The Whole Armor

Walking by Faith: The Courageous Example of St. Joseph (Repost)

2017-03-20T06:11:00.001-05:00

Not much is said about St. Joseph in the Gospel. His biographical information is extremely limited: He was a carpenter, the devoted and most chaste husband of Mary, and lawful foster father of Jesus. And, unlike most of the other figures in the Gospels, Joseph is never quoted as having spoken a single word. What is recorded about him is his actions, and they are actions that speak volumes about the faith that he lived, and the example he can be for us as we walk our journey of faith.

For we walk by faith, not by sight ~2 Corinthians 5:7

St Joseph is the perfect model for living these words of St. Paul. He our example par excellence of one of the most important virtues that's needed as we lead our families through the perils of the sinful world in which we live: courage. Joseph made two very difficult choices that many men would balk at, because he trusted in what the Lord was asking him to do as it was revealed to him in a dream, for the sake of his Holy Family:

1. He took a woman as his spouse who, during their betrothal, had conceived a child that was not naturally his.

2. He led his family out of the land that was their home, to a far-away and foriegn land, with little more than the clothes on their back and sandles on their feet, to avoid the wrath of Herod.

Think about that. If you were asked to make decisions like these, to take such decisive and counter-intuitive actions based on what had come to you in a dream, would you have the courage to do it? I'd like to hope that I would have the courage to do so, but often times it is difficult enough just to get the family to sit down to prayer, or to decline a request to work extra hours when it would be to the detriment of my family. St. Joseph did exhibit this courage, and in doing so provided us all a very simple and powerful example of how we should live our lives:

1. Trust God with everything. And I mean everything, not just the big decisions or help needed in moments of desperation. He is certainly needed there, but he also wants to enter into the small, sometimes seemingly insignificant moments and daily issues of our lives. Call on his help and he will provided the help that is needed (which is not always the same as what we want).

2. Love and trust Mary. Trust her implicity, for she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and a powerful intercessor. St. Joseph had to trust in her and in what was revealed to about her pregnancy through the angel, though by all external appearances the situation was scandalous enough that, by Jewish law, she could have been stoned. But Joseph, no doubt knowing her purity of heart, made the decision to remain with her. We should do the same.

3. Remain close to Jesus. St. Joseph did this because it was entrusted to him by God. Now that Christ has been revealed to us in the flesh, by taking on and suffering in a human body and leaving us the gift of the most Holy Eucharist, we are also entrusted with making a home for him in our hearts and in our families. Invite him in, consecrate yourselves and your families to him, and the blessings and peace that follow will be beyond compare, both in this life and in the next.

St. Joseph, Terror of Demons, pray for us!

+AMDG+

Solemnity of Mary, Holy Mother of God (A Brief Recap of Ephesus)

2017-01-01T07:07:00.002-06:00

One of the most beautiful characteristics about Holy Mother Church, and evidence of the protection of her magisterium by the Holy Spirit, is that, when confronted with the spread of error and heresy, she, in her wisdom responds responds with an even more powerful and beautiful affirmation of truth. Such is the case with the addressing of error that led to the solemnity we celebrate today.

In the early 5th Century AD, fresh on the heels of confronting and dispelling the Arian heresy, which rejected the fundamental truth that Christ was fully God, along with being fully man, a Second Great Heresy came to a head. With the Heresy of Nestorianism, another error was brought forth another error that spread deeply into the Church, namely that Mary was only the mother of the Lord's human nature, but not of his divine nature (implying that he had, somehow, come into possession of his divine nature at some time after the Annunciation and his Nativity). This heresy was an affront to the central teaching of the Incarnation, that Christ's two natures, human and divine, were fully united in one person, from the moment of his conception in Mary’s womb.

To confront this error, the Council of Ephesus was called in 431AD to provide a response to the heresy. Led by St Cyril, patriarch/archbishop of Alexandria, the Council reaffirmed the use of the title "Theotokos," (Greek "Mother of God" or "God-bearer") to reaffirm the central truth of what occurred in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

These affirmations are captured in St Cyril's letters addressing the heresy before, during and after the Council:

"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430])

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430])

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).

And, finally, from the concluding document of the Council itself (bold emphasis mine):

"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).

It is incredibly compelling and encouraging to dig into the history of historical controversies in the Church, particularly where we can see in hindsight how she truly works with the mind of God in responding to error, heresy, and untruth. She is no stranger to controversy (as our Lord promised would be the case), and these errors that result from the sinfulness of man come with the requisite consequences of pain, strife, and division. However, in her wisdom and time, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, she always responds as any wise mother should, with the perfect balance of patience and firmness: patience, in allowing her errant children to own and correct their error, and firmness, in forcefully correcting the error when the errant fail do to so themselves.

If you would like to spend a little extra time digging in, a few additional resources are linked below, including the Vatican's official record of the council and highlights from the Church fathers reflecting on the truth of the Incarnation and Mary's title as Theotokos. In the mean time, have a happy, holy, and blessed Happy New Year, and thanks be to God for giving us such a wise mother to lead us patiently and firmly into the fullness of Truth about himself!

From the Introduction of the Council history and documents:

Nestorius, who had been condemned in a council at Rome on 11 August 430, asked the emperor Theodosius II to summon this council. The emperor therefore decided to summon it together with his co-emperor Valentinian III and with the agreement of Pope Celestine I. Theodosius's letter of 19 November 430 requested all those who had been summoned to be present at Ephesus on 7 June 431, the feast of Pentecost.

On 22 June, however, before the arrival either of the Roman legates or the eastern bishops led byJohn of Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria.

Nestorius was summoned three times but did not come.

His teaching was examined and judgment passed upon it, which 197 bishops subscribed at once and others later accepted.

Shortly afterwards John of Antioch and the easterners arrived: they refused communion with Cyril and set up another council. The Roman Legates (the bishops Arcadius and Projectus and the priest Philip), on arriving, joined Cyril and confirmed the sentence against Nestorius. Then the council in its fifth session on 17 July excommunicated John and his party.

The documents of the Cyrilline council...are included below and are as follows.

The central dogmatic act of the council is its judgment about whether the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, or Nestorius's second letter to Cyril, was in conformity with the Nicene creed which was recited at the opening of the council's proceedings.

Cyril's letter was declared by the fathers to be in agreement with Nicaea,

Nestorius's was condemned

Both are here printed. Mention is made of Cyril's letter in the definition of Chalcedon.

The 12 anathemas and the preceding explanatory letter, which had been produced by Cyril and the synod of Alexandria in 430 and sent to Nestorius, were read at Ephesus and included the proceedings

The decision about Nestorius.

The letter of the council advising all the bishops, clergy and people about the condemnation of John of Antioch; and some paragraphs dealing with the discipline of the Nestorian party.

A decree on the faith, approved in the sixth session on 22 July, which confirmed the Nicene creed, ordered adherence to that alone and forbade the production of new creeds.

A definition against the Messalians.

A decree about the autonomy of the church of Cyprus.

Second letter of Cyril to Nestorius - approved

Second letter of Nestorius to Cyril - condemned

Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius - approved

Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril and accepted by the Council of Ephesus

The judgment against Nestorius

Synodical letter about the expulsion of the eastern bishops (et al.)

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

Definition against the impious Messalians or Euchites

Resolution : that the bishops of Cyprus may themselves conduct ordinations

Formula of union between Cyrill and John of Antioch

Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch about peace

Excerpt from the Council of Chalcedon accepting the Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch about peace.

Quotes from the Council of Ephesus & Church Fathers (from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god)

Cyril of Alexandria

"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).

Council of Ephesus

"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431])

Vincent of Lerins

"Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ" (The Notebooks 12[35] [A.D. 434]).

Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinctpersons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.

Irenaeus

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189])

Hippolytus

"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217])

Gregory the Wonderworker

"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262])

"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria

"They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324])

Methodius

"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14)

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350])

Ephraim the Syrian

"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius

"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan

"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianz

"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401])

"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

John Cassian

"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).

God With Us (Emmanuel)

2016-12-24T17:00:00.000-06:00

GOD IS WITH US

The God of creation, of all things visible and invisible, and through whom all things came into being, is here. Not in some symbolic, ethereal way, but real, 100% in the flesh, pouring all of his divinity into all of our humanity. Since we were (and still are) powerless to fix our own broken, pitiful state, he has come as one of us (not like one of us...as one of us) to fix it himself for eternity and to offer us our share in the work in time.

The people who walked in darkness

have seen a great light;

Upon those who lived in a land of gloom

a light has shone.

You have brought them abundant joy

and great rejoicing;

They rejoice before you as people rejoice at harvest,

as they exult when dividing the spoils.

For the yoke that burdened them,

the pole on their shoulder,

The rod of their taskmaster,

you have smashed, as on the day of Midian.

For every boot that tramped in battle,

every cloak rolled in blood,

will be burned as fuel for fire.

For a child is born to us, a son is given to us;

upon his shoulder dominion rests.

They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero,

Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.

His dominion is vast

and forever peaceful,

Upon David’s throne, and over his kingdom,

which he confirms and sustains

By judgment and justice,

both now and forever.

The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this!

-Isaiah 9:1-6
+AMDG+

From A Line of Sinners

2016-12-17T07:28:00.002-06:00

As we begin the last week of Advent and the countdown to Christmas, in this post (originally from December 24, 2013), let's reflect on the significance of Christ choosing to count both the best and the worst of humanity among his ancestors. Today's Gospel reading, Matthew's account of the genealogy of Our Lord (Mt 1:1-17) is packed with more than meets the eye

"For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians: 22-24)

I once heard it said that, if you really want to know someone, you've got to know where they came from and where they're headed. The only thing that could probably be added to that is the present. Along with the past and future, you've got to know someone's here and now, to meet them in their present life circumstances. To really enter into relationship, in particular the type of caritas or agape relationship that God calls us to, and that we are called to seek out in each other, there has to be a genuine interest in the heart, in seeking out what influences push and pull it, and a willingness to enter into the broken and ugly pieces that we all carry around with us.

This is one way I've been led to approach the the question, "Who is Christ? Who is this man that we claim worship as God?" We could spend an eternity exploring and reflecting on the person of the God-man, of mystery of Emmanuel (God with us) and, by his grace, one day we will...for eternity. After all, isn't that what heaven is about? Isn't it about being immersed in the power of divine relationship, of perfect love incarnate, and of the unlimited truth, goodness, and beauty that we only catch fleeting and limited glimpses of during our walk in this valley of tears? Isn't it living with full consciouness and perfect knowledge of the One who not only created us, but who loved us with such self-abandon that he lowered himself to give up his life, choosing mercy beyond justice so as not to leave us in the squalor and suffering of our sin? If not I'm not sure that I would want any other idea of heaven, or any other God, at least for eternity.

As for there here and now, I'll narrow it to the question of the Who of The Five W's: the person of Christ as One who came to enter into relationship with us and literally save us from ourselves, in the past, present, and future. He took on a human identity without giving up his divinity so that we might know that, despite our frail humanity, we are no longer bound by the pain of our past, by our present circumstances, or by the future that we so often look into with both hope and fear because we are so powerless to control it. By entering into our humanity, he literally bent time, condescending (lowering himself) to at once dwell with us as the fulfillment of the hope of our ancestors in faith, as leader and our constant companion on our life's journey, and to raise us to the intended dignity and show us the glorious destiny he has won for us and destined us for by his passion, death, and resurrection.

Past
In the December 16th reflection of Watch for the Light: Readings for Advent and Christmas, entitled Genealogy and Grace, Gail Godwin offers a reflection on Matthew's purpose in beginning his Gospel by recounting the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:1-17), and particularly his inclusion of people who were "...not necessarily the noblest or most deserving person[s] to carry out divine purposes."

For reasons unknown to us, God may select the Judahs who sell their brothers into slavery, the Jacobs who cheat their way to first place, the Davids who steal wives and murder rivals - but also compose profound and beautiful psalms of praise.

And what about the five women Matthew choses to include? Not a mention of Sarah or Rebekah or Rachel, the upstanding patriarchal wives of Israel. Instead Tamar, a Cananite, who disguised herself as a prostitute and seduced her father-in-law Judah to get a son out of him. And Rahab, another Cananite and a real prostitute this time. And Ruth the Moabite, another outsider. And Bathsheba, mother of Solomon, is named only as the wife of Uriah, whom King David had killed so he could marry her himself. Every one of these women used as God's instrument had scandal or aspersion attached to her-as does the fifth and final woman named in the genealogy: Mary, the mother of Jesus, with her unconventional pregnancy.

Matthew's intent in highlighting these women is to make the point that Christ, who as God was able to plan and choose his own lineage, did so in a way that made a bold and profound statement: that he desired to come to us not with the appearance and glory of God (as he is and will return), but in the humility of a 100% human being with very much imperfect ancestors. In doing so, took on our sin not by sinning himself, but by assuming the sins of the past and all time onto himself. At the same time, in choosing to singularly exempt Mary from this stain of sin, he reversed our trajectory from darkness and sin to light and redemption and prepared for himself a perfect flesh-and-blood tabernacle from which to enter into the world. Christ chose to enter the nastiness, pain, and fear, and death of a fallen humanity rather than abandon us to the fate we deserved. He chose love and mercy beyond justice. Only God could plan that kind of entrance.

And that is where we are arrive at Christmas. Light has pierced the darkness. God with us has come into the world, to take the burden of our fallen and broken state onto himself, beginning with the past, because only he as God is strong enough and wise enough to rid us of it once and for all.

+AMDG+

What is Truth?

2016-07-24T07:17:00.000-05:00

The collective chaos and insanity that seems to be casting its shadow over over the world has led me to to the thought: How does this come to be, that human beings are so willing, even eager, to cast aside the humanity of other people and, instead, to view them as objects that need to be destroyed? Why does the world seem to descending (as my pastor put it in his Sunday homily) descending into a "collective nervous breakdown?" What first comes to mind is that humanity, as a whole, seems to be experiencing the same phenomenon that anyone might experience individually when their perception of reality, of who they are, who others are, and what the relationship between them ought to be becomes detached from what they actually are or ought to be. We are receiving the full prescription of idolaters, accounted by St Paul in his letter to the Romans (bold emphasis mine):

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. - Romans 1:18-31

Originally Posted July 18, 2011

What is Truth?

Those three words, asked of Jesus by Pilate as he stood falsely accused (cf. John 18:38), reverberate through history. They seem to be amplified today, at a time when so many in our culture searching for the answer without finding it, or worse, have given up asking the question altogether. Despite the temptation to give up in the face of what seems to be so much diversion and misinformation, the question has to be asked and cannot be avoided, for Truth cannot be found unless it (He) is sought with sincerity of heart. The greatest danger lies when the seeker asks the question as a "loaded" question, with unmovable skepticism, and refuses to believe that it can lead to any answer other than that it is unanswerable.

The question, and the scene that surrounds it, are the centerpiece of the Pope's discussion in Chapter 4. He begins the chapter by reflecting briefly on the prerequisite condition of freedom, that eventually leads into the deeper discussion:

The participation of everyone in power is the hallmark of freedom. No one is to be merely the object of rule by others or only a person under control; everyone ought to be able to make a voluntary contribution to the totality of political activity. We can all be free citizens only if we all have a genuine share in decision making.

So, to be truly free, we must all be able to contribute our "two cents," and know that our opinions are heard, weighed, and valued. But being free in the sense of society does not mean being free to act on whatever whim we choose. That freedom itself has to be anchored, grounded in something:

...the freedom of the individual to order his own life is declared to be the real goal of societal life. Community has no value whatever in itself but exists only to allow the individual to be himself. However, if the individual freedom...as the highest goal lacks contents, it dissolves into thin air, since individual freedom can exist only when freedoms are correctly ordered.

So our freedom must be ordered, or oriented, toward something in order to have meaning. But, if we have billions of people, each a sovereign, what common goal or purpose can their freedom all be oriented toward? Probably the most common and widely accepted answer is the "common good" (i.e. the best possible opportunity for each individual to reach their full human potential, not to be confused with the collective good of society at large). But even the "common good" of man remains vague and has to be further defined and grounded.

When it comes to evaluating the ultimate goal of a democratic form of government, digging deeper into the meaning of the common good leads to one of two positions.

1. First, the radical relativistic position, which makes the governing activity itself the highest source of good, by replacing the historical, Christian concept of good and goodness with the idea that will of the majority ultimately decides and comes to occupy the position of "truth." This is the secular-humanistic view, and is the basis of pure democracy.

2. Second, the "truth first" argument that, to quote the Holy Father, "truth is not a product of politics (the majority) but is antecedent to political activity and sheds light on it. It is not praxis that creates truth but truth that makes praxis possible." This is the Christian view, and is the foundation of the republican form of government that began to be explored even before the time of Christ by Plato and Aristotle, where certain preexisting realities (what our Founders referred to as inalienable rights) set boundaries on the power of the state, which derives its power, in turn, from the consent of the people.

In his conclusions, the Pope notes that, in order to properly fulfill its role of regulating society the state must "[create] a balance of freedom and good things that allows each individual to lead a life worthy of man." This requires some power to guarantee the law, but it must remain clear that the government must use its power to "safeguard the rights of each individual and the welfare of all. It is not the task of the state to create mankind's happiness, nor is it the task of the state to create new men. It is not the task of the state to change the world into paradise--nor can it do so."

The bottom line is that, to preserve freedom grounded in truth, that state must "receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good." Further,

According to Maritain, the primary right of a people to govern itself can never become a right to decide everything.

This reality--the clashing of two opposing views--plays out briefly and dramatically in the exchange between Christ and Pilate. Referring to the German scholar Heinrich Schlier, who wrote against groups within the Protestant churches who cooperated with the buildup of National Socialism, the Holy Father notes that, according to Schlier,

...although Jesus in his trial acknowledges the judicial authority of the state represented by Pilate, he also sets limits to this authority by saying that Pilate does not possess this authority on his own account but has it "from above" (19:11). Pilate falsifies his power, and...the power of the state, as soon as he ceases to exercise it as the faithful administrator of a higher order that depends on truth.

Jesus didn't comment on which specific form of government would best serve the needs of man and society, but he did lay out, in this exchange, what a government--no matter what its form--could never do. It could never take the place of God or supplant his truths with the will of a fallible majority. The minute it seeks to do so, and attempts to eliminate him from the position of ultimate authority, it loses any legitimate claim of power.

+AMDG+

Why We Call Friday "Good"

2016-03-25T06:09:00.001-05:00

(Originally posted April 3, 2015)

Yet it was our infirmities that he bore,
our sufferings that he endured,
while we thought of him as stricken,
as one smitten by God and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our offenses,
crushed for our sins;
upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole,
by his stripes we were healed.
We had all gone astray like sheep,
each following his own way;
but the LORD laid upon him
the guilt of us all.

(Is 53:4-6)

It is accomplished.

(Jn 16:30)

Waking to New Life

2015-04-04T20:00:00.000-05:00

(Repost from April 9, 2012)

Alleluia! Christ is Risen! He is risen indeed!

One of the (many) things I love about being Catholic is that Easter is not just one day. It's a whole week, followed by another six weeks of joy of the risen Christ, culminating in another celebration, the "birthday" of the Church on Pentecost. When celebrating the single greatest event in human history, the conquering of mankind's greatest, common foes--sin and death--by the God Man who came among us, celebrating for one day, or even a few days, simply will not do. But that is not why I wanted to write today, so I'll save a few more thoughts on that for later.

What was the experience of rising from the dead like? What was Christ's personal experience of having the surge of supernatural energy regenerate his lifeless body into a glorified, immortal state, and how unimaginable must the joy have been when he first greeted his mother, whose fiat had allowed him to take on human flesh. One day we hope to know the answers to those and many other questions, but for now, let us be satisfied to live in the joy of their certainty by pondering, reflecting, and adoring.

Walking by Faith: The Courageous Example of St. Joseph

2015-03-19T04:59:00.000-05:00

For we walk by faith, not by sight ~2 Corinthians 5:7

Courage

2015-01-11T20:02:00.001-06:00

Do you know who Kathy Taylor is? I didn't either until this Lifenews story profiling her courageous (and short) battle to give her unborn son, Luke, a chance at life, despite the aggressive melanoma that had spread throughout her body during her pregnancy. She passed on New Year's Day, at the too-young age of 33, preceded by Luke, who was delivered prematurely and died at two weeks of age. It is a tremendously sad story, and my heart breaks for her husband, Nathan, and their five older children.

Nathan has been blogging at Kathy's Miracle, both during her struggle with the terrible disease,and in the week or so since her passing. You will have to read the blog to grasp the emotions. Of course there is pain beyond what those of us who have not experienced the untimely loss of a spouse cannot imagine, though as he keenly points out in the January 6 post, "Perfected in Christ," all who truly share the depth of the bond of married love, as it was intended by, will one day feel.

But that is not all...

What pervades his writing is a sense of (1) hope beyond the pain, of rejoicing in the perfection of character that the pain brings about and hope in Resurrection and the future life to come, where the very real but temporary pain and struggle of this world will be a distant memory; and (2) of real courage, the kind of courage that, along with hope, pulls through the pain and fear.

Kathy's story--and Nathan's after their passing--beyond all else is one of courage.

O Emmanuel - God With Us

2014-12-23T04:41:00.000-06:00

On the 23rd of December, the Church prays together the last of the seven traditional O Antiphons composed in the Seventh and Eighth centuries as short, simple reflections on the Old Testament prophetic writings foretelling the coming of Christ. They are traditionally prayed during final seven days of Advent. In more recent times, the O Antiphons have been sung in a different form in the hymn, Veni, Veni Emmanuel (O Come, O Come, Emmanuel)

The O Antiphons are perfect for a family or community to incorporate into night prayers during those final seven days, December 17-23, and hopefully can be a resource for you and your family in future Advents.

Here is the text of the O Emmanuel antiphon:

LATIN: O Emmanuel, Rex et legifer noster, exspectatio gentium, et Salvator earum: veni ad salvandum nos Domine Deus noster.

ENGLISH: O Emmanuel, God with us, our King and lawgiver, the expected of the nations and their Savior: come to save us, O Lord our God.

Although the calendar date is passed for this year, Christmas Eve still presents wonderful opportunity to pull away from the commercialized "magic" to reflect on the profoundness of the real meaning of Christmas, as the first phrase of O Emmanuel expresses, God with us.

On this eve, the power of the incarnation comes to its full fruition, as Mary bears God himself to the world. Stop and take a few minutes today (and tomorrow too) to think about that...

GOD IS WITH US

Yep, the God of creation, of all things visible and invisible, is here. Not in some symbolic, ethereal way, but real, 100% in the flesh, pouring all of his divinity into all of our humanity. Since we were (and still are) powerless to fix our own broken, pitiful state, he has come as one of us (not like one of us...as one of us) to fix it himself for eternity and to offer us our share in the work in time.

I'll leave it at that for now. Just take a few minutes today, wherever and however you can find a quiet moment, to think about the significance of what happened in that stable in Bethlehem so many years ago.

+AMDG+

From a Line of Sinners

2014-12-21T20:29:00.002-06:00

For reasons unknown to us, God may select the Judahs who sell their brothers into slavery, the Jacobs who cheat their way to first place, the Davids who steal wives and murder rivals - but also compose profound and beautiful psalms of praise.

And what about the five women Matthew choses to include? Not a mention of Sarah or Rebekah or Rachel, the upstanding patriarchal wives of Israel. Instead Tamar, a Cananite, who disguised herself as a prostitute and seduced her father-in-law Judah to get a son out of him. And Rahab, another Cananite and a real prostitute this time. And Ruth the Moabite, another outsider. And Bathsheba, mother of Solomon, is named only as the wife of Uriah, whom King David had killed so he could marry her himself. Every one of these women used as God's instrument had scandal or aspersion attached to her-as does the fifth and final woman named in the genealogy: Mary, the mother of Jesus, with her unconventional pregnancy.

Muslim Go Boom! - WND Commentary by Matt Barber

2014-12-13T21:12:00.000-06:00

This is by far the best commentary/op-ed I've come across all week. Matt Barber (entertainingly) argues the stark truth, that:

"Islam is Christianity's photo negative," and ISIS is its historical and logical manifestation
"The common enemy to both the Muslim and the “progressive” is truth. The common enemy is Christ."

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/muslim-go-boom/#BUiszgZrTpR7JR3z.99

Cleaning House

2014-12-07T14:11:00.000-06:00

Do you or have you ever met someone who enjoys cleaning? I mean really enjoys it, as if there were nothing else the person could see themselves doing more than cleaning. When someone tells me they do, it automatically raises the question, at least in my head: Really? Do you really enjoy it, for it's own sake? Don't get me wrong, I ~~like~~ love a clean room, clean house, clean garage, clean car, clean clothes...you name it. There's just a deep-down, simple, good feeling that comes from having things sorted, straightened, unsoiled, and fresh, especially when it has been returned from the alternative state. There's just something in the normal, rational, god-fearing human soul that gravitates toward things being that way. There really is more truth to the old adage, "Cleanliness is next to godliness" than meets the eye.

But, cleanliness is an end state. The process to get there, of expending time and sweat to put things back the way we wished they had been all along, isn't nearly as fun as being there. On second thought, it just isn't fun period. Not at all. For me at least, it usually comes more out of necessity than of choice, and has to be disciplined and enforced (parents, you know how this goes, right?). I can almost always think of at least a half dozen other things I'd rather be doing, or places I'd rather be, like reading, taking a nice long run, you name it.

One of the greatest motivators to just get it done when it comes to cleaning is the arrival of guests. Knowing that they are coming to visit suddenly gives us a sort of hyper awareness of everything in the house that isn't absolutely immaculate. Those dust bunnies that have been hanging out under the bed for a few weeks now? Odds are the guests will never, ever lift up your covers to see them, but you know they're there and with just the the thought of it, they might as well be screaming out loud enough for the neighborhood to hear, "Clean me. Clean me!"

Back the the "unfunness" of the task at hand (can you tell how much I haven't felts like cleaning this weekend?)... Heck, we here in American despise cleaning so much--and our time doing anything but is so precious to us--that we even outsource it. We have an entire industry built around providing cleaning services, both at home and in the workplace. And even when we don't pay directly for someone else to do it, we consult with others about how to clean up because we don't even have time to think and plan how to do it. Sometimes we pay big bucks for this too, for someone to think for us and tell us what needs to be cleaned and how we should do it.

Not only that, but once the end state of having everything clean and in its proper place is attained, it's so easily lost. I mean it's just downright demoralizing, isn't it? I don't know how many times I have spent the better part of a weekend cleaning our garage, organized everything, sweeping, re-arranging shelves, and re-establishing a system for maintaining that hard-earned end state, all the while thinking, "This time it will work. It will stay clean, everything that's used will put back in it's place, I will never have to spend hours cleaning again, and the life of garage storage will go on happily ever after."

Mmm hmm...Riiiight. Somehow it just doesn't work out that way, and in a matter of days, weeks, or months later, it seems like we are back to square one and needing another round of neatness intervention. I think we all (sane people anyway) really do like to have things as they should be. It's the process of getting there that's not fun, and keeping things that way can seem downright impossible.

And so it is with the spiritual life.

The Church, recognizing that we need a periodic reminder to set aside time to sweep and straighten the "house" of our souls, gives us Advent season as a dedicated time to prepare for the arrival of the most important house guest, the King of all creation.

The readings for today, the Second Sunday of Advent, begin with one of my favorite (and perhaps one of the most well known) verses from Old Testament scripture: the prophet Isaiah's message of hope and promise of salvation that flows from the old covenant into the new. Through the prophet, God speaks to remind us both of our need to diligently and expeditiously "prepare the way of the Lord," to get about the nitty gritty work of cleaning house, so to speak, in our souls, all the while lifting our eyes and hearts to the hope of the future kingdom.

A voice proclaims:

In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD!

Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God!

Every valley shall be lifted up,

every mountain and hill made low;

The rugged land shall be a plain,

the rough country, a broad valley.

Then the glory of the LORD shall be revealed,

and all flesh shall see it together;

for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

A voice says, “Proclaim!”

I answer, “What shall I proclaim?”

“All flesh is grass,

and all their loyalty like the flower of the field.

The grass withers, the flower wilts,

when the breath of the LORD blows upon it.”

“Yes, the people is grass!

The grass withers, the flower wilts,

but the word of our God stands forever.”

Go up onto a high mountain,

Zion, herald of good news!

Cry out at the top of your voice,

Jerusalem, herald of good news!

Cry out, do not fear!

Say to the cities of Judah:

Here is your God!

Here comes with power

the Lord GOD,

who rules by his strong arm;

Here is his reward with him,

his recompense before him.

Like a shepherd he feeds his flock;

in his arms he gathers the lambs,

Carrying them in his bosom,
leading the ewes with care.

- Isaiah 40:3-11 (NAB)

With these words, the prophet points us forward through the trials, difficulties, and flat out spiritual warfare--with our own personal sins and the societal evil that we seem so powerless to cure--to look toward the fullness of time, when the "space" of creation, dragged down through history by man's sin and disobedience, will be restored to its immaculate end, to our promised salvation and the fullness of God's kingdom, as St Peter writes in the conclusion of the second reading:

But according to his promise
we await new heavens and a new earth
in which righteousness dwells.
Therefore, beloved, since you await these things,
be eager to be found without spot or blemish before him, at peace.

-2 Pt 3:13-14

As I mentioned in a previous post from 2/14/2010, Now Comes the Best Part, the most beautiful and concrete way to take up this spiritual house cleaning, and to get rid of the sin that mires and clutters our souls, is to make a good confession. It is often a very difficult and laborious experience to have to voice our failings and shortcomings, but as with all cleaning work, it must be done, and habit makes it easier. And the result after this cleaning is complete is joy and encouragement as our soul is swept clean. So, during this Advent season, let us hasten to make way in our own hearts for the coming of He who seeks to dwell there, and by doing so bring a little light, fresh air, and clarity, to our own little part of his kingdom.

+AMDG+

Identity Crisis

2014-08-10T07:07:00.000-05:00

So my girls have completely fallen in love with the Lion King. Who would've thought, a 20-year-old Disney flick would capture their attention, and so quickly supplant Frozen? Well, partially anyway. It's their (and, by proxy, my) favorite character story du jor, so...yes I'm going to go there and write about a Disney movie on a blog about cultural warfare.

As we were watching it during one of our recent Friday pizza-and-movie nights, the story eventually came to the scene where the now-adult Simba, who was driven out by the searing indictment of his conniving and power-hungry uncle Scar, begins to ask questions and wonder what he's supposed to be doing with his life. Sounds familiar, right? Young man grows up with little or no guidance, and suddenly finds himself an adult groping for direction in his life. As Simba starts seeking for answers, he is led by Rafiki, the wise sage baboon, to look at his own reflection. At first he finds it pointless, but directed back again by Rafiki, he looks deeper into his image for that of his father.

Here's the scene:

So...could we consider this snippet from a children's story in the light of our own wandering and groping for identity? How often have we given into the accusations of the world, particularly of the accuser, the father of lies (cf. John 8:44)? How often do we believe that we can't do it, that we're not good/strong/handsome/beautiful/holy/worthy enough of the lofty tasks set aside for us from the foundations of the world? Most of the time this slide into believing the accusations doesn't happen out of malice, so much as it does because we take the easy road out to satisfying our deep-seeded human need for belonging and acceptance.

After all, isn't it so much easier just to allow the answers in through our five senses--from the world--than to take the time to look inside, to recognize and water the seed that our Creator has put in us? Instead of looking to the One who so desires to be the ultimate source of our affirmation, for who we are, we allow noise and din of the world to begin to answer the question for us. And the answer is... "You are only as (fill in the blank with a desirable trait) as we say that you are." We can even begin to let the accusations and the anxiety that flows from them define us. We trade the peace and freedom that comes from grounding in the truth of who we are for the worry and bondage of believing lies.

I know I have. A lot. I will forever be a recovering lie-believer.

But those lies are not who we are or what we were made for.

St. Paul gives us what is arguably the most poignant reminder of who we are in his Letter to the Romans (8:14-17):

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba, Father!”

The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

Let's rewind and review that one more time. So, according to St. Paul we are:

1. Children of God. That is, children of a perfect Father, who wants us to call him "Daddy!" as obedient children do, more than "Master."

2. Joint heirs with Christ. Our Lord, the second person of the Trinity, by descending into our humanity, now raises us up to a share in the glory of his divinity. Christ came and suffered for us--and the ultimate Father sacrificed his only son--so that we could be like him in all things but being. (A previous post from June 3, 2013, Gods and Goddesses, has more on that). The Second Person of the Trinity lowered himself to walk among us as brother and friend.

Think about that. Let it sink in, and do it often, because that is the point of truth that the enemy most wants us to forget.

Paul also reminded his spiritual son, Timothy, as he gave him encouragement and "marching orders" in his second letter: "For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control." (2 Tim 1:7)

Of course. That only makes sense. God doesn't remake us into his children, ask us to call on him as Daddy, then just leave us to our own fallen, weak, broken devices. That would be the ultimate cruelty, (another of the original lies, the first proposed in the garden:"Does he really want what's best for you, or is he holding out?" [cf. Gen 3:1,5]).

The truth is quite the opposite: He gives us everything we need, although that is seldom what we think we need. The refrain of the old Lonestar song, Mountains, comes to mind. "The good Lord gave us mountains, so we could learn how to climb."

Other words come to mind, from St Thomas More, about how incapable we are of judging our own needs and controlling our fate in this life.

So blind are we in this mortal life, and so unaware of what will happen, so uncertain of even how we will think tomorrow, that God could not take vengeance on a man more easily in this world than by granting his own foolish wishes.

Saint Thomas More

So what are we to do with this? The implications of being The answer to that could be a whole other book, volumes really, and I'll have to write more about that later (Part 2?). But for now, let it suffice to say that we only need to follow Mufasa's advice:

Remember who you are. That is, sons, daughters, and heirs of the living God, the King of kings, who are called to struggle and suffer toward perfection now so that we might rejoice and share in his glory forever.

No more and no less.

+AMDG+

European court: Gay marriage is not a human right - Lifesite News

2014-08-06T21:01:00.001-05:00

This is stunning (for me, anyway...in a good way) and is the last thing I would have expected to come out of the European Human Rights Court. The first sentence from the summary paragraphs below almost had me pinching myself:

The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law.

The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations.

Read the entire article here.

"No, Jesus did not bear arms, but..." - The American Spectator

2014-08-04T01:00:00.000-05:00

Behind the controversial and attention-grabbing title of Mark Tooley's article, Whom Would Jesus Shoot? in The American Spectator (July 30, 2014) lies his counterpoint and answer to a question that the Judeo-Christian tradition has answered (I believe very adequately, as I wrote about a few years ago in my three-part series, Faith and Firearms):

Does the moral imperative to pursue peace and non-violence automatically trump our responsibility to provide a legitimate defense and repel the assault of unjust aggressors against innocents and those charged to our care, using violence if necessary?

Tooley's conclusion is spot-on:

"No, Jesus in the Gospels did not bear arms. But the whole message of scripture and Christian tradition carefully allows that some of His followers may be called to bear and deploy weaponry in certain circumstances where justice requires. The ultimate question is not so much What Would Jesus Do but rather What Does Jesus Tell Us to Do?"

Read the entire article here.

Sweet and Light

2014-07-20T06:03:00.000-05:00

Ten years ago, when I first felt the nudge to return to the faith I after thinking in college that I could "write my own ticket" through life, there were some major stumbling blocks. Chief among them them my own ego. I was a young, invincible 20-something with a promising military career, and the streak of wanting to do it my own way (that is the motto and anthem of hell, by the way) made the commitment to jump with both feet to a life on God's terms very difficult.

So...I didn't.

Plans to live it up on my turns stifled any ability to listen to God's plans. I thought as long as I could "punch the ticket" on Sunday morning, did a few good deeds here and there, and didn't murder anybody, the rest of life was mine to live as I please. Needless to say, I was deaf to any calling he was making of me, and even if I had heard it there was no desire whatsoever to carry out someone else's plans, even if that someone did happen to me the Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible.

Thanks be to god that he quickly broke that status quo and supplied the humility I needed, and has continued with maintenance doses of many and varied forms throughout the past decade of adult life. I say thanks be to God because, a dose of humility from without is a bitter but necessary pill, to clean and sweep our souls for a true indwelling, and without it, the words spoken by our Lord in this past week's Thursday Gospel would have continued to be nothing but noise and mystery to me:

"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy and my burden light" (Mt 11:29-30)

"What? Easy and light?" would have been my response back then. "All these rules and commandments about what I can and can't do, and how I am obligated to love even complete strangers and even my enemies, how I'm supposed to carry a cross through life and accept any struggle, pain, and humiliation that comes with it? How in the heck is that easy and light? Sounds like a bum deal."

It is only with humility, whether found within (the easy way) or given from without (the hard way) that the sweetness and lightness of the yoke comes comes. The 14th Century Domincan priest, Father John Tauler (+1361), explained the idea further far better than I ever could:

Now, to what people is this yoke sweet and light, as they accept it and bear it along? Surely only to those whose thoughts are turned inward in search of God, and quite turned away from all created things. Children, our souls ever stand on the boundary line between time and eternity. If we turn toward time, we shall without doubt forget eternity, and soon be led far away from the things of God. Whatever we see from a distance looks small; whatever we see close at hand looks large, for there is but little intervening space. Thus the sun is many times larger than the earth, but if reflected in a cup of clear water on a summer's midday it seems no bigger than a little bean, and any little object that should come between the sun and that mirror would be large enough to take away entirely the image of the great luminary.

So it is with a man's soul. No matter how trifling may be the earthly image he places in the depths of his soul, it is enough to interfere with God's life shining there; the infinite good that God is may easily be hindered from entering and possessing the soul of a man. And this is equally true when it happens that the image in the soul is not an evil and little thing, but a great and really good thing; it may hinder the entrance of God, who is without any image or intermediary whatsoever. Know, therefore, for a certainty, that in whatever soul the infinitely good God shall be mirrored, it must be totally freed and emptied of all images; if the soul reflects a single created thing, that is enough to exclude the reflection of God. All souls who have not established in their very depths this freedom from creatures, who have not uncovered and laid bare before God their innermost recesses, are as yet only scullions in the divine service, and to them God's yoke is bitter. And, says Origen, the man who has not looked into the deeper depths of his being has a plain sign, that as yet he has not tasted of the eternal sweetness of God....And all who cleanse the mirror of their souls perfectly clear of the images of created things, so that God may pour in the sunlight of his divinity quite unobstructed, to them his yoke is sweet beyond all other possible sweetness.

Indeed. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the world's yoke is crushing. Why else in a world where we are supposed to have so much to make us comfortable--and where even the poor among us live better than most of the wealthy did just a few hundred years ago--are so many people, even people of means, so depressed, anxious, and hungry and thirsty for meaning in life. Why is it that the emptiness and loneliness is sometimes far greater when the trappings are more plentiful, and that the world with its plethora of feel-good psychology, conscience-is-king pop spirituality, and the use of antidepressants has skyrocketed in the last two decades?

We as people being spiritually killed by the yokes we have allowed the world to place around our necks. For a broken world that sees us not as people longing for answers to the deepest questions of the heart, but as commodities to be bought and sold, all it can offer is temporary, fleeting happiness at best, and at worst (more often than not) disappointment and bitter brokenness. So, why not try out the yoke that the Master of hearts, the one who can only answer the questions of the heart with truth because by his very nature he is only capable of truth? Why not let him clean off the mirror of our souls as he desperately wishes to do. After all, what have we to lose? In the case of the world and what it wishes to take, it is only eternal peace.

+AMDG+

A Love Without End, Amen

2014-07-16T21:18:00.001-05:00

Following on Monday's Post about the crisis of fatherhood, here's the positive side, the simple message of a father's love that's a little more easy on the ears.

"Daddies don't just love their children every now and then...It's a love without end, amen."

The truth, like only George can sing it....

The Crisis in Society is a Crisis of Fatherhood (AudioSancto)

2014-07-14T21:30:00.002-05:00

WARNING!!! Includes statements that are non-PC, gender distinct, and highlight rather than diminish the differences in needs between girls and boys that only father in shaping childrens' identity. "Church of nice" listeners beware!

This is a tremendous sermon by one of our local priests, one of many posted weekly at http://www.audiosancto.org/.

Download link: http://files.audiosancto.org/20140615-The-Crisis-in-Society-is-a-Crisis-of-Fatherhood.mp3

Here are links to the books referenced by the priest (I have not had a chance to read them yet, but have them on my list and look forward to posting a few more tidbits):

Legacy: A Father's Handbook for Raising Godly Children by Steve Wood

Father, The Family Protector by James Stenson

The Good of Government by Roger Scruton

2014-07-12T07:16:00.001-05:00

The conservative movement in America so often finds itself responding to the tidal wave of progressivism and expansionist government, instead of offering the good and natural (and necessary) function of government. In this must-read piece, Roger Scruton summarizes the philosophical and natural law origins of conservatism, of the limited-government roots that have made the American experiment so unique, and what conservatives must do to regain the offensive in the culture war.

"Conservatives therefore have an obligation to map out the true domain of government, and the limits beyond which action by the government is a trespass on the freedom of the citizen. But it seems to me they have failed to offer the electorate a believable blueprint for this, precisely because they have failed to see that what they are advocating is not freedom from government, but another and better kind of government..."

The Good of Government by Roger Scruton - First Things

Independence Day Reflection - When Is It Okay to Disobey?

2014-07-04T07:23:00.001-05:00

A happy and blessed Independence Day!

On this 238th birthday of our nation's independence from imperial rule, as we celebrate the blessings of liberty given to us by God and by those who have fought tirelessly to gain and preserve it, I thought I'd get started up again by reposting an oldie-but-goodie from a few years ago (March 1, 2010, to be exact).

In this reflection from the March-April 2010 issue of Catholic Answers (formerly This Rock) magazine, Fr. Frank Pavone reflects on the enormous responsibility of living as a Christian in a free society, and addresses many of the same issues as Dr. King and Pope Benedict XVI (see my previous posts from January 24 and January 31, 2010). He writes from the same tradition and understanding of the relationship between divine law and human law as St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica and Dr. King in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail (excerpts below).

Please God, let us never forget in the ins-and-outs of the daily political grind, that God's law supersedes any law created by man, always and everywhere, and that it is our responsibility to carry his truth into the here-and-now (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1897-1904 and 2234-2243).

When Is It Okay to Disobey?
Catholics and Civil Disobedience
By Fr. Frank Pavone

Imagine for a moment that a law were passed in our country outlawing attendance at Mass. What would you do? Certainly campaigns would be launched to change the law, to challenge the law in court, and to elect new leaders who would reject such a law.

But those processes could take years. The question is, what would you do in the meantime? Would you go to Mass anyway? If you are a priest, would you celebrate Mass anyway? Are there times when you would disobey the law and consider that disobedience to be morally justified?

This question goes to the heart of who we are as Christian citizens and of the relationship of the Church to the state.

The King Is Subject to a King
The Old Testament provides an excellent starting point for this question in 1 Samuel 8. The people of God are living on the land the Lord gave them. All around them, other nations are worshipping strange gods and engaging in strange rituals. One of the differences between God’s people and these other nations was that the other nations had a king. The people of Israel were always talking about the Lord, the Covenant, and the Commandments God gave to Moses, but they didn’t have a king.

So one day they go to the prophet Samuel, and ask, “Would you give us a king, please? All the other nations around us have a ruler that leads them into battle and fights their wars and provides for them, and we don’t have a king.” Samuel says, “What are you talking about? The Lord is your king!” “Yes, but we want a king like the other nations,” they reply.

So Samuel turns to the Lord, who tells Samuel to grant their request but also to warn the people that they’re going to suffer for it. And several chapters later we read the instructions that Samuel gives to the people. He says to them, "You said to me, no we want a king to rule over us. But the Lord your God was your king and now behold the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked. Behold, the Lord has set a king over you. If you will fear the Lord and serve him and hearken to his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God it will be well. But if you will not hearken to the voice of the Lord and rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king." (1 Sm 12:12b-15)

A hierarchy is established: The people obey the king. The people and the king obey the Lord.

If you read through the history of the Old Testament, you’re actually reading the history of two kingdoms interwoven one with another, the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah). And you soon discover that you are reading theological history. In other words, the events happened, but you are reading them from the perspective of God and understanding the God-related reasons why certain armies won the battles and others lost.

What Scripture is trying to convey is not the brilliant political strategies or the terrible blunders, but rather the fact that when the people and their king observed and obeyed the Covenant, things went well and God delivered their enemies away from them. But when they—often at the urging of their king and because of his sinfulness—violated the Covenant, God delivered them into the hands of their enemies.

The prophets arrived to admonish the kings and to instruct the people. The role of the prophets is very clear in the Old Testament: to reproach the kings, telling them again that they need to be faithful to the Covenant.

We Have the King’s Responsibilities
You and I are in a position today in America that gives us even more responsibility than the prophets had when they spoke to the kings. We too are prophets by our baptism into Christ. We have a prophetic role, not in the sense of telling the future but of speaking the present, interpreting present events in the light of the Word of God. We do it as clergy when we preach, but we all do it as baptized members of the faithful when we bear witness to the Word of God in our daily life. We bear greater responsibility because we have more than just the opportunity to speak to our “kings,” our rulers, those in government authority. We have the opportunity to choose them—an opportunity that the people in the Old Testament never had. We have the power to choose them. And if our system of governance works the way it’s supposed to work, we in fact govern ourselves.

What this means is that all the scriptural responsibilities that God places on the sovereign, on the king, on the ruler, are placed on us! If you read the Bible from the beginning to the end you see a whole series of very serious responsibilities placed on the shoulders of the ruler of the people. The ruler of the people was to do justice, reaffirm the Covenant, lead the people in the ways of the Lord, promote peace, defend life, and rescue the poor and the widow. All of the responsibilities of the sovereign and their people are now on us. We don’t only have the responsibility that belongs to the people; we have the responsibility that belongs to the sovereign because of our ability, our opportunity to take part in the political process.

The Church’s Yes and No
What, then, does the Church think about the state? Historically, beginning with Jesus himself, it has said to governments at the same time yes and no. And the Church maintains a delicate balance between her yes and her no. In his book, Church and State in Early Christianity, Hugo Rahner writes, “The Church has never confronted the state with a ‘no’ of inflexible refusal dictated by another worldly mysticism or with a ‘yes’ of unqualified acceptance based on political indifference. The Church of the martyrs with a sure political instinct illuminated by grace knew how to find a balance between ‘yes’ and ‘no.’”

Let’s look more closely at that yes and no.

First, the Church says a profound yes to the state, and this is rooted in a very simple fact: All authority, all power, comes from God. Therefore obeying earthly, civil authority becomes part of our obedience to God.

Scripture is filled with examples of this. Perhaps one of the most striking is in the book of the prophet Jeremiah. Even when the state and the powers of civil authority are persecuting believers, believers are exhorted to be good citizens. We read that God’s people are being taken into exile in Babylon. Yet they’re not told to create a revolution. They’re not called to overthrow the Babylonians. What are they called to do?

Thus says the Lord of hosts, to the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives, have sons and daughters. Take wives for your sons that they may bear sons and daughters. Multiply there, do not decrease. Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray to the Lord on its behalf for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jer 29:4-7)

Seek the welfare of the city even if the city is holding you in exile.

We’re even more familiar with the New Testament exhortations. Peter, for example says:

Maintain good contact among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers they may see your good deeds and glorify God . . . Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme or to governors . . . Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the emperor. (1 Pt 2:12-13, 17)

And then of course we find the exhortation to pay taxes and the example of Jesus paying the temple tax and taking the coin out of the mouth of the fish to do so.

So to put it simply, the fact that we are citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20) does not give us the right to ignore our duties as citizens of earth. One of the old criticisms of religion is that because we focus on the world to come we are less concerned about this one. But the Church’s teaching has always been very clear: Preparing for the world to come makes us more concerned about this one. After all, we want to spend eternity with the person next to us. God is preparing for us new heavens and a new earth—not some kind of totally disconnected world that has nothing to do with the things that go on in this life.

Nonetheless, the Church also says a clear no to the state. That no is grounded in the very nature of a kingdom not of this world. When Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king, Jesus replied that his kingdom was not of this world (Jn 18:36). When Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful to pay the tax to Caesar? ,” notice what Jesus does in response. He asks whose image and inscription are on the coin. They say “Caesar’s.” “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” he tells them (that’s the yes to the state) “but give to God what is God’s” (that’s the no; see Mt 17:24-27, 22:17-21). In other words there’s something higher here. There’s a duty to be given. Now, from where does that duty flow? Think of what he said. The coin belongs to Caesar because it bears the image of Caesar, so give it to him. But “give to God what belongs to God.” That belongs to God which bears the image of God, namely human beings—including Caesar himself! So Christ establishes the framework. Caesar himself belongs to God. The state itself belongs to God.

The Church has always taught that the state does not contain the fullness of human hope or embrace the totality of human existence. The state exists for the human person, not the other way around. Our destiny, ultimately, is the new heavens and the new earth. So we can never put our ultimate hope and trust in what the state can do for us. In this consists the Church’s no to the state. It frees us from the myth of some kind of political salvation. The Church is the first to say that we are not asked to put ultimate hope and trust in any political party, candidate or system. Those things do play a key role but never merit our ultimate hope or trust. Our destiny is not comprised by this world alone.

That does not mean, however, that we can shirk our responsibilities. We can’t walk away saying, “Oh, we can’t rely on those people anyway; they’re all crooked, they never keep their promises.”

God’s Law Comes First
In this context, then, we can return to the question with which we began. What would we do if a law were passed in our country outlawing attendance at Mass?

Hopefully, we would have the courage to disobey it.

The Catechism asserts in its own words the Church’s yes and no to the state in sections 1897-1904 and again in 2234 to 2243. It explains that we are “resident aliens.” Our citizenship is in heaven, and only there is our ultimate loyalty. Hence, if that loyalty conflicts with our loyalty to civic authority, loyalty to God must prevail.

Having said this, the Catechism then explicitly talks about the proper role civil disobedience can play, if circumstances warrant. We have to obey authority, it reminds us. But the role of authority “is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society” (1898). Sometimes authority will fail in doing so.

It explains such a circumstance in this way:

Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility: A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. (1902)

Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse. (1903)

Our duty in such cases is explained a bit later in the Catechism:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. (2242)

The Right to Life
In our day, the most egregious example of the failure of civil authority to maintain the common good and protect human rights is in the legalization of abortion and euthanasia. Applying the Catechism’s teachings, Pope John Paul II wrote at length about civil disobedience in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pt 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God—to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty—that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rv 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it. (EV 72, 73)

Surveying these teachings briefly, we find that the Church first of all calls us to do everything we can within the law to correct injustices. That is why we must be politically active and fully utilize our democratic system to change laws that fall short of the very purpose of law.

Secondly, when circumstances justify acting outside the law, we are never justified in committing acts of violence or otherwise violating human rights. Moreover, in judging whether circumstances for civil disobedience prevail, we have to exercise the virtue of prudence and always seek the guidance of others so that we do not rely solely on our own judgment.

Finally, it is clear that civil disobedience is not in any way disrespect for the law, because unjust laws are not bad laws, but no laws at all. Defending human rights in peaceful ways outside “the law” is ultimately a form of defense of and respect for the law. Civil disobedience, in defense of human rights, is actually divine obedience.

No Longer Law but a Perversion of It

As Augustine says (De Libero Arbitrio i, 5) “that which is not just seems to be no law at all”: wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above. Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.

Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that “one must not kill” may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that “one should do harm to no man”: while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.

Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law.

—Summa Theologiae I-II:95:2

Bound to a Higher Law

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. . . . One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. . . .

—Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

Fr. Frank Pavone is founder of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, a society of apostolic life dedicated to the formation and training of priests, deacons, brothers, and seminarians who will devote themselves fully to the proclamation of the gospel of life. He is also the national director of Priests for Life, an officially approved association of Catholic clergy who give special emphasis to the pro-life teachings of the Church. Contact Priests for Life at http://www.priestsforlife.org/.

The Five W's Part Two: Who We Believe and Worship (Part 1 of 2)

2013-12-24T04:52:00.000-06:00

"For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians: 22-24)

I once heard it said that, if you really want to know someone, you've got to know where they came from and where they're headed. The only thing that could probably be added to that is the present. Along with the past and future, you've got to know someone's here and now, to meet them in their present life circumstances. To really enter into relationship, in particular the type of caritas or agape relationship that God calls us to, and that we are called to seek out in each other, there has to be a genuine interest in the heart, in seeking out what influences push and pull it, and a willingness to enter into the broken and ugly pieces that we all carry around with us.

This is one way I've been led to approach the the question, "Who is Christ? Who is this man that we claim worship as God?" We could spend an eternity exploring and reflecting on the person of the God-man, of mystery of Emmanuel (God with us) and, by his grace, one day we will...for eternity. After all, isn't that what heaven is about? Isn't it about being immersed in the power of divine relationship, of perfect love incarnate, and of the unlimited truth, goodness, and beauty that we only catch fleeting and limited glimpses of during our walk in this valley of tears? Isn't it living with full consciouness and perfect knowledge of the One who not only created us, but who loved us with such self-abandon that he lowered himself to give up his life, choosing mercy beyond justice so as not to leave us in the squalor and suffering of our sin? If not I'm not sure that I would want any other idea of heaven, or any other God, at least for eternity.

As for there here and now, I'll narrow it to the question of the Who of The Five W's: the person of Christ as One who came to enter into relationship with us and literally save us from ourselves, in the past, present, and future. He took on a human identity without giving up his divinity so that we might know that, despite our frail humanity, we are no longer bound by the pain of our past, by our present circumstances, or by the future that we so often look into with both hope and fear because we are so powerless to control it. By entering into our humanity, he literally bent time, condescending (lowering himself) to at once dwell with us as the fulfillment of the hope of our ancestors in faith, as leader and our constant companion on our life's journey, and to raise us to the intended dignity and show us the glorious destiny he has won for us and destined us for by his passion, death, and resurrection.

Past
In the December 16th reflection of Watch for the Light: Readings for Advent and Christmas, entitled Genealogy and Grace, Gail Godwin offers a reflection on Matthew's purpose in beginning his Gospel by recounting the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:1-17), and particularly his inclusion of people who were "...not necessarily the noblest or most deserving person[s] to carry out divine purposes."

For reasons unknown to us, God may select the Judahs who sell their brothers into slavery, the Jacobs who cheat their way to first place, the Davids who steal wives and murder rivals - but also compose profound and beautiful psalms of praise.

And what about the five women Matthew choses to include? Not a mention of Sarah or Rebekah or Rachel, the upstanding patriarchal wives of Israel. Instead Tamar, a Cananite, who disguised herself as a prostitute and seduced her father-in-law Judah to get a son out of him. And Rahab, another Cananite and a real prostitute this time. And Ruth the Moabite, another outsider. And Bathsheba, mother of Solomon, is named only as the wife of Uriah, whom King David had killed so he could marry her himself. Every one of these women used as God's instrument had scandal or aspersion attached to her-as does the fifth and final woman named in the genealogy: Mary, the mother of Jesus, with her unconventional pregnancy.

A Strikingly Beautiful Science-based Reflection

2013-12-03T21:11:00.001-06:00

This is an absolutely awesome reflection by one of my new favorite bloggers/podcasters, Ann Barnhardt. Her thoughts on the implications of recent advances in DNA knowledge on the flesh-and-blood relationship of Christ and His (and our) Blessed Mother, the Immaculate Conception, and of her Glorious Assumption, body and soul, into heaven:

The One About the Science of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

+AMDG+

It's Advent: Don't Trust Your Feelings - NCRegister

2013-12-01T07:26:00.001-06:00

Advent begins today, the time of anticipation and "mak[ing] straight in the desert a highway for our God." (Is. 40:3). Time for some deeper spiritual examination, confession and pulling out all the old stumps of our pet sins and spiritual weaknesses that we let hang around because we're just too lazy (I use that pointed word for my own sake) to rout them out and really smooth the plain for Christ to come into our lives--and the world through us--and do his work.

This article reminded me of that, and one particular hit me like a ton of bricks, since I've been trying to moderate my diet better, and fast for specific intentions:

Do you control your appetites or vice versa? You want to be moderate in what you eat or drink. You occasionally even make a significant sacrifice in this area. But does it happen even more often that you rationalize and break your own rule? Look at the facts: How many sweets or sodas or glasses of wine did you consume yesterday? This week?

I guess it's time to get on board with Yoda's "Do or do not, there is no try."

Read more: It's Advent: Don't Trust Your Feelings - NCRegister

An Attitude of Gratitude

2013-11-28T07:28:00.000-06:00

As we take a day off from our busy lives to gather with friends and family and celebrate this holiday we call Thanksgiving, a quick thought came to me that I felt I ought to share.

We know the things that we give thanks for: family and friends to share love with, food, a warm roof over our heads, the relative security of not having to worry where our next meal or shower is going to come from...the good. These are not universal, but are the vast majority in a society that has more abundance and wealth than many in the world know or have known; they basic things in life that no human being should be deprived of.

But, equally as importantly as what we are thankful for, there is the flipside. Thanksgiving is not just a day, it's both an attitude and an action. If it is an action, there must be an object of that action; something (or someone) to whom that thanksgiving is directed. I won't get too deep into it, but suffice it to say that our society that has been blessed with so much wealth, seems to be turning away from--or at least ambivalent to--the one who is the source of all wealth, love, truth goodness, and beauty. All of these are His; we are blessed with them, but in the end we are just custodians of these gifts, especially of love, and will be called to account how we used them.

So, as we pause to give thanks, let's be mindful of the One to whom we are ultimately thankful. This mindfulness and thankfulness is contagious, so let it flow like all of His blessings.

Thank God! Give him the praise and the glory. Before all the living, acknowledge the many good things he has done for you, by blessing and extolling his name in song. Before all men, honor and proclaim God's deeds, and do not be slack in praising him. (Tobit 12:6)

The Whole Armor

Walking by Faith: The Courageous Example of St. Joseph (Repost)

Solemnity of Mary, Holy Mother of God (A Brief Recap of Ephesus)

Quotes from the Council of Ephesus & Church Fathers (from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god)

God With Us (Emmanuel)

From A Line of Sinners

What is Truth?

Why We Call Friday "Good"

Waking to New Life

Walking by Faith: The Courageous Example of St. Joseph

Courage

O Emmanuel - God With Us

From a Line of Sinners

Muslim Go Boom! - WND Commentary by Matt Barber

Cleaning House

Identity Crisis

European court: Gay marriage is not a human right - Lifesite News

"No, Jesus did not bear arms, but..." - The American Spectator

Sweet and Light

A Love Without End, Amen

The Crisis in Society is a Crisis of Fatherhood (AudioSancto)

The Good of Government by Roger Scruton

Independence Day Reflection - When Is It Okay to Disobey?

The Five W's Part Two: Who We Believe and Worship (Part 1 of 2)

A Strikingly Beautiful Science-based Reflection

It's Advent: Don't Trust Your Feelings - NCRegister

An Attitude of Gratitude