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Peter Chrysologus, and of course St. Augustine

SECOND PROPOSITION
The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth. (De fide.)

This is a slightly more challenging proposition because it raises a number of interesting difficulties. Let's dig into it a bit more. First, let's establish it is de fide.

Job 19:25-27 - this passage is now disputed with reference to the original languages, which St. Thomas did not have access to. At best, it seems the meaning attesting to the "this same body" aspect is less clear, although it can still be seen.
2 Macc 7:11 - "these [tongue and hands]" will be received again
1 Cor 15:35-58 - this passage can be difficult, but St. Thomas helps tease the meaning apart. Note "What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies." This is the basic argument for understanding that it is this body, and not some other. We cannot rightly call it resurrection unless it is the bringing back to life of that which died, our bodies.
Phil 3:21 - change our lowly bodies, not give us a different one

Now from Denzinger, the parts that Ott refers us to.

Denzinger 429, The First Chapter of the Fourth Lateran Council (12th ecumenical council, 1215--against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians, etc.) declares, "And finally the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin with the Holy Spirit cooperating, made true man, formed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, clearly pointed out the way of life. And although He according to divinity is immortal and impassible, the very same according to humanity was made passible and mortal, who, for the salvation of the human race, having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell, arose from the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ."

D 16, the "Faith of Damasus" formula of the creed, Gaul c. 500: "...We believe that cleansed in his death and in his blood we are to be raised up by him on the last day in this body with which we now live…"

D 40, the Creed "Quicumque", a.k.a., the Athanasian Creed (some ascribe to St. Ambrose, also one "Anastasius"), which was used with authority in east and west, and in the liturgy, says, "…at his coming all men have to rise again with their bodies…"

D 287, Council of Toledo XI (675, against Priscillianists), The Creed of Faith, "In this example, therefore, of our Head we confess is accomplished (with true faith) the true resurrection of the body of all the dead. Neither do we believe that we shall rise in an ethereal or any other body (as some madly say) but in that in which we live and exist and move. When this example of His holy resurrection was finished, our same Lord and Savior returned by ascending to His paternal home, which in His divinity he had never left."

D 347, Pope St. Leo IX, in a letter of congratulations to Peter, the newly consecrated bishop of Antioch, in 1053, sharing the symbol of faith (the formula here was very much like the questions proposed to bishops being consecrated, "…I also believe in a true resurrection of this body, which now I bear, and in eternal life."

D 427, from a formulation of faith for recanting Waldensians, 1208, from the archbishop of Terraco, "We sincerely believe and with our mouth we confess the resurrection of this flesh which we bear and not of another."

D 464, 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274 (14th ecumenical council, concerning the union of the Greeks), from the profession of faith of Michael Paleaeologus: "The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment 'all' men will be brought together with their bodies 'before the tribunal of Christ' 'to render an account' of their own deeds (Rom 14:10)."

D 531, Pope Benedict XII, edict Benedictus Deus, 1336, "…all men with their bodies…"

We see from these sources, including Scripture and ecumenical councils, that this doctrine is de fide, but we can do more to consider how it is so and what exactly the bodies will be like. For this, we turn again to St. Thomas, in the Summa Supplement, Q79ff. In it, you will see him referring back to many of the Scriptures above.

From these we better understand Some characteristics of resurrected bodies:

Incorruptible - they will not be subject to deformity, decay, or destruction.
Immortal - they will not die again.
Identical - they will have the same form and matter.

That they are incorruptible and immortal is, according to Thomas, due to two reasons. First, he explains that the principle of change in our bodies will be removed; this is due to the overall change in the state of the universe at this time--the new heaven and new earth will also no longer be subject to the same changing nature. This is equally true of the damned and the just.

The second relates to the restoration of original justice and the total subjugation of our bodily nature to our spiritual (also attested by St. Paul in the passage from 1 Corinthians 15 above--the "spiritual body," i.e., the body subject to the spiritual nature), so our immortal spiritual nature can prevent corruptible changes from happening to our bodies. This is only true of the just, who have received this grace of right ordering of our human nature.

As for identical matter, this presents some more interesting difficulties. It doesn't take a modern understanding of biology to find the difficulties in this teaching, and you can see even the ancients, both Greek and Jew, had trouble with it: Acts 17:18; 31-32; 26:5-8. And there is further evidence in the early Fathers' apologies and explanations around this subject as mentioned above.

St. Thomas first addresses the reasons why it must be the same, in Q79, a1: "For we cannot call it resurrection unless the soul return to the same body, since resurrection is a second rising, and the same thing rises that falls: wherefore resurrection regards the body which after death falls rather than the soul which after death lives. And consequently if it be not the same body which the soul resumes, it will not be a resurrection, but rather the assuming of a new body." Then also in a2: "... to maintain that he who rises again is not the selfsame man [199] is heretical [200], since it is contrary to the truth [201] of Scripture [202] which proclaims the resurrection [203]."

So it can help to ask, what does it mean to be identical?
Q79, a3 - does it have to be the exact same matter in the exact same place ("the ashes")? To answer this, Thomas gives us the analogy of identical matter of clock, toy, etc: "Now in artificial things, in order that the same artificial thing be remade, from the same matter [301], there is no need for the parts to be brought back to the same position. Neither therefore is it necessary [302] in man [303]." In other words, it doesn't matter if the same kind of matter is used to remake the various parts (heart, bone, ears), as long as the result is it is the same heart as pertains to it being my heart for me.

If we cast this is slightly more modern scientific words, we could rely on the concept of DNA. Our DNA forms, as it were, the schema for our bodies, the set of instructions that are used to give our bodies their particular identities. It isn't important that the exact matter in our body at any given time remain for us to retain our identities. We gain weight; we lose weight. Our hair and nails grow; our cells regenerate, and so on--the matter of our bodies is in constant flux. We no more have the same matter we had ten years ago, then we will in the resurrection, and yet we will have the same identical body.

Of course, St. Thomas didn't have the luxury of our modern scientific knowledge, and yet it is interesting how he uses different words that speak to the same realities. He speaks of "the truth of human nature," in terms of what will need remain for us to retain our identities. Q80, a3: "Whatever belongs to the integrity of human [118] nature [119] in those who take part in the resurrection [120] will rise again." And further in a4: What belongs to "the truth (essence/being) of human nature," which he says is, "what first belonged to the substance [346] of a man's body… and of that which was added secondly, thirdly, and so on, as much as is required to restore quantity."

He hits on the concept of DNA in Q80, a4: "all that was in the substance of the seed will rise again in this man who was begotten of this seed." St. Paul also speaks of a "bare kernel" and how God gives "to each of the seeds its own body."

He continues, "while certain parts are on the ebb and others are being restored to the same shape and position, all the parts flow back and forth as to their matter [391], but remain as to their species [392]; and nevertheless the selfsame man [393] remains." Again, it is not as if we could grasp the current matter in our bodies and say, "this is the matter I will have in the resurrection," but we can say, these arms, these eyes, this hair, in the sense that we would recognize them in ten years, and in the sense that if we had a DNA test, it would return positive.

The difference is that any defects in our DNA will be repaired, so our bodies will be the perfect body they should have been were it not for those defects and disorders. For the just, we will not be subject to either inordinate nor disordered desires.

In Q81, he addresses questions of age, size, male and female, animal functions. Our age will be the perfect age of maturity, meaning the point at which our body naturally achieves maturity, but before it begins to decay. Many speculate around 30 years or so. The same can be said for size/stature, except again, no defects or deformities will remain--we will have perfect health. Because being male or female is part of human nature and identity, we will retain our sex (and it will be rightly ordered), but as we will no longer have need of our animal functions, we will be "as the angels in heaven." Because we do not need to materially maintain our bodies nor to grow them, we won't need to eat. Because we will not need to propagate the species, we won't need to have sex. And so on.

For those who lack of matter for the resurrection of their bodies, St. Thomas says in Q80, a4: "substitution is made by Divine power so far as the perfection of quantity requires, as it does in those who die before the perfect age." This is also true if our matter were to be, for instance, shared in some way. For instance, we die, and our bodies feed other plants and animals that then are consumed by other humans--in such cases, God will make up for the insufficiency of matter.

Somewhat amusingly, Thomas also addresses the question of whether all of the matter that belonged to our bodies will rise again, in a5: "body of one who rises again will be very dense, or it will be immoderate in quantity." LOL. Just imaging our bodies if it were true that all the matter were resurrected. We'd be as dense as diamonds or as bloated as a blimp! He goes on, "the whole of what is in man will rise again, if we speak of the totality of the species which is dependent on quantity, shape, position and order of parts, but the whole will not rise again if we speak of the totality of matter." Again, the concept is akin to the idea of reconstructing the human body from DNA (as in the cloning in science fiction, if you will).

Our bodies will be our bodies (again about DNA), from Q81, a2: "At the resurrection human nature will be restored not only in the self-same species but also in the selfsame individual : and consequently we must observe in the resurrection what is requisite not only to the specific but also to the individual nature."

To put it briefly, it is not the exact same particular matter from any point in our lives (much less what was there when we died or remained thereafter) but the identity of our bodies, free from defect and disorder, and restored to perfect maturity, health, stature, and so on. What particular matter is used to form this body is for God to figure out, but it will be my body, this body, not some other and not some non-physical spiritual/ghostlike body. That's pretty awesome.

THIRD PROPOSITION
The bodies of the just will be remodeled and transfigured to the pattern of the Risen Christ. (Sent. certa.)

The qualities of the resurrected bodies of the just as outlined above:
- Perfect - completely whole, healthy, of optimum age, and rightly ordered

And also, as in Summa, Suplement, Q82-85 - the four qualities of beatified bodies
- Impassibility, the incapability of suffering
- Subtlety, spiritualized nature--not spirit but a spiritualized body--completely subject to the soul
- Agility, capability of the body to obey the soul with the greatest of ease and speed (near instantaneous)
- Clarity, brightness, the "glory" of our souls being seen in our bodies

These are drawn from Scriptural sources, either specific statements about our bodies, taken from the Transfiguration, and from that related about Christ's body after his resurrection. Our bodies will be conformed to his, like his, so we can derive these truths about our bodies based on what we are told about his.

FOURTH PROPOSITION
The bodies of the godless will rise again in incorruption and immortality, but they will not be transfigured. (Sent. certa.)

The understanding of the quality of the bodies of the damned are taken also from Scripture, implied in what is said of them. St. Thomas deals with this topic also in Question 86 of the same part.

Q86, a1: ""The dead shall rise again incorruptible"; where a gloss [13] says: "The dead, i.e. sinners, or all the dead in general shall rise again incorruptible, i.e. without the loss of any limbs." Therefore the wicked [14] will rise again without their deformities."

a2: immortal and incorruptible: " It is written (Apocalypse 9:6): "In those days men shall seek death, and shall not find it, and they shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them."
Further, the damned will be punished with an everlasting punishment [78] both in soul [79] and body (Matthew 25:46): "These shall go into everlasting punishment [80]."

a3: not impassible: "Now on account of the former co-operation not only the soul [129] but also the body will be rewarded after the resurrection [130]. Therefore in like manner the bodies of the damned will be punished; which would not be the case were they impassible. Therefore they will be passible."

SUMMARY
As noted already, these truths are at the very heart of the Christian faith. They are part and parcel of the Good News. Even that dealing with the damned is in accord with this being Good News, not because we, much less God, are spiteful and wishful that any should so perish--God forbid! Rather, it is in that part of God's perfection is perfect justice, and the only just recompense to a rejection of God's mercy is to be judged without the application of that mercy. We know that God does not desire that punishment, but in his justice, he allows for it. We know that God gives each person sufficient opportunity to take advantage of his mercy, so no one is thus condemned unjustly.

This is good news because we know that God is and remains perfectly just and that he rewards each of us according to what we have done. Even more, for those who throw themselves on God's mercy, they will be receive the additional grace of having their resurrected bodies glorified, transfigured to be like Christ to live with God forever.

"Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them as their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, for the old order has passed away.” Rev 21:3-4

I Am Barabbas

2013-03-29T14:33:00.001-04:00

During the Palm Sunday reading this year, more than any year I can recall, the figure of Barabbas stood out to me. I'm sure I've heard others make the connection, but you know how it is when you have a personal epiphany--it's like this blazing light that sears into your soul, all else temporarily drops away, and you can briefly see with some kind of unhindered clarity something that you didn't see before or maybe only saw less clearly.

This happened to me. Specifically the aspect of how Jesus quite literally took the place of Barabbas I mean, we often speak in a general sense about how Christ took our place in the sacrifice of the Cross. But for some reason, it just struck me how literal it was in the case of Barabbas.

But all together they shouted out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us.” — Now Barabbas had been imprisoned for a rebellion that had taken place in the city and for murder. — Again Pilate addressed them, still wishing to release Jesus, but they continued their shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

Pilate addressed them a third time, “What evil has this man done? I found him guilty of no capital crime. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”

With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.

The verdict of Pilate was that their demand should be granted. So he released the man who had been imprisoned for rebellion and murder, for whom they asked, and he handed Jesus over to them to deal with as they wished.

This man. A murderer. A leader in rebellion. The Incarnate Word took his place.

We are often tempted to think that Christ couldn't possibly forgive our sin. Our sin is too heinous. Or we keep doing it--how could he keep forgiving on us? But he does. He took the place of a rebellious murderer. And he wants us to let him take our place as well. He wants us to rely on his atonement, on his mercy.

Yes, I am Barabbas, and Christ really did take my place.

Diabolical Debate or Divine Dialectic

2013-03-27T19:21:00.000-04:00

Instead of starting from "how well does what this person has to say align with what I already think?", we would be better to start from "what can I learn from what this person has to say?". This is the way of dialectic and fruitful dialogue. Sadly, too often I forget this and fall into the comfortable cage of my own preconceptions and prejudices.

Must try harder. Must remember to pray first.

Clear Thinking About Redefining Marriage

2013-03-27T00:05:00.003-04:00

Given what is going on at the Supreme Court this week, it seems only fitting to add some commentary on that for my post of the day. I know, because so few people are, I thought I'd fill the much needed gap. ;)

First, I'll offer some past commentary I've written on the subject. As I guess many people have, I've been pondering this subject in some depth for many years now, dare I say, "wrestling" with it. I seem to recall my first attempt to gather my thoughts on paper about it was back in the summer of 97 or maybe 98, but I no longer have that. And before and after that initial attempt, I have had innumerable (it feels that way anyhow) discussions with people about it.

Note Well: I should mention that I have family members (yes plural) who self-identify as homosexual. I have also worked with people who have identified as homosexuals--people I consider friends, and I have neighbors currently who make no secret of their sexual orientation. This issue is not something I take lightly nor dismissively, nor is it based on some kind of prejudice, nor is it based on simply quoting biblical passages, nor is it even based on what the Catholic Church says on the matter. It is quite simply based on natural law--something we can reason to based on natural evidence and considerations.

I would love nothing more than to just go with the pop cultural flow on this topic--especially these days with the increasing normalization of irrational hate and bigotry on the side of advocates of gay marriage, but as someone who makes an effort to try my best to understand the truth of things and to live accordingly, I cannot simply ignore what seems to me to be the truth of things in this matter.

The earliest writing of mine that I can readily track down of my writing on the topic is this post back in 2006:
On the Good and "Right" of Marriage - This one is still a pretty good reflection of my thoughts today, although I think/hope they've been refined a bit and maybe I'm a little more aware now of my own prejudices than I was then.

Review: Sexual Authenticity - In 2009, I read this great book written by a former lesbian. This book, probably more than anything I've seen or read, helped me to better appreciate the struggles folks in those situations face (inasmuch as I can), as well as to recognize prejudices I still had, even despite my efforts to be open minded about the subject.

Marriage Must Be Strengthened, Not Redefined - Also written in 2009, it was an attempt at restating a holistic consideration of the matter.

Speaking of Abominations - A 2010 response to/rant against those opponents of homosexuality that mainly rely on prejudice and simple-minded quoting of biblical passages to act in bigotry towards homosexuals.

Who Cares Who Gets Married - A 2011 rant/response to the stupid statement, "who cares who gets married?" that is often used as a way to dismiss the issue entirely.

What If My Child Were Gay? - A 2012 reflection on this question, one that is often posed by advocates for homosexual unions as a way to try to guilt people into caving on the issue.

And that's it of the publicly, readily available writing I've done on the subject. The rest is lost to time or locked in walled gardens like Facebook, G+, and elsewhere, but this sampling is I think a pretty good reflection on most of the issues and concerns involved.

I would set all of this up against what any advocate for homosexual unions has to offer (specifically with regards to the desire to redefine marriage to include these unions). As time has progressed, I have watched as the argumentation on the other side of the discussion has devolved to the point that it is rare to have someone engage thoughtfully and reasonably. More common by far is the throwing of epithets, the false comparison to the racial civil rights movement (and concordant demonizing of opponents of redefining marriage), and essentially a simple dismissal and refusal to rationally engage in dialogue.

Allow me to summarize the "reasons" advanced in the cause of redefining marriage:
1) By far, the most common and usually unspoken "reason" is that it feels right. It feels good to feel openminded and so "tolerant" (this moniker itself being just another dishonest rhetorical device, implying as it does that to hold an opposing position is "intolerant" and made even more absurd by the extreme, real intolerance shown towards defenders of marriage).

It feels good to feel like you're in with the crowd--all the kids are doing it, after all. Nearly every show (quite disproportionate to reality) has a token homosexual, and usually they are portrayed as the most fun-loving, lovable, and good persons. Sadly, the homosexuals I've known do not match up with this presentation. At best, they are just regular folks with all the usual foibles.

The efforts in popular media have largely succeeded to normalize homosexuality, which is of course the intent, but more than that the goal is to make it seem as if that if you don't go along with it, you are bad, you are a bully, you are intolerant, you are a bigot, which again is ironically exactly what this sort of thing encourages in reverse.

And boy, how telling is it that as I write this, my wife is watching a Crossing Jordan in which a pregnant homosexual woman is killed and her baby ripped out by a hateful religious bigot. What utter, evil bullshit, and yet, that is the caricature pushed by the popular media on those who oppose redefining marriage.

2) It is progressive and youthful to advocate for redefining marriage. Again, the media portray opponents as old, ignorant, backwards, stuck in their ways. Only rural, uneducated, bible-thumping old folks could possibly object, and, as the argument goes, it's only a matter of time--these folks will die off and become increasingly irrelevant, just like the racists of yore.

Well guess what? I know plenty of young, educated, intelligent, charitable, and thoughtful folks who don't go in for redefining marriage. Further, and perhaps more importantly, this is pathetic ageism. Progress is no reason in itself. Youth is no measure of wisdom (usually quite the opposite).

3) "Why are you so obsessed with what people do in their bedrooms?" I got news for ya. We are not obsessed with that. This is a variation on the "Who cares who gets married?" question. See the above post--same answer applies here. The short answer is that we are not the ones who brought the subject up.

It is only our peculiar contemporary cultural insanity with regards to sexuality and marriage that has occasioned this being a significant social issue. Marriage, more than other things in our society, is an ancient and well-tested institution that pretty much has always in every culture meant to mean the union of man and woman in a stable (ideally life-long) relationship ordered towards procreation and raising of the children from the biological mother and father in said committed relationship.

It would be better to ask, why are advocates so obsessed with flaunting their sexuality in public? We really don't want to know about it--keep it in your bedrooms.

4) "Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is the 'civil rights' issue of our day." This is simply an untenable, reprehensible co-opting of a still-emotionally charged issue as a means to bully advocates of traditional marriage into silence and submission. After all, who wants to be like a racist, right? Racists are almost universally agreed upon to be a pariah in our society, and rightly so.

There are two problems with this "reason." First, there is a rather large burden of proof to make the case that redefining marriage is on the same level as the racial civil rights movement. (Hint: it's not possible to show this.) But more to the point, even granting that there are some superficial similarities (i.e., a minority group advocating for some perceived right), the similarity itself is actually no argument at all. Again, it is just a rhetorical tool, and a particularly vicious and dishonest one (not to mention the injustice it does to African Americans). But as we are seeing, since advocates for redefining marriage lack a rational foundation for their position, they must resort to bullying tactics such as these.

5) "I know so-and-so who had a very sad personal event (usually death or something healthcare related) that was made worse because of the legal status/not being married." This, again, is more of a rhetorical device than an actual reason. There are legal tools made to address such situations, and where they are still lacking, I think no right thinking person would oppose their creation (and not just for homosexuals but for any people in a loving relationship). Nobody wants people to suffer worse due to bureaucratic red tape.

There are two issues here as well. First, the problem can be fixed without redefining marriage. I think in terms of expediency and practicality, it is hard to argue that the redefinition of marriage is legally easier than addressing the problem in other ways--but that doesn't make that solution right.

Second, even marriage these days does not guarantee the elimination of bureaucratic red tape. I have been advised by multiple attorneys that I need to have a will in place, ideally also a living will, and a power of attorney--for my wife (and vice versa). This is needed due to the general breakdown of marriage in our society that has slowly eroded spousal privileges (because they have been abused and because marriage is so easily cast off these days). The point is, marriage itself doesn't fully address the bureaucratic red tape problem, so redefining it really won't solve this issue.

6) "I know so-and-so has had a hard time feeling accepted by society because of their self-identification as a homosexual." Again, no right thinking person would advocate against loving people regardless of their sexual orientation. Mistreating and abusing anyone due to their sexual orientation is wrong. Bigotry is wrong no matter what the cause.

But that does not mean we need to redefine marriage to solve this. Not being able to marry another homosexual person does not make homosexuals second class citizens. As above, this term "second class citizens" is another emotional bullying term. There is nothing (legally) stopping homosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex--that's what marriage is, a union of a man and a woman. Just because they don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex does not mean they are second class citizens.

There have always been individuals who don't want to marry because they value something else more highly (be it their personal freedom, not liking children, their religious vows of celibacy, their lack of interest in the opposite sex--whatever). The fact remains, they are completely free to marry a person of the opposite sex under law--they have that equal right, but they choose not to. The case is no different for a homosexual person. Merely wanting to live an alternative sexual lifestyle--no matter how deep seated one's sexual desires are--does not entitle one to redefine marriage to include that lifestyle.

Again, all right-thinking people should agree that mistreating someone based on their self-identifying as homosexual is wrong. But this does not automatically imply that we must all approve of that form of sexual activity or see all forms of sexual activities as equally healthful. I think that few people would suggest such a thing--that all forms of sexual activity are equally healthy--so where we differ then is on where we draw the line in terms of what is and is not healthy for a person. And no matter where we draw the line, I guarantee that those who engage in the forms of sexual activity we think unhealthy are going to feel that somehow we are not fully accepting of them and their choices.

But that's okay. There are plenty of people who don't approve of my choice of religion, my choice of food, and many of the choices I make in how I raise my kids. In fact, I know there are people who are more restrictive than I am in terms of what is acceptable sexual behavior. I'm okay with that--similarly, homosexuals that engage in homosexual activity need to learn to be comfortable with the fact that not everyone is going to approve of their behavior.

And lest anyone thing I am missing the point that homosexual tendencies are not choices, let me assure you that I am not. I do not claim that they are definitely not biological. I do not claim that a person "chooses to be a homosexual." I do, however, make a distinction between biological and psychological dispositions and what we, as free human beings, choose to do with them. One mustn't hold people accountable for their predispositions; however, one can hold people accountable for actions.

This doesn't make those who disapprove of homosexual behavior are bad or evil or inherently bigoted, nor does it mean that those people don't accept them as persons, as human beings with human dignity and all that entails. It certainly does not mean those people think they are entitled to mistreat homosexuals, but by the same coin, homosexuals need to deal with that disapproval of their behavior if they want to keep doing it. It's just a fact of life that people are not going to agree with nor approve of everything you choose to do.

Heck, I don't even approve of everything that I do. Does that mean I don't accept me as a person with human dignity? No, it surely does not mean that.

Still, I grant that homosexuals have received more than their fair share of mistreatment at the hands of bigots. And I fully agree that this mistreatment is wrong. I just want to be clear that this doesn't mean that everyone has to approve of homosexual sex to make up for others who have mistreated them, much less do we have to redefine marriage for that reason.

7) "Equal rights!" This is by far the closest thing to an actual reason offered in advance of redefining marriage. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near as simple as most advocates for redefining marriage like to portray it. Our American culture (especially) is very into "rights" and "equality"--to an irrational extent. So most people who toss this one out, do so more out of this feel-good American sense of equality and some vague notion of "equal rights" than they do from having really thought it through.

Rights involve justice. Justice involves considering not just blanket "equality" but equality that is based in balance, in giving things their due. The lady justice holds scales, and not for no reason--because justice includes this notion of balance. Goods offered by the state, as they are to married people, are offered in relation to the perceived goods of marriage. Therefore, to make the case for homosexual unions being equal to heterosexual marriage, one would have to make the case that they, as a rule (i.e., as the norm), bring with them equal goods.

Chief Justice Roberts hit this nail on the head today:

I’m not sure that it’s right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.

It is — yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don’t have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them.

Yes, it really does come down to not only two people in a loving, committed relationship but also 1) the capacity to normally produce children and 2) the normal raising of those children in a stable relationship by the same man and woman who brought them into this world. Are there exceptions? Sure--heterosexual couples can not have children, and these days, it is possible for homosexual couples to procure children artificially. But these are the exceptions, not the norm. And the law should reflect that.

Finally, redefining marriage has other, undesirable consequences:

1) It perpetuates the false notion that children are not integrally tied up in marriage, that their good and their future is unaffected by marriage. We all know such a proposition to be plainly false, and yet many are ready to enshrine that false notion into law by redefining marriage thereby implicitly tossing the normal good of children by the wayside.

2) There are inadequate protections of conscience and freedom of religion for those who do not hold with redefining marriage to include other forms of unions. It is not far fetched to see how, without such protections in place, people could be forced to violate their consciences and/or the tenets of their religion by being forced to marry, participate in such marriages, and/or recognize them in ways that they find morally objectionable. We see this happening with other issues of conscience such as abortion today, and even without the redefinition of marriage, people have been caused to violate their consciences or lose their livelihood. As I said, it's not far fetched at all.

3) By divorcing the meaning of marriage from the normal procreative aspect, it removes any defensible rationale against other forms of state-recognized unions, be they sexual or even asexual in nature. Sex itself, divorced of its procreative nature, has little meaning, much less meaning as far as the state is concerned. Put another way, it should really be irrelevant to the state what the sexual orientation of the people involved is (that's the essence of the equality argument, right?). So as far as recognizing a self-declared committed relationship as "marriage," there is no reason to prevent others--regardless of their sexual orientation or behavior--from declaring they they love each other and want to commit publicly and legally in a "marriage."

This is not a slippery slope argument. Not only is this not the only rationale against the proposed redefinition, it is also neither extreme nor based in an appeal to fear. It is just a simple examination of the rationale involved and the logical consequences of it. We are talking about making marriage have nothing to do with sex--that is the logical consequence of the homosexual "marriage" rationale.

Now maybe some advocates find nothing wrong with this. And frankly, if marriage were simply about loving people declaring their love to the world and getting some nice legal benefits for it, I'd as a rule agree that there's nothing objectionable in granting the status to any such persons. By all means--any two or more adults who want to enter into such an arrangement should be allowed--if that's all marriage is. But that's just it--marriage is more than that. It's always been more than that. It is inexorably tied up with sex and, consequently, children.

In Conclusion
If we, as a society, want to sap marriage of all the good it does society, then I think we have to ask ourselves, what the hell is all this hullaballoo about? If all it is about is people getting public recognition for their loving feelings toward others, then the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether. There is no reason for it to be involved. Let people have all the public ceremonies they want for that purpose in whatever religion or lack of religion suits them and matches their worldview!

If redefining marriage is about making it easier for loving people to care for each other (or to facilitate the equitable division of goods in the dissolution of such relationships), then by all means, ensure those legal apparati are in place. Even marriages are aided by extra legal contracts around individual goods (pre-nuptials). I don't see any reason why such agreements would have to involve marriage. Just write up a contract to handle it. Done. We don't need to redefine marriage for that purpose. Also in this case, the state doesn't need to be involved in marriage to solve that problem.

If marriage is not about both loving commitment and children (specifically, encouraging and supporting the best conditions for them to be raised in), then the state has little reason to be involved. And that's the bottom line.

Strengthened for Martyrdom

2013-03-25T21:50:00.000-04:00

On Sunday at Holy Name in Fishtown, where my lay Dominican chapter meets monthly for prayer, mass, and community, the recently confirmed children from the parish were dressed in red robes and sitting in the first pews. I was seated behind them, and it occurred to me that they looked like so many young martyrs. I thought about how the sacrament of confirmation gives the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

When they lead you away and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say. But say whatever will be given to you at that hour. For it will not be you who are speaking but the holy Spirit. Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. (Mk 13:11-13)

Of course, the Holy Spirit strengthens us to be witnesses. The Spirit strengthens us to be soldiers of Christ, but the Spirit also strengthens us for martyrdom.

Sadly, such a thing seems less far fetched these days than it did when I was growing up, and looking at these kids, it makes me wonder how far fetched it will be when they are my age. The increasing hostility in the West to Christianity, while not yet to the point of outright violent persecution and martyrdom, it certainly seems more likely as the governments increasingly chip away at religious freedom and the President arrogates more and more powers to himself, including that of arbitrarily killing American citizens in the name of the "fight against terror."

How long before Christianity gets classified as inimical to the State due to our unwillingness to bow to the zeitgeist? Perhaps we will need this strengthening for martyrdom before long. Perhaps if not us, our children. Let us pray and hold fast to that hope we have in Christ, sealed with the Spirit for the day of redemption.

The Liebster Award – Helping Blog Communities to Grow and Thrive

2013-03-21T23:49:00.002-04:00

Allow me to firstly thank Chris Weitzel over at LifeOnFire.org for choosing me among his nominees for the "award" (or "task"). I realize that I am definitely "undersubscribed." I mean, come on, people! This blog is awesome! ;) ;) nudge nudge

What is the Liebster Award and how do you get one?

The Liebster Award was started some time ago by a German blogger who wanted to assist others in finding great but, under-subscribed to blogs. The “award” nomination is granted from one blogger to another and is considered as “awarded” when the nominated blog completes a certain set of requirements. The current requirements have evolved over time and are as follows:

Post the Liebster award graphic on your site. (Google to find it if needed)
Thank the blogger who nominated the blog for a Liebster Award and link back to their blog.
The blogger then writes 11 facts about themselves so people who discover their blog through the Liebster post will learn more about them.
In addition to posting 11 fun facts about themselves, nominated bloggers should also answer the 11 questions from the post of the person who nominated them.
The nominated blogger will in turn, nominate 9 other blogs with 200 or less followers (We’re guessing for our nominees) for a Liebster award by posting a comment on their blog and linking back to the Liebster post.
The nominated blogger will create 11 questions for their nominated blogs to answer in their Liebster post.

That’s It! (ha ha)

Essentially, The Liebster Award is a way to connect smaller blogs to one another. It promotes the discovery of new blogs and also helps to increase traffic through link exchanges. While not an “award” in the traditional sense of the word, it is a great way to build up communities and to help other small bloggers to get discovered.

11 Boring Facts About Ambrose

I was born in Little Rock, AR and raised in Tulsa, OK. I have been called a hayseed because of my accent by a lifelong New Jerseyan, but I do not have an accent.
Despite my immense powers, my beard eclipses me in fame.
I am married to an immensely patient woman, and we have five fun and often annoying children.
I find thinking up facts about me somewhat tedious and self-indulgent, and the number of things to do for this "award" a tad much. But all for the greater good...
I grew up a charismatic, evangelical Protestant, began my journey towards the Catholic Church as a freshman in university and completed it with my wife on Easter Vigil 2001.
I am a huge fan of bacon, cheese, and spicy food. Who am I kidding; I just like food. And beer. And scotch. And sometimes wine. I brew my own beer and like to smoke meat.
I joined the lay Dominicans in 2007 and made my final, permanent profession in the Order in 2011.
Aaaagh.. four more?? Umm.. I like to shoot pool. I'm pretty good at it, as an amateur.
I'm a big sci-fi nerd. Star Trek: TNG, DS9, Original, Farscape, Firefly, Babylon 5, BSG, Dr. Who, to name some of my favs. Been to a couple conventions, but I have yet to wear a uniform. On the other hand, I do have a kilt.
My BA is in European History, with a late medieval focus, minor in humanities, but I make software for a living.
I'm really a nice guy, somewhere deep down underneath my big, mean brusque exterior.

My Answers to Chris' Questions

42, but what is the question?
Yeah, I'm not going to answer this one honestly. But ONE pretty dumb thing I did was TP the pastor's lawn (his daughter was in my class). What can I say, TPing our friends was a thing for a while then...
My superpower is the ability to win any argument, if I want to. ;)
I'll go with the obvious and say I'd want a good knife with me at all times while camping, maybe even a machete.
I'll take scotch any day over basically any other alcoholic beverage, and right now, I'm pretty keen on Clynelish 14. Gee thanks, now I gotta go pour one. Boston Lager is my staple beer.
I'll go with the horse-sized duck. If nothing else, it'd be delish to cook up later.
Holy Grail. Hands down the best Monty Python.
Thomism. Ha. There. Nice and big, so I don't have to pick among the many interesting things I've discovered about the Church.
There are tricks for such things? In general, I have cultivated a calm demeanor to try to deal with my hot temper. Also: Prayer. Confession. The Eucharist. Not tricks; just grace..
Yes. I watched Veggietales while I was still in high school, when (I think) it first came out. The kids have watched it some, too. I also liked the SNL spoof "Religtables" (for the name, mostly).
I don't really care that much any more. The favorite vehicle I've owned (still own) is my 2004 Dodge Ram.

My Nominees

Hopefully none of them will be offended if I assume they may have fewer than 200 subscribers. They may have many more for all I know, but at least I don't know that they are super popular.

Just Thomism - http://thomism.wordpress.com
Countercultural Father - http://ccfather.blogspot.com
Franciscan Focus - http://www.franciscanfocus.com (I know Chris also nominated her.)
Domine, da mihi hanc aquam - http://www.hancaquam.blogspot.com
Bilik Family - http://bilikfamily.com
Laudet Dominum - http://www.frcory.org/laudetdominum
Never Give Up - http://www.johnjanaro.com
nowhere - http://anonisnowhere.blogspot.com
Musings of Todd - http://musingsoftodd.wordpress.com

My Questions

Okay, now for the hardest part. Coming up with clever questions.. oh I give up on that. Here are questions, at least.

Why do you blog?
Did you grow up to be what you thought you wanted to grow up to be? What was it? How do you feel about your answer?
What is your favorite sci fi series?
What is your favorite book of the Bible? Feel free to say why.
Did I guess right that you are "undersubscribed"?
Do you think I should trim my beard? Why or why not?
Are you happy with your parish life?
What is the most quotable movie ever? Answer with a quote from that movie.
How long did you spend on this nomination thingie?
Which is better: pecan pie, chocolate pie, or pumpkin pie? Discuss.
What is the motto of the Order of Preachers?

Phew!

Evolution in the Economy of Salvation

2013-03-20T12:00:00.000-04:00

A half-baked thought occurred to me the other day. The old Catholic Encyclopedia treats of three types of evil, one of which it calls "metaphysical evil," which seems to largely correspond to the idea of survival of the fittest, or more broadly that the nature of the universe is that it seems to be in a struggle with itself.

We know that the universe and many things in it preceded us, and that, cosmically speaking, we are very late to the party. We know that this "metaphysical evil" is a fact of nature, and that it seems to have in very large part shaped the world that we came into, and that it continues to shape it. We were not brought into a peaceful utopia that was shattered as a result of original sin. The world was in turmoil before us.

Our primordial nature, while given to us with original justice, contained its right-ordered-ness by grace, not by our natural nature itself, which without God's grace shared in this metaphysical evil. Our primordial nature was, shaped by this world striving with itself, inclined also to this striving. But through that original gift of grace, we were enabled to subject that nature and order it properly, in subjection to God and to live truly freely in that state of original justice, with true freedom to choose to embrace that right ordering or to turn away from it, as Adam did, thereby destroying that state of original justice and, in the economy of salvation, calling for God's further action to restore it.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that God knew Adam's choice before he made it. He knew that he would forfeit that original gift of justice. He knew before the foundations of the cosmos this would happen. Indeed, he ordered the cosmos in such a way to allow for it to happen--precisely so that he could bless us with the greater gift of his Incarnation and Redemption through the Cross.

Thus it seems to me--and this is just my speculation on the matter, not any Catholic teaching per se that I am aware of--that this striving nature, this principle of the survival of the fittest, this mechanism of evolution was part and parcel of God's Providence that led to the need for his own Incarnation and Sacrifice as part of his plan. Thus it seems it can be said that evolution is part of the economy of salvation.

God's Mercy Drives Out Fear

2013-03-20T01:25:00.000-04:00

The other morning during our team Friday brekky, it came up again that I and some others do not eat meat on Fridays during Lent. One of the fellas present was raised Catholic, and someone asked him why he still eats meat. He said something like, "I gave all that stuff up a long time ago." Then he said something like, "Ambrose, maybe you can cover me?" At which my raised-Catholic-turned-atheist colleague laughed and muttered some kind of agreement.

"Noo.. sorry, it doesn't work that way, guys," I said.

Then my nominally-Catholic friend said, "my plan is to just wait until the end and then take care of things." To which my atheist colleague added, "yeah, that doesn't really make much sense that you can just do whatever and then make it all okay by confessing at the end."

"But it does make sense--that's what God's mercy is all about." I replied, which somehow ended the conversation. I think everyone wasn't ready for any kind of involved discussion on it. It was just Friday brekky at work after all.

In any case, it got me thinking about it. You know, it can seem like hell is a convenient religious stick to beat people into submission, but the problem with that idea is that through Christ's triumph on the Cross, hell has lost its sting. We do not rely on our own goodness, our own merits, to save us but rather Christ's. This is Good News--it ain't called that for no reason.

As our Holy Father recently said--God never tires of forgiving; it is we who tire of asking. It is also we who get it in our heads sometimes that it is we who save us, but it is not we--it is God. It doesn't matter if we wait until the last moment, God is still merciful. It doesn't matter if we have committed the worst of crimes, God is still merciful. God offers his grace to us freely, regardless of our own merits, because it is the infinite merits of Christ that justifies us, not our own goodness.

People need to get a handle on this, because as long as they think they are the ones who save themselves, they can and should live in fear--because such justification is impossible, even for the goodliest person. But once we realize that we are wholly dependent upon God for our justification, due to his infinite love and mercy, we no longer need to live in fear. God's mercy drives out fear.

Should we then live profligately and wait until the end? Hell no! Not just because it is a gamble--because we could die in our sin without a chance to repent. It is also because sin has consequences here and now. It binds us and makes us slaves, slaves to our flesh, slaves to our habits, slaves to the opinions of others, slaves to our own opinions of ourselves. It also has a tendency to hurt others in very real and serious ways.

No, those who are baptized have died to sin and been born into newness of life. It is a freedom, a freedom through that grace to begin our journey to reform our fallen selves, reliant upon his sanctifying grace freely offered in the Sacraments, to develop the virtues, to offer joyful penance, and to develop authentic human freedom. There is no fear here. We are assured of God's mercy. All we have to do is acknowledge our sins and ask for his mercy, availing ourselves of the infinite merit of Christ.

An interesting corollary is that this illustrates how Christianity is decidedly not just an ethical system dressed up in religious robes (nor an ethical system used by a priestly caste to control people). Without an understanding of God's mercy and why his infinite merit satisfies justice, one can make no sense of how the Christian ethical system is just. In fact, without God's infinite merit offered on our behalves, it would be terribly unjust. It is the Cross, or it is nonsense.

The Riches and Poverty of the Church

2013-03-16T15:47:00.002-04:00

Much has already been made of our new pope's obvious humility and closeness to the poor and needy. Everyone who knows him seems to confirm it; he already has a history of living it (e.g., eschewing the episcopal palace and living in a normal apartment, preparing his own meals, using public transportation, telling his people to stay in Argentina rather than coming to his incardination and now installation as pope, to give the money they would spend on the trip to the poor, visiting the poor and sick, washing their feet, and so on), and he is making an effort to continue living it now that he is pope.

We have seen it in his choice of simple white cassock and black shoes when he was introduced; we presumed it in his choice of name; we have seen it in his choices to not take advantage of various papal niceties thus far, and I have no doubt that we will continue to see it.

Today he spoke on his choice of Francis, confirming that it is indeed after St. Francis of Assisi:

"Francis of Assisi...the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and guards creation... How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor."

One of the first things he did, the morning after being elected, was to visit the tomb of Pope St. Pius V, a Dominican pope, a reformer, and, interestingly enough, the pope who started the tradition of wearing a simple white cassock--which is the habit of the Dominicans.

St. Francis was also a reformer. Although he only became a deacon, he began a reform movement that spread like fire and continues to this day--an evangelical witness of poverty.

In those days, many people were losing faith because, in part, of the wealthy way in which many of the clergy, especially the high ranking clergy, lived. St. Dominic recognized this also, and this is in part why he enjoined the vow of poverty on his friars as well. It is a kind of evangelical asceticism, a closeness to the poor for the sake of the poor's evangelization.

Many, worldly minded people will appreciate Pope Francis' emphasis on the poor. Certainly Christ himself taught what is now called the preferential option for the poor (#57). And this is precisely what our Holy Father is living, showing, and teaching himself. The catch is, again, that this is all ultimately for an evangelical purpose. It is a way of leading people to Christ; it is not a simple humanitarian impulse.

Lest anyone thing I am adding my own interpretation on this:

We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. ... When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness. ... When we journey without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly: we may be bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord. ... My prayer for all of us is that the Holy Spirit, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother, will grant us this grace: to walk, to build, to profess Jesus Christ crucified.

These are the Holy Father's own words, in his first papal homily. And they strongly echo the words of St. Paul in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ... For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. ... When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Caring for the poor and needy is today, perhaps more than in any other age in human history, generally recognized to be a good, desirable thing. It is certainly common ground we can find with those who are on many other counts opposed to the Church. And that should give us some pause.

It should give us pause because we cannot risk losing our faith, obscuring it, or minimizing it in order to collaborate with them. It should give us pause when they demand we check our faith at the door. It should give us pause when they try to tell us to whom we can and cannot minister. It should give us pause when they try to define what is and is not acceptable service to the needy. It should give us pause when they refuse to let us collaborate with them because they think they understand what is good for people better than we do. It should also give us pause when many members of our own religious orders become so conformed to the world's model of service to the poor that they become indistinguishable from any other humanitarian agency.

While caring for the poor and needy is a good, it is not an end. As Catholics, as Christians, we know that our end is God. We were made by him and for him. When Christ exhorts us to care for the poor, it is with an eschatological purpose. It is because each person bears the image of God that each person has such great dignity, rich or poor alike. Thus we truly are serving Christ by loving our neighbor. Christ was not just giving us a nice, religious way of saying that we should help the poor. No, he was explaining that it is a metaphysical reality that we are serving him by serving "the least of these"; it is truly, really a way of loving both God and our neighbor by the same action. It is a direct, not an indirect, way to love God, who is our end.

And it is because of this that when we separate our acts of charity from their theological end, treating them as ends in their own right, that "things go wrong" as the Holy Father put it. If we are not, by our care for the poor, professing Christ and him crucified, we are completely missing the point. We are lopsided and wrongheaded. We get confused and potentially lost; "we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness" because seeking an end other than God, no matter how noble in appearance, leads us away from God, turns us in on ourselves, and that is the very way of the devil, who seeks nothing more than to draw us away from God.

Authentic care for the poor demands a lively faith. It is this faith that keeps us well rounded in our care, because poverty is not limited to lack of material things. We can be physically poor--suffering some lack of physical wholeness or wellness. We can be socially poor--lacking friends and companionship. We can be poor in justice--having suffered wrong at the hands of others. We can be poor in freedom--captive, in prison (physically, psychologically, spiritually). We can be morally poor--messing up our lives, the lives of others, and our relationship with God. And most seriously, we can be spiritually poor--living a sterile life devoid of transcendence and relationship with God.

And this is where I begin to get to the point. :) Some criticize the Church for all of our supposed lavish luxury. They see the grand architecture and amazing artwork, the fine ornamentation and the expensive vestments, and they claim that these riches are contrary to the Gospel and that they show a disdain for the poor. "If the Church really cared about the poor, it would sell all that crap and give it to the poor."

Ignoring the fact that Catholic charities far and away outstrip all global charities, both today and, even more so, throughout our long history, sentiments like these are an example of how "things go wrong." Because these things are themselves a ministry to the poor--especially the spiritually poor. The sole purpose of the Church is to draw us to God, and She uses every means at her disposal to do so--both the splendid riches of our most beautiful cathedrals and elaborate liturgies and the evangelical poverty of St. Francis, St. Dominic, and all those who profess such vows. She uses her intellectual riches to draw people through the mind, and She uses the corporal service to draw others through acts of simple kindness. She uses her supernatural riches of the prayers and merits of cloistered religious and hermits, the graces of the sacraments in every parish throughout the world, and the evangelical vigor of the apostolic orders and, yes, the laity as well. All that the Church is and does is ordered towards bringing people to Christ.

This of course does not mean that every action of every Catholic is so ordered; however, that is how it should be, and that is how the Church as both a supernatural and natural institution is ordered.

Pope Benedict XVI is known for his restoration of our liturgical riches. He taught us by his example that these are good means to enrich the spiritual poverty that has even become spread throughout the members of the Church. But he has also taught that "love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential to her as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel." He on several occasions exhorted people to not waste vacations idly, but to spend them renewing our relationships with God and others, and he showed this in the way he spent his own. He untiringly gave us the riches of his intellectual efforts through books, apostolic letters, homilies, and audiences.

Pope Francis may have a different emphasis, one that focuses more on simplicity in practice and an evangelical poverty, according to his vows. That doesn't mean he is changing the Church, that he'll suddenly start divesting the Church of all material wealth, and it certainly does not mean he will lack a focus on orthodoxy (much less "change the Church's teaching" as if this were something a pope can do!).

Benedict did not eschew tending to the needs of the poor; his emphasis was on a different kind of poverty, one that the world does not so well perceive. It seems that Francis will emphasize other kinds. We should be reluctant, however, to take comfort that his emphasis is better received by the world lest we be lulled into a spiritual laxity. Perhaps that is why our Holy Father came out so strongly in his first homily emphasizing what he did. The world is not the judge of the Church, what is good for people, nor what is good for a pope to be like or focus on; only God is that judge.

Together our Holy Fathers illustrate the holistic way in which the Church cares for the poor, always keeping in mind, word, and deed "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" but exemplifying it in different ways with different emphases according to their particular talents and callings.

Five Reasons You're Not an Authority on Catholicism

2013-03-15T23:52:00.000-04:00

As a convert to Catholicism, I have always found it somewhat disconcerting when any old Joe seems to think that because he was raised Catholic that somehow makes him an authority on Catholicism or, at least, somehow gives him credentials to speak authoritatively on the Faith, or considers his own opinions on par with that of our bishops.

You see it all the time, on TV shows, in the news, in politicians, in parishes, and in the random folk you meet every day. What makes it worse is especially on TV/in the news, when people are interviewed and asked their opinion on X, just because "they are Catholic" and/or "they were raised Catholic." The problem is that so much misinformation gets perpetuated this way, chief among which is the false notion that Catholics are independently free to form their own opinions on matters of faith and morals (and still be considered faithful/in good standing as Catholics), much less that their opinions are equally valid or authoritative as authentically Catholic positions.

So for those people, I offer these five analogies that illustrate why you're not a Catholic authority.

1. Being an American or raised an American doesn't make you an expert on the Constitution, U.S. government in general, U.S. economics, U.S. foreign policy, and so on; you get the picture. Growing up as an American no more makes you an expert on the United States of America than growing up Catholic makes you an expert on the Church nor the Faith.

2. Watching lots of movies does not make you an expert on film or the film industry. You may grow up watching movies. You may have watched hundreds of them in your life. This doesn't mean you know one iota about what it takes to make a movie, how to be an actor, how to be a director, or any of the various other minutiae involved. Nope, watching a ton of movies doesn't make you an expert on film any more than being baptized, confirmed, and going to mass makes you an expert on Catholicism.

3. Working at a large corporation for your whole career does not make you an expert on that organization. You may even be a division or department manager by the end of your career. You may be an expert at your job, you may spend a ton of time with the people in your department and on your teams, but your perspective is of necessity limited. Unless you are the CEO, and probably even then, there will be plenty of aspects about the company that remain hidden from you. And in any case, your expertise and experience is in one area. The Catholic Church has over a billion members spread all over the world; the doctrine of the Catholic faith has been reasoned about and practiced over nearly two thousand years. I guarantee, you can't speak for all of that, no matter how involved you are in your parish, no matter how long you've been Catholic.

4. Being raised among musicians does not make you an authority on music; it doesn't even make you a musician. You may be surrounded by music your whole life; you may attend many musical events with your family, but if you don't apply yourself to learn music, then you are nothing approaching an authority on it. In the same way, you can be around other Catholics your whole life, go to plenty of Catholic events, but if you don't apply yourself to learn the Faith and practice it faithfully, you are nothing like an authority on Catholicism.

5. If you grow up in a house of immigrants who speak a different language and came from a different culture, you are no expert on that language or culture. You may be able to understand it and relate to it; you may even be able to hold up a decent conversation, but if you didn't apply yourself to learn and practice the language and culture, you certainly would be no authority. Just so, growing up in the Church, learning the language of liturgy, and experiencing some aspects of Catholic culture does not make you an authority on it.

In all these cases, to become an authority, there is much more to it than just being raised in or around it, spending lots of time with others in the same organization/culture, attending events, or picking up the language. All of that is great and good in itself--nothing wrong with it, but it just doesn't make you an authority.

To become an authority on the Church, one should study ecclesiology, Church history, and/or canon law. To become an authority on the Faith, one should study one or more of the many specialties in Catholic theology such as dogmatics, moral theology, exegesis, and so on. Even so, it is impossible for one person to be an expert in all these things.

None of this is to say that it is hard to be Catholic nor that one needs to do such things to live a saintly life. In fact, one can easily and rightly be Catholic just by being baptized in the Church. It's just that "being Catholic" or even "being raised Catholic" by no means gives you any credentials to speak authoritatively on any aspect of Catholicism other than your own personal experience.

So I hope the next time you're tempted to say, "well, I was raised Catholic ," just keep this in mind--maybe add a caveat of your own lack of authority. And for the rest of us, too, there are plenty of authoritative resources freely available to learn about Catholicism. Judge what we say by them.

But keep in mind also that as far as Catholicism is concerned, the authority on interpreting such resources is the Church itself, specifically the bishops in communion with the Pope. It is not the dissenting Vice President, not the dissenting former Speaker of the House, not the dissenting famous comedian, not the dissenting news anchor or talk show host, not the dissenting parishioners, not the dissenting womynpriests, not the dissenting sisters, not even the dissenting priests. You can even be a faithful, cradle Catholic and still not be such an authority. You can even be someone who, like me, has extensively studied the Faith, and still not be such an authority, although our answers may be more reliable in this way. Still, always judge what we say by authoritative texts interpreted the way that the bishops in communion with the Pope interpret them.

And if a Catholic steers you away from our authoritative texts, waves his arms and says they don't really mean what they say, or, most tellingly, suggests that the bishops and Pope are wrong in their "interpretation," those are all pretty good red flags you're on the wrong track to understanding Catholicism. Such a person is about as far away from being an authority on Catholicism as they can get, no matter how long they have been Catholic.

Servant of All

2013-03-14T12:02:00.000-04:00

Last night, I shared the image above on Facebook. One of my programmer friends, in a dramatic display of the no-social-skills stereotype of programmers, commented, "Now they just molest kids in public."

I'll just let that sink in for a minute.

Okay, you back? Ignoring the fact that comments like these are utterly boorish and fiendishly unjust, let's talk about what is happening in the image above. Washing feet is an ancient, biblical Christian ceremony, instituted by Jesus Christ, who after washing the Apostles' feet said, "If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do."

This pattern of being through doing is an example of Jesus' instruction: "'If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.' Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, 'Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the One who sent me.'"

The kissing of the feet hearkens back to the woman who kissed and washed Jesus' feet with her tears and hair. It was a sign of humility, an acknowledgment of her sinfulness, and a work of mercy and honor, a penance and a blessing. Then Cardinal Bergoglio is calling upon all this rich symbolism in what he is doing here. He, a "prince of the Church" (as cardinals are called), humbly acknowledges that he is a man who needs God's mercy just as much as the woman who washed Christ's feet; he shows by this action that he is obedient to Christ, and following Christ's example, he is welcoming the little children, that he is a servant of all--even of those whom the world considers the least among us, children with incurable terminal illness. He has done the same for drug addicts. He has done the same for women.

And priests all around the world do this yearly. It is part of our Holy Thursday liturgy. In imitation of Christ, following his command, they wash the feet of parishioners, representatives of the people they serve. It is a vibrant reminder at the culmination of our most holy season of the true nature of the priest: a minister, which means a servant, one who attends to the needs of others. This is the priest's life, a life given over to the service of others. And the Pope is, as shown in the title taken by Pope St. Gregory the Great, the servant of the servants of God, or as Christ put it, the servant of all.

God bless Pope Francis.

Sheltering, Brainwashing, Meh

2013-03-13T22:23:00.000-04:00

My atheist colleague at work today said something interesting today. He said, "I have a beef. I don't know how they do things these days, but when I was growing up, they acted like there were only Catholics. And where I grew up, it was very monoculture--bunch of white French Canadians. It wasn't until I grew up that I started hearing about this Jewish thing, then that Hindu thing, and so on, all these other things. Doesn't seem right to me to do that to kids..."

Okay, so it's not an exact quote, but that's the basic gist of it. The beef, I guess, is another way of stating the common atheist complaint that religious parents brainwash their children. I'm sure that some do, to an extent, though I don't agree with the characterization of teaching your children your beliefs, in itself, as brainwashing (at all).

In any case, I'm not commenting on his particular experience because I just don't know, but it does highlight a potential problem for religious parents (and religious educators). The problem is not so much that we need to worry about brainwashing, per se, but rather that we need to guard against leaving our children so ill equipped that when they do get more exposure to the broader world and its many different philosophies and ideologies. We need to ensure that they have enough grounding in the faith that they are not swept away in whatever wind happens to catch their sails.

If my colleague had received a better religious education, one that included awareness of other points of view, along with help to think critically about them, as well as understand the criticisms of his own faith and the defenses of those criticisms, he would have been better prepared and, I dare say, might still be Catholic. That's not to say that no one who well understands the Catholic faith would turn to atheism; however, I am saying that most people who turn away from the faith do so based largely on misconceptions or just some bad experience/ill will towards someone they perceive to be an exemplar of those who follow the faith.

We can only do so much about the latter--try to be good exemplars ourselves; however, we can and should minimize people leaving the faith due simply to being poorly prepared or misinformed. This doesn't mean we treat all viewpoints as equally valid, nor that we don't teach our children the faith, nor that we expose them unnecessarily before they are ready, but sheltering only goes so far.

At the end of the day, our children are their own selves. They will be responsible for the free choices that they make, and just like we work to prepare them academically, socially, etc., we need to prepare them philosophically and theologically. We can't do this by pretending that other viewpoints don't exist or by shying away from hard questions and providing slippery easy answers that gloss over difficulties. They will face these at some point, and if we don't help prepare them, we are at the very least in part responsible.

Is Hell Convenient?

2013-03-12T21:45:00.000-04:00

I have heard that some people think that hell is just an invention of religious people, a convenient way to control others through fear. But is it, really?

Theological Grades of Certainty

2013-03-11T21:54:00.000-04:00

This weekend I did a mini study on dogma, authority, and theological grades of certainty. My sources were:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 1954.
Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, CDF, 1998
Dogma, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909
Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950

For my own purposes, I started capturing notes into a PowerPoint. I wanted to make some simpler visualization of it, and that's what you see above. The slides below it explain the terms, but for anyone familiar with Ott, they should be recognizable. This helps me keep the degrees more in mind, and especially when reading Ott, it can help keep it sorted since he just uses the abbreviations for each (also included in the slides). It's mostly derived from Ott and the CDF commentary; the other two sources are mainly backgrounders.

It occurred to me that maybe others could benefit from it, so here you go.

I'm not 100% confident I've pulled it all together correctly, so if there are any dogmatic theologians out there, feel free to correct me. :)

Just Cuz the Church Says So

2013-03-09T20:58:00.001-05:00

"Do you really believe that just because the Catholic Church says so?" my perplexed friend asks.

"Why yes. Yes I do," I reply.

"So you just have 'blind faith' in the Church then?" he sighs, and mumbles something about "religious zealots."

----

Of course, the discussion shouldn't end here--there is more to the story. Rather than jumping to the conclusion of 'blind faith', one should rather ask why. Why do I believe X just because the Church says so? And once we know the answer, we can see that it is not blind faith at all; quite the opposite.

First of all, let's be clear on the scope of propositions that would call for such belief. For Catholics, it is propositions concerning faith and morals. The proper object of faith is God and, implicitly, our relationship to God and, further, our relationship to others in as much as it touches on our relationship to God, which is why morals are also considered, i.e., the practical application of our knowledge of God. I mention this to address people jumping to weird conclusions like if the Pope definitively declared the earth to be flat, I would believe it. I wouldn't, because it doesn't pertain to faith and morals (and because there is much evidence and other reasons to hold to the proposition that the earth spherical).

That touches on the second aspect to be considered, which is the interplay between reason and faith. Some jump to conclusions that faith is somehow inherently opposed or contrary to reason, and blind faith is the most irrational, unwarranted form of such "faith." But faith is not inherently irrational. Whether faith is irrational depends on whether the object of faith (the proposition) cannot be shown to accord with reason.

The reason I phrase it the way I did is that just because someone can construct a rational argument that leads to a conclusion opposed to the proposition does not exclude the possibility of one or more rational arguments that support it. And as long as there are rational arguments for a belief, it can be said to be rational. The proposition may not be true, but that does not preclude one's belief in it from being rational. The argument may not be compelling to you, but that does not mean it is not rational.

Up to this point, we've been speaking of objective rationality, that is, whether a rational argument exists for a proposition. There is also the subjective consideration. For instance, regardless of whether or not a rationale exists for a belief, if my belief were only based in emotion (or wishful thinking), in that sense my belief could be said to be irrational. In that sense the belief could better be described as prejudice or even blind faith.

So, back to the question at hand, is my belief in X that the Church proposes for assent by the faithful irrational? We must dig further.

One way to do this is to look for the rationale offered by the Church in proposing something for belief. The Church does not propose something for belief without offering some rationale for that proposal. In that sense, it would not be irrational to accept the proposition as1 true, because there is rationale, and I accept it because I find the particular rationale compelling.

Indeed, there is much in what the Church proposes, especially in terms of morals, that is discernable with reason without the aid of Divine Revelation, and it is in such things that we have so much common ground with non-Catholics. (There are also things the Church proposes based on the natural light of reason and not reliant on Revelation that we disagree on--such as abortion, redefining marriage, death penalty, etc.)

But my friend specifically qualified the question with "just because the Church says so." This is to say, do I accept the proposition (remember it is assumed to be concerning faith or morals) based only on the authority of the Church, without consideration for the rationale that the Church offers for it. That is the question.

In order for my assent to be rational, I would need some rationale to warrant that sort of trust in the Church, some reason to believe that the Church has the authority to define something as true and, consequently, to expect the assent of the faithful, even if they don't know the rationale, even if they don't fully understand it, even if they don't find the rationale convincing.

And that's precisely what I am suggesting--that the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has that authority, because it is granted and guaranteed by God, who is himself the very source of the truth, has the authority to define truths concerning faith and morals and that the faithful are bound to assent to them. (NB: There are degrees of certainty in truths proposed for assent, and there are corresponding degrees of assent required of the faithful, but that's a subject for another time.)

Now in this post, I'm not proposing to delve into all the reasons to believe that the Church is this pillar and foundation of truth. There are reasons, and it is through them that I was led to join the Catholic Church. But for now it is enough to simply point out that if we accept this as a given for the sake of this discussion--because for Catholics it is--then it follows, rationally, that we Catholics should assent to those things pertaining to faith and morals, even when we don't find the offered rationale for some particular teaching as compelling.

It is thus that we can say, "Yes, I believe it just cuz the Church says so." It is thus that we can join St. Anselm in faith seeking understanding. And it is thus that we can say to Christ, "I do believe, help my unbelief!"

The Price of a Free Society

2013-03-08T22:12:00.003-05:00

When some people complained about the costs to the public that the Occupy Wall Street protesters incurred, their defenders were very quick to say that such is the price of a free society. As much as I thought the OWS folks were a bunch of deadbeats and were wasting our money, I had to agree with that.

But those same people, on that side of the ideological spectrum, regularly act to limit the freedom of those with whom they disagree with. A few examples:

Injuries caused to cyclists, it is said, incur some costs to the public, so they create legislation to force people to wear helmets.
Sugary drinks, they believe, are evil and a cause of the so-called obesity epidemic, so they have no qualms forcing people through regulation to drink less. Or they try to control what parents send with their kids to eat at lunch.
They believe that violence is caused by video games, so they want to ban those.
Guns are used in some violent crimes, and despite the fact that Americans have a specifically Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear them, they rave and rant irrationally about banning them and create ridiculous categories based on the way the gun looks to ban them.

This list could go on and on and on.

So where is the reciprocal understanding that there is a cost to a free society?

Oh I get it, when they agree with the exercise of freedom, it's okay, and it's "the price of a free society," but if they think they know better or just plain disagree with exercise of a particular freedom, then screw that, they'll force people to do what you want.

Ah.. if only everyone were so "liberal."

UPDATE (14 March 2013): Interesting, related piece on the new theocracy in America.

Sugar: The New Dietary Bogeyman

2013-03-07T23:37:00.003-05:00

When I was growing up, the big thing was low fat. Fat is bad. Fat is evil. Blah blah blah. Low fat products proliferated; the gummit food pyramid told us to eat the least of these. Until they figured out that, guess what, fat isn't so bad after all. It's really not. Really. In fact, it's really quite good for you.

Along with that was the cholesterol myth. Low cholesterol foods that were "heart healthy" were branded. Pharmaceuticals manufactured drugs to suppress it and got super rich from it. Now we know it is a myth based on bad science. And yet people are still being prescribed this garbage.

In both cases, the gummit took the bad science and ran with it, thanks in large part to the "guy from CSPI!"

Now the new bogeyman is sugar. Carbs in general, but especially sugar. So the dictator of New York, Herr Bloomberg, has arbitrarily banned certain measures of sugary drinks. It makes no sense, even assuming the science is right this time.

The problem is the gummit dumbs down science (good or bad) and either uses fear tactics or worse--regulation. Sugar is in many foods and drinks. Our bodies need sugar. As far as I can tell, the science behind limiting carb intake seems solid, but it's just not that simple. We should care about things like glycemic index, not just run in fear from a bag of sugar.

How about this. Instead of vilifying fruit drinks and cola and sugar in general (or cholesterol or fat), how about we help folks learn about a healthy, balanced diet? Then they can make informed decisions like mature adults on their own. If they want to have a Coke or a white chocolate mocha, or glass of OJ, that's fine.

And for all that is good in the world, keep the gummit out of it.

P.S. No one thinks that drinking a ton of cola is healthy. No one. Pretending that all this hullaballoo is somehow educating some imagined ignorant unwashed masses is just ignorant, misguided, wrong, and a complete waste of time, effort, and money.

Let Priests Be Priests

2013-03-06T21:39:00.000-05:00

Continuing on my post yesterday on "we're doing it wrong," in which a lot of my suggestions revolved around the priests, our pastors, one of my priest friends on G+ (who shall remain unnamed until he tells me otherwise), said this:

Lay people, please bring this post to your pastor and volunteer to help as you can. It's too easy for priests to get into maintenance mode, worrying about keeping the lights on and the heat running and the roof from falling in and ... Then they see the "new evangelization" and think, "O Lord, another thing I need to worry about?", forgetting that evangelization and equipping the laity is their primary role.

As a priest, it's easy for us to feel overwhelmed and feel like there's so much that needs to be done, but little to no help to do it. We need lay people to step up and take the reins.

This speaks to one of my speculations--being intimidated at the effort involved. Now, I happen to know this particular priest is not one to shy away from challenging his parishioners, but the sentiment he expressed is important listen to as laity.

A few folks on G+ were taking me to task (in a friendly way) for essentially putting it all on the priests. Now, I want to be clear, I think the priests and bishops do have the leading, primary role in making changes like the ones suggested. I think their calling is precisely to lead us laity towards God, to strengthen us for our own sanctification, and to equip us for our own lay apostolate, our own evangelization. We have a crucial role in the evangelization of the world--it's not "Father's job" to do that on his own. We, by nature of being in the world all the time and by being so many, have much more opportunities for evangelization than Father ever can have, and we are all called to share the Good News.

So what we laity need to do is to support priests in what they need to do. We need to help priests be priests, and part of that is taking care of the other stuff that is not essentially priestly. It's not right for Father to feel so pooped and overwhelmed that he feels he can't perform his primary priestly ministry. That is something we can help with. Help them to help us.

The Church is Doing It Wrong

2013-03-05T22:51:00.000-05:00

One of the things you learn in learning to design professionally is that often how you frame the problem is as important as trying to solve the problem. Case in point. And lest anyone think this is a strictly Catholic problem.

What am I saying? I'm saying that framing the problem as "how can we grow the Church?" is doing it wrong, that framing it as "what can we do to keep people from leaving" is doing it wrong, and that examining polls about what people think about the Church and using that to inform what we do is doing it wrong.

What do you get when you frame it this way? You get anxious wringing of hands. You get "programs" and "initiatives." You get more fish fries, carnivals, spaghetti dinners, and pancake breakfasts. You get a watering down of doctrine on both faith and morals, homilies that are nothing more than banal, earthy moralisms. You get artificial attempts at being hip and relevant that those who are hip find repulsive and irrelevant. In short, you get everything but the Gospel.

So how should we frame the problem? The answer is in the name of the popular term "new evangelization." No, it's not the "new" part ("renewed" would be more apropos in this context); it's the "evangelization" part. The way to frame the problem is "how can we best share the Good News?"

And the answer is the same today as it was for the Apostles. First, we must ourselves repent and believe. Second, avail ourselves of the sacraments. Third, go out into all the world. In other words, authentically follow Christ and show others how to do the same.

Parishes should be focusing on how they can best celebrate the sacraments. Parish priests should ask themselves, "How can I celebrate the Eucharist fully faithfully, authentically, in the richest way possible?" The answer is not to get creative or worry about incorporating pop music or other profane activities (I'm looking at you, Austria). On the contrary, work to restore a sense of the sacred, transcendent, otherness; treat it as if we were truly encountering God because, ya know, we are. Foster Eucharistic Adoration.

Ask, "How can I make confession more convenient for my parishioners?" Show them how important it is by making it a crucial, daily part of parish life, not a Saturday afterthought. If you're in the confessional and nobody comes--that's okay. Take that time to pray. It's a win either way, but people will come.

Ask, "How can I teach the faith more authentically in my homilies?" Preaching should challenge people to grow in the faith, not be complacent in it. It should equip parishioners to direct their own lives towards God and also to be able to explain it to others. It's okay if they don't get it all right away.

Ask, "How can I ensure parishioners are prepared for the other sacraments?" Marriage--be strict; be faithful. Don't smooth over the harder teachings; you're not doing anybody any favors by doing that. Baptism--teach what baptism really is all about; reinforce how important it is to do it ASAP, not when Aunt Bertha can make it in six months later. Ditch the feel-good 80s infomovies. First communion and confirmation: for the love of all that is holy, make religious education free. And on that subject, make sure your teachers are orthodox. Challenge the kids, too. Again, it's okay if they don't get it all right away--mystery is a good thing. Treat these things seriously, like they are real means of grace and not social events.

People--complacent, lukewarm people--are going to be bothered by this. "But Father..." will be heard a lot. People may even threaten to leave. And then do it. That's OK. They did that to Jesus as well. The Gospel is not a popularity contest. It is not a way to reassure everyone that they're okay and good being however they want to be. It is demanding. It is the narrow way.

So all these suggestions are related to steps one and two--getting the house in order. Out of this will grow, quite naturally and authentically, evangelism, that is, the apostolate of the laity. Educate the laity in their responsibility for evangelization; think about how to better equip them (e.g., apologetics courses, Bible studies, and evangelism practice) and support them in it.

I'm not saying that priests don't think about these things. I'm not pretending any of this is novel (quite the contrary). But there does seem to be a kind of forgetting, or maybe a thinking as if this is somehow not enough. And so the focus shifts off the essentials and onto all these other attempts at "keeping" people and "growing" the church, instead of keeping a firm hold on Christ and growing the faith.

I think most priests know they need to do this, but they're held back. Maybe they're afraid of offending their parishioners. Maybe they recognize what a sea change in parish culture this would be. Maybe they're just intimidated by the effort it implies. That's why those of us parishioners who understand this is the way things need to be should encourage and support our pastors in these efforts. But it needs doing regardless.

My Papa Pick

2013-03-04T22:03:00.004-05:00

I'm not speculating. I'm just picking. I just want it on record, so I can say, "I so called it!" when it happens.

His Eminence Kurt Cardinal Koch will be the next pope. Say "hi!"

That's it. I have no inside information and not much reason to pick him. But there ya have it. :)

Listen, My Son

2013-03-03T21:32:00.001-05:00

Listen, my son, if you would advance in the way of perfection. Have many children--especially boys--and they will teach you detachment from worldly goods.

What is Wrong with Catholicism Today

2013-03-01T23:01:00.000-05:00

This is everything that's wrong with Catholicism today. People who so fundamentally do not understand the nature of the Church. People who so fundamentally lack faith. People who are so utterly enamored of this world and the opinions of men.

Anyone who judges the state of the Church, or the effectiveness of a papacy, by "the news" reported about it is completely lost.

"Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind." - St. Paul, Letter to the Romans

The problems in the Church are not caused by the people who actually understand, believe, and follow the doctrine of the faith. The problems come from those who don't understand, who don't believe, and who fail to practice it. That is true whether they are clergy or laity.

What laity who put on holier than thou airs towards the clergy seem to fail to realize is that the clergy who fail come from their ranks. None of us is born a priest. We are all born lay. Bad priests were bad laymen first. Those who are the most judgmental, anticlerical laity are themselves faithless laypersons. They don't realize that they are two peas in a pod with faithless priests they so excoriate.

Being a priest doesn't make a faithless person faithful, nor does it make a good person bad. By the same token, being lay doesn't make you inherently more holy or wise or trustworthy than clergy. The popular notion that having more lay government of the Church is the solution to corruption in the Church is demonstrably flawed, even ludicrous. Look around you. Do you see any corruption in civil governments around the world? I thought so.

Priest and lay, what we need in the Church are more people who are more faithful, people who do as St. Paul instructed as quoted above. Here is more of that passage:

I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.

I suggest you read more. It's very pertinent. Faithful priests and faithful laypeople--we are all part of the same body of Christ but with different callings and gifts.

I'll further say, along with St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians, "I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you." You can't just quit the faith. That's not the way it works. If you think you can just take it off for a while and put it back on when you feel the Church better suits you, I have some news for you: you don't have faith. You faithless people--you who wear Catholicism like it's a robe to be taken off and put on again when its convenient, when it appeals to you, when the Church is respected and admired by the world and in the news--you are the problem with the Church.

The good news is that you can help fix it. No, not by railing against the Church and the clergy. Nope. You just need to get to confession. Get on your knees. Humbly repent and ask God to restore your faith. He will, and then you'll be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Update 6 Mar 2013: Piers Morgan--another example of what's wrong with the Catholic Church today.

The Empty Seat

2013-02-28T21:06:00.000-05:00

It's so weird.

The Obnoxiousness is Bravery Fallacy

2013-02-27T22:16:00.002-05:00

It always strikes me as odd when someone says or writes something that is obnoxious that you have people saying things like "At least he's brave enough to put it out there and tell it like it like he really sees it," or something along those lines.

No. It isn't brave. It's just obnoxious plain and simple. What would be brave is to listen to and engage those with whom you disagree, treating them with respect and courtesy. You see, that makes you vulnerable.

That this is true is evident by those who defend the loudmouths. They hurl ad hominems at those who demand common decency and respect--"you're just weak" or "spineless" or "brainless" or worse. They seem to imagine that pretending you can't be wrong and blustering your way through, insulting, and using coarse language shows that you are strong. It's all a façade, though, to cover up the reality. It's a lie. Lying isn't a sign of courage or strength; it is cowardly and weak.

Honesty is brave, the kind of honesty that exposes your own doubts, that doesn't hide or ignore the weaknesses in your arguments, that shows you know that you are fallible and that, all other things being equal, the other person is just as likely to be right as you. Showing that honesty but still respectfully engaging with people of contrary opinions, that is brave. Courage doesn't mean you have no fears; it is having fears and yet confronting them with wide eyes, head on.

The honesty I'm talking about is not the "honesty" that uses "the truth" to bludgeon other people and attempts to intimidate them into silence. It's not the "honesty" that readily sacrifices the dignity of others to win an argument; it's not the "honesty" that holds courtesy in contempt and considers mutual respect as a byword for the weak. It's not the "honesty" that deceptively inflates the certainty of one's position. That is not honesty; it is false honesty. It is an abuse of the truth.

That's not to say that obnoxiousness is never an effective rhetorical device. But it's not brave. It may win an argument; it may effectively make a point, but it is fighting dirty. And that's not something to be admired.