Swaddled newborns always remind me of egg rolls or burritos, depending on the baby's size and the quality of the wrapping job. I look at my daughter sleep, armless and legless, with no motion except the quiverings and furrowings of her brow, and I think naturally of what "defenseless" really means.
In the world of cinema, when villains die, cowering and fearful, it's strange how we catch a glimpse of this same infant-like state that's common to the human experience. To some, it's a pitful and just end for a despicable person. To me, it's an emblematic moment that reveals the helplessness of all human life.
It's hard to compare a villain to an infant, but aren't the same critical components present? The soul, the image of God, original sin and original goodness? How then can anyone argue that there's any discontinuity anywhere within the lifespan that would allow us to differentiate between someone with a right to life and someone without that right?
Most of us, no matter how ugly, or evil, at one point had a mother or father look at us in the defenselessness of sleep. It was a look of love; a look that acknowledged and affirmed, a look that was sometimes tinged by the pain that one day we would suffer. As years passed, that mother or father may have forgotten those early intimate moments.
But even after thousands of lifetimes, the Heavenly Father still looks at us the same way. No matter who we are. For our part, we seem to have a knack for breaking that Father's heart. He will, for his part, keep swaddling us and watching us with love.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Pope Benedict on The Heavenly Homeland
"On this day let us revive in ourselves an attraction toward Heaven that calls us to carry on in our earthly pilgrimage. Let us lift in our hearts the desire to always unite ourselves to the family of the saints, of which we already have the grace to be a part.As a celebrated 'spiritual' song says: 'When the saints go marching in, oh how I'd want, Lord, to be in their number!' May this beautiful aspiration burn in all Christians and help them to surpass every difficulty, every fear, every tribulation! Let us place, dear friends, our hand in the maternal one of Mary, Queen of All Saints, and let ourselves be led by her toward our heavenly homeland, in the company of the blessed spirits 'of every nation, people and language.'"
Pope Benedict XVI
(hat tip to www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com)
Pope Benedict XVI
(hat tip to www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com)
Thursday, June 04, 2009
George Tiller and The Politics of Death
We've straddled the politics of abortion for over 30 years now. Life, death, mother,child...less often, but no less heatedly, the debate turns to the doctor. Someone apparently ended the debate, at least in his own mind. To him it was an easy answer: Kill Dr. George Tiller while he's at church attending Sunday services and everything will be better.
Is everything really better? Tiller's family lost. A man is dead. And someone made himself a murderer. Then the media used their superlative powers of analysis to group isolated killers together with groups such as Priests For Life and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. The critics say the blame rests partly on pro life groups. Without them, the reasoning goes, people won't consider abortion murder and George Tiller would still be alive.
Amazing logic, isn't it? It's like saying that we shouldn't decry murder because people will go out and start killing gang bangers and serial killers. Or maybe we shouldn't say that cigarettes kill because if we do someone might go and wack the bigwigs of the tobacco industry.
Reality is a little more complicated than media politics. In the real world, murder is wrong. We need to decry it in whatever form, whether it involves the unborn OR the abortionist. If crazed people go out and do something crazy that's very unfortunate. However, that cannot keep the pro-life movement from speaking the truth: abortion is wrong because it's murder and killing George Tiller is wrong because it's murder. That's as simple as it gets.
Is everything really better? Tiller's family lost. A man is dead. And someone made himself a murderer. Then the media used their superlative powers of analysis to group isolated killers together with groups such as Priests For Life and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. The critics say the blame rests partly on pro life groups. Without them, the reasoning goes, people won't consider abortion murder and George Tiller would still be alive.
Amazing logic, isn't it? It's like saying that we shouldn't decry murder because people will go out and start killing gang bangers and serial killers. Or maybe we shouldn't say that cigarettes kill because if we do someone might go and wack the bigwigs of the tobacco industry.
Reality is a little more complicated than media politics. In the real world, murder is wrong. We need to decry it in whatever form, whether it involves the unborn OR the abortionist. If crazed people go out and do something crazy that's very unfortunate. However, that cannot keep the pro-life movement from speaking the truth: abortion is wrong because it's murder and killing George Tiller is wrong because it's murder. That's as simple as it gets.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Pope Slams Science--The Story Behind the Story
New "news" is often old hat. How many times, for instance, did Pope Benedict fall off the wall and crash into bits on the cobblestone of media ignorance? The last debacle came with an explosive outcry. All of them are based on the false assumptions that 1) Pope Benedict hates the very idea of sex 2) He is, at best, an idiot and at worse the proponent of a eugenics campaign aimed at killing Africans by depriving them of condoms 3) only condoms can prevent AIDS in Africa and 4) defending a human centered approach (rather than a condom based one) is the only rational, relevant and effective way to reverse the HIV epidemic in Africa.
Oddly, those in the know agree with the out-of-date, head-in-the-sand, ignoramus who lives in Rome. Edward C. Green of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project has argued and continues to argue that AIDS prevention based on condom dissemination not only doesn't work, it works the other way. Studies show, that, in contrast, efforts that promote abstinence and/or monogamy work best. These are exactly the medieval methods the pope and his ignorant henchman have been advocating all along. Lucky or a principled strategy based on a solid understanding of the human person and what it's capable of?
Meanwhile the condom camp struggles because it devalues the people it supposedly serves. The "saftey net" condoms are supposed to provide leads, ironically, to increased risk taking. This, then leads to increased HIV, AIDS and STD infection rates. Seems the media mouth opened too soon?
As I alluded to earlier, the question of why the Church has spearheaded such a successful campaign against AIDS (in Uganda, for instance) is based on it's total understanding of what a person is, can be and should be. As Laura Schlessinger wrote recently, this has to do with the potential that the pope still sees in humanity, even as his media pundits sling mud at the notion that people can control themselves:
"When the Pope suggests that human beings are best off saving their sexual passion for the stability of a covenant of marriage, he is making a statement that the act of sexuality is elevated by the context, and ultimately protects both man and woman from a myriad of hurtful consequences from venereal diseases to unwanted pregnancies (complete with abortions, abandonment, single-parenthood, and homelessness to name a few).
The naysayers all have one thing in common: they refuse to want, believe or accept that human beings can commit to a higher spiritual state of thought and behavior. The Pope believes in us more than that.
I am not Catholic, so this is no knee-jerk defense of my spiritual leader. The truth is that he is simply correct and too many people don't want to hear it, because they want to live lives unfettered by rules. It is sad that they don't realize that this makes them a slave to animal impulse versus a master of human potential."
Oddly, those in the know agree with the out-of-date, head-in-the-sand, ignoramus who lives in Rome. Edward C. Green of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project has argued and continues to argue that AIDS prevention based on condom dissemination not only doesn't work, it works the other way. Studies show, that, in contrast, efforts that promote abstinence and/or monogamy work best. These are exactly the medieval methods the pope and his ignorant henchman have been advocating all along. Lucky or a principled strategy based on a solid understanding of the human person and what it's capable of?
Meanwhile the condom camp struggles because it devalues the people it supposedly serves. The "saftey net" condoms are supposed to provide leads, ironically, to increased risk taking. This, then leads to increased HIV, AIDS and STD infection rates. Seems the media mouth opened too soon?
As I alluded to earlier, the question of why the Church has spearheaded such a successful campaign against AIDS (in Uganda, for instance) is based on it's total understanding of what a person is, can be and should be. As Laura Schlessinger wrote recently, this has to do with the potential that the pope still sees in humanity, even as his media pundits sling mud at the notion that people can control themselves:
"When the Pope suggests that human beings are best off saving their sexual passion for the stability of a covenant of marriage, he is making a statement that the act of sexuality is elevated by the context, and ultimately protects both man and woman from a myriad of hurtful consequences from venereal diseases to unwanted pregnancies (complete with abortions, abandonment, single-parenthood, and homelessness to name a few).
The naysayers all have one thing in common: they refuse to want, believe or accept that human beings can commit to a higher spiritual state of thought and behavior. The Pope believes in us more than that.
I am not Catholic, so this is no knee-jerk defense of my spiritual leader. The truth is that he is simply correct and too many people don't want to hear it, because they want to live lives unfettered by rules. It is sad that they don't realize that this makes them a slave to animal impulse versus a master of human potential."
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Mashed Potatoes And Christianity
Circumstances led me to a parish I'd never been to before. It was the first time. If God helps me, there won't be another unless there's a nuclear winter or something of similarly cosmic proportions and I can't get to another Catholic Church within a 500 mile radius. The message of the day seemed to be seared into my synapses long after the mass was done. Seems you can't be Catholic or Christian unless you breathe, bleed, and sweat inclusivity.
I certainly had a response to that. Nay, Christ had an even better one. I was suprised today to find that Michael Novak had my thoughts all summed up. No doubt, he's been a victim of several nuclear winters.
"One of the greatest of recent seductions by that wily devil Screwtape -- perfectly fitted to the times -- is to puff a tiny sugar crystal of Christianity into sweetish airy cotton candy. "IN-clusiveness!" he will insist. "Christianity is about nothing if not IN-clusiveness."
That is how Screwtape sweet-talks you into affirming that some abomination (divorce, abortion, euthanasia, adultery, gay marriage) is, actually, included within the broad reach of Christian love. It would be positively un-Christian to think ill of that "abomination." You should be ashamed you ever thought it was wrong. Are you a bigot or something?
"Strange!" I would have thought, "Christianity is about EX-clusion." On the last day the Judge shall divide the world into sheep and goats, you over on the left, you over on the right. A few of you will be chosen to enter with me into Paradise. The rest will descend, as you have chosen, into everlasting punishment. I have come not to bring peace, but the sword. He who is not with me is against me. God sent His light into the darkness, and the darkness received it not. The gate is narrow, and the way is strait. Only a tiny remnant will be saved. There was much weeping, and tears, and gnashing of teeth.
You can look it up."
Certainly Christ doesn't deny ANYONE the chance to save themselves. That's what gives the Church it's Catholicity. Except...there's a devilish detail you can't forget: Christ calls us to include people, not their sins.
People fond of the inclusivity doctrine like to point out that Jesus associated with prostitutes and sinners. You have to ask though, does he do this because he wanted to start running with the dogs? Or did he associate with the pariahs of his time so he could teach them to stop running around on all fours, see the truth he was bringing and allow it to elevate them to a new level of dignity?
To the woman caught in adultery, Christ doesn't say, "I know you're a sinner, even someone involved in an "alternative" way of life. But I'll include you anyway and make accomodations within the truth to suit your sin." This would be a very strange reading of what Jesus really says. "Go and SIN NO MORE." Seeing the heart, Christ offers mercy but with a qualification. I call it the holiness clause. It a condition on forgiveness that's rooted in the truth about how God saves us. The love is still unconditional, but Christ can't lie to himself or to us and say that we're family when we're not. If sin remains, it will divide.
I certainly had a response to that. Nay, Christ had an even better one. I was suprised today to find that Michael Novak had my thoughts all summed up. No doubt, he's been a victim of several nuclear winters.
"One of the greatest of recent seductions by that wily devil Screwtape -- perfectly fitted to the times -- is to puff a tiny sugar crystal of Christianity into sweetish airy cotton candy. "IN-clusiveness!" he will insist. "Christianity is about nothing if not IN-clusiveness."
That is how Screwtape sweet-talks you into affirming that some abomination (divorce, abortion, euthanasia, adultery, gay marriage) is, actually, included within the broad reach of Christian love. It would be positively un-Christian to think ill of that "abomination." You should be ashamed you ever thought it was wrong. Are you a bigot or something?
"Strange!" I would have thought, "Christianity is about EX-clusion." On the last day the Judge shall divide the world into sheep and goats, you over on the left, you over on the right. A few of you will be chosen to enter with me into Paradise. The rest will descend, as you have chosen, into everlasting punishment. I have come not to bring peace, but the sword. He who is not with me is against me. God sent His light into the darkness, and the darkness received it not. The gate is narrow, and the way is strait. Only a tiny remnant will be saved. There was much weeping, and tears, and gnashing of teeth.
You can look it up."
Certainly Christ doesn't deny ANYONE the chance to save themselves. That's what gives the Church it's Catholicity. Except...there's a devilish detail you can't forget: Christ calls us to include people, not their sins.
People fond of the inclusivity doctrine like to point out that Jesus associated with prostitutes and sinners. You have to ask though, does he do this because he wanted to start running with the dogs? Or did he associate with the pariahs of his time so he could teach them to stop running around on all fours, see the truth he was bringing and allow it to elevate them to a new level of dignity?
To the woman caught in adultery, Christ doesn't say, "I know you're a sinner, even someone involved in an "alternative" way of life. But I'll include you anyway and make accomodations within the truth to suit your sin." This would be a very strange reading of what Jesus really says. "Go and SIN NO MORE." Seeing the heart, Christ offers mercy but with a qualification. I call it the holiness clause. It a condition on forgiveness that's rooted in the truth about how God saves us. The love is still unconditional, but Christ can't lie to himself or to us and say that we're family when we're not. If sin remains, it will divide.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
The Change We Need
If you believe the "Change" campaign, it would seem that Obama's rise to power marks a new messianic age. The old things have passed away. The new (and therefore necessarily better) has arrived. And that means that as the banks go belly up, Obama will come walking on the water to talk the storms of recession into leaving us all alone. If you don't believe this, ye of little, faith, then you don't understand the power of Change.
For now, you don't have to know what we're changing into or what we're changing or who's doing the changing. That will all reveal itself as it happens. What you need to do is this--be audacious enough to pick up a copy of "The Audacity of Hope." Read it and think about it. Remember, it's not so important what you're hoping for.
And if ever you get hung up on the millions of babies that are dying, don't worry about it. It's a woman's choice. Just like it's a serial killer's choice and a bank robber's choice and a terrorist's choice. You can believe whatever you want to, but it's up to them what they want to do with their God given freedoms. So stop judging them.
When it comes to abortion, think of it as a substitution play. Babies die and you get to hold on to your job. No worries. You never even have to look at the faces of those babies getting shoveled into biohazard bags...unless you take your eyes off of Jesus, I mean, Obama for a second and did a search for "priests for life aborted baby pictures." But be careful cause the audacity of your hope might get temporarily shattered. Just shake it off, take a dose of doublethink and get back with Barack.
Barack and Biden, the Change We Need.
For now, you don't have to know what we're changing into or what we're changing or who's doing the changing. That will all reveal itself as it happens. What you need to do is this--be audacious enough to pick up a copy of "The Audacity of Hope." Read it and think about it. Remember, it's not so important what you're hoping for.
And if ever you get hung up on the millions of babies that are dying, don't worry about it. It's a woman's choice. Just like it's a serial killer's choice and a bank robber's choice and a terrorist's choice. You can believe whatever you want to, but it's up to them what they want to do with their God given freedoms. So stop judging them.
When it comes to abortion, think of it as a substitution play. Babies die and you get to hold on to your job. No worries. You never even have to look at the faces of those babies getting shoveled into biohazard bags...unless you take your eyes off of Jesus, I mean, Obama for a second and did a search for "priests for life aborted baby pictures." But be careful cause the audacity of your hope might get temporarily shattered. Just shake it off, take a dose of doublethink and get back with Barack.
Barack and Biden, the Change We Need.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Fight FOCA
Whoever you are, it's time to stand up for life. Fight the holocaust of our times by joining your prayers and voices in the campaign against FOCA. Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing...
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Will The Real Mr. President Please Stand Up?
People will say many things about George W. Bush. As he exits the presidential stage, many may pelt him with the metaphorical equivalent of a rotten tomato or even a size 10 shoe. You can be assured that I won’t be among the rotten fruit wielding masses since I've always been impressed by Bush's stance on unborn life. Even during his presidential death throes Bush stood up for life, declaring January 18th "National Sanctity of Human Life Day"? I can't take exception to that. Here’s the official text:
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.
The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.
America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.
The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. “
GEORGE W. BUSH
You heard what George Bush had to say about life. Now how about Barak Obama?
Question: Do you believe life begins at conception?
Obama: "You know, I-I-I, uh, th-this is something that I have not, um, I think come to a firm resolution on..."
He continues to stammer on into contradiction and incoherence.
On another occasion, Obama has this to say:
"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" It was a question of how Mr. Obama's faith would inform his conscience and his policy. The Illinois senator's answer - "Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade"
Above his pay grade? He's adamantly pro-abortion but it's above his pay grade to know when a baby has human rights? Amazing. How can you be an unyielding supporter of something yet not know FOR SURE whether you're violating human rights? That's like emptying a couple rounds into a house but not knowing if there's people inside.
Finally, here's my favorite:
"...look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old," "I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Yes, instead he wants to teach them about the values and morals of killing their babies.
I don't think that in light of their records and rhetoric it's hard to figure out which of the two guys below is really holding a baby and who's putting on a show for the camera. Remember that the guy on the left doesn't even know if he's holding a human life.
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.
The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.
America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.
The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. “
GEORGE W. BUSH
You heard what George Bush had to say about life. Now how about Barak Obama?
Question: Do you believe life begins at conception?
Obama: "You know, I-I-I, uh, th-this is something that I have not, um, I think come to a firm resolution on..."
He continues to stammer on into contradiction and incoherence.
On another occasion, Obama has this to say:
"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" It was a question of how Mr. Obama's faith would inform his conscience and his policy. The Illinois senator's answer - "Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade"
Above his pay grade? He's adamantly pro-abortion but it's above his pay grade to know when a baby has human rights? Amazing. How can you be an unyielding supporter of something yet not know FOR SURE whether you're violating human rights? That's like emptying a couple rounds into a house but not knowing if there's people inside.
Finally, here's my favorite:
"...look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old," "I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Yes, instead he wants to teach them about the values and morals of killing their babies.
I don't think that in light of their records and rhetoric it's hard to figure out which of the two guys below is really holding a baby and who's putting on a show for the camera. Remember that the guy on the left doesn't even know if he's holding a human life.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Spiritual ABCs
Over the years, I've been pretty suprised by the number of disgruntled "Catholics" who don't go to mass. They carry with them old wounds, infected over the years by misunderstandings so distorted I can't understand how someone would come to believe them.
Maybe the problem is that some Catholics and former Catholics have, at best, a 3rd grade understanding of their faith. They may be 40,50, or even 70 years old but they can't do the spiritual equivalent of their ABCs. They can certainly throw tantrums though.
Some of the reasons people give for leaving the Church turn out to be pretty flimsy: Sr. slapped me too many times or Father so and so turned out to be a drunk. These are reasons to leave the one TRUE Church? How many of us no longer add and subtract because of a bad experience with a math teacher? How many people deny the laws of physics because the physics teacher made fun of his students?
Physics isn't wrong because a physics teacher did something wrong. The same is true about the Catholic faith. IF you've learned what the Catholic Church teaches (most people haven't) and disagree, then at least you've made an informed decision. There's nothing wrong with that. If, like most people, you don't even know the basics, but presume to, or don't presume to and act against it anyway, well...I beg you to reconsider.
A Catholic who blows off the Church without knowing the basics is like a guy entering a spelling bee without knowing his letters. Put more dramatically, what if the same guy had to choose between two doors--one with a bear behind it, one with no bear? The doors are clearly marked as such. Only problem is our guy doesn't know how to read because as a child his reading teacher slapped him and from then on he no longer believed in the value of reading.
When someone has to make a decision to follow or not follow God, the situation is a little more dire. We're no longer talking about reading, we're talking about Truth. And the door doesn't read "bear" it says "hell." I'd say that's enough reason to take up reading again. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good place to begin.
Maybe the problem is that some Catholics and former Catholics have, at best, a 3rd grade understanding of their faith. They may be 40,50, or even 70 years old but they can't do the spiritual equivalent of their ABCs. They can certainly throw tantrums though.
Some of the reasons people give for leaving the Church turn out to be pretty flimsy: Sr. slapped me too many times or Father so and so turned out to be a drunk. These are reasons to leave the one TRUE Church? How many of us no longer add and subtract because of a bad experience with a math teacher? How many people deny the laws of physics because the physics teacher made fun of his students?
Physics isn't wrong because a physics teacher did something wrong. The same is true about the Catholic faith. IF you've learned what the Catholic Church teaches (most people haven't) and disagree, then at least you've made an informed decision. There's nothing wrong with that. If, like most people, you don't even know the basics, but presume to, or don't presume to and act against it anyway, well...I beg you to reconsider.
A Catholic who blows off the Church without knowing the basics is like a guy entering a spelling bee without knowing his letters. Put more dramatically, what if the same guy had to choose between two doors--one with a bear behind it, one with no bear? The doors are clearly marked as such. Only problem is our guy doesn't know how to read because as a child his reading teacher slapped him and from then on he no longer believed in the value of reading.
When someone has to make a decision to follow or not follow God, the situation is a little more dire. We're no longer talking about reading, we're talking about Truth. And the door doesn't read "bear" it says "hell." I'd say that's enough reason to take up reading again. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good place to begin.
A Vampire at the Vatican?
A woman dressed in red made a leaping aerial attack on the pope during Midnight Mass at St. Peter's Basilica. According to authorities, she intended to bite the pope in the neck, when several men tackled her to the ground. The pope and the procession continued as if nothing had happened.
If you look at the close-up, slow-mo, you can actually see the red blur of a woman in mid-air. The man in black (Undercover Swiss guard?) literally catches her as she hurls herself like a canonball toward the Holy Father.
The police confirmed that the woman had been receiving psychiatric care. Purportedly, her attack had been motivated by the pope's recent statements regarding marriage and homosexuals.
After watching the video, I'm a bit surprised at the yoda-like calm with which Benedict handled the attack. While Bush managed the flying shoe incident quite well, I think a flying woman would have been more difficult to dodge.
I wonder what WOULD have happened had the woman actually reached the pope. Rumor has it he carries a pair of blessed white nunchuks under his sleeves.
If you look at the close-up, slow-mo, you can actually see the red blur of a woman in mid-air. The man in black (Undercover Swiss guard?) literally catches her as she hurls herself like a canonball toward the Holy Father.
The police confirmed that the woman had been receiving psychiatric care. Purportedly, her attack had been motivated by the pope's recent statements regarding marriage and homosexuals.
After watching the video, I'm a bit surprised at the yoda-like calm with which Benedict handled the attack. While Bush managed the flying shoe incident quite well, I think a flying woman would have been more difficult to dodge.
I wonder what WOULD have happened had the woman actually reached the pope. Rumor has it he carries a pair of blessed white nunchuks under his sleeves.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas! Enjoy your HOLIday. Receive into your heart this day the greatest gift the world has every known: Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wacky Verse Slinging from "News"week
I don't think I need to comment any further on Newsweek's "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." Mollie Hemmingway does a good enough job demolishing it.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Choices We Make
Here's a great, short, free movie that's available online in it's entirety. I found it lacking in some respects but the message couldn't be more clear. A powerful expose and an example of the kind of broad thinking that uses history as a key for understanding the present. To view, click HERE.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Land of the Free?
Alright, here I am again. As the dust of the election has settled heavily upon us, there's a number of moral and poliitical challenges we have to face. Not least of these is the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). It's federal. It's legislation and the President-elect thinks it's necessary. If you want more details on what it is, you can go HERE but suffice it to say that FOCA isn't about Freedom or Choice. It's an act that would be signed in the blood of the unborn and defenseless of this nation.
As I've said before, we are LIVING in Holocaust times. You don't have to read history. You don't have to watch documentaries. Human beings are dying right now. They're no longer burning in the furnaces of the 3rd Reich. They're being torn apart in the warmth of their mother's wombs.
Maybe like me you've wondered what it would be like to look out at the skyline and see the tell-tale smoke rising from the furnaces of Aushwitz and Treblinka. But look closer. Blink not. Think not with the minds of people who are part of the problem. That's when you'll see the pieces and parts of children strewn across this nation. These are children who aren't lying in cradles but in dumpsters and trashbags. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.
Think about it and ask yourself: how can we as a nation base ourselves on "rule by the people" when we can't even recognize a person when we see one? Don't clasp your hands behind your back. Pray and act now.
Go to http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=263 for more info.
As I've said before, we are LIVING in Holocaust times. You don't have to read history. You don't have to watch documentaries. Human beings are dying right now. They're no longer burning in the furnaces of the 3rd Reich. They're being torn apart in the warmth of their mother's wombs.
Maybe like me you've wondered what it would be like to look out at the skyline and see the tell-tale smoke rising from the furnaces of Aushwitz and Treblinka. But look closer. Blink not. Think not with the minds of people who are part of the problem. That's when you'll see the pieces and parts of children strewn across this nation. These are children who aren't lying in cradles but in dumpsters and trashbags. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.
Think about it and ask yourself: how can we as a nation base ourselves on "rule by the people" when we can't even recognize a person when we see one? Don't clasp your hands behind your back. Pray and act now.
Go to http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=263 for more info.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Crisis
I've been barred from the internet following a move and some ISP difficulties. They say I'll be back online next week, but we'll have to see. For now, I'm using borrowed internet but when I go back home today, I'll be back in the online silent zone again. In the meantime, I won't be able to post.
This is a bit of a crisis, but it's not what I was referring to in my post title. What I'm really troubled by is the fact that Obama is president elect, that he's adamantly pro-choice and that Catholics helped to make this happen. From the stats I've seen, only slightly over 50% of all Catholics voted for McCain. Among non-mass going "Catholics", the majority actually voted the other way. This, my friends, is a crisis of catechesis and it has turned into a crisis of national conscience.
We need to pray that what comes out of this does not further the holocaust of another 50 million unborn babies. We're still in the woods on those other issues too. Economic crisis, foriegn policy, terror activities--which of these will Obama know how to handle, and handle well? Perhaps, by some miracle of grace he'll be able to navigate the policy and life issues with God's will in mind and God's love in his heart. This will be my prayer, anyway.
This is a bit of a crisis, but it's not what I was referring to in my post title. What I'm really troubled by is the fact that Obama is president elect, that he's adamantly pro-choice and that Catholics helped to make this happen. From the stats I've seen, only slightly over 50% of all Catholics voted for McCain. Among non-mass going "Catholics", the majority actually voted the other way. This, my friends, is a crisis of catechesis and it has turned into a crisis of national conscience.
We need to pray that what comes out of this does not further the holocaust of another 50 million unborn babies. We're still in the woods on those other issues too. Economic crisis, foriegn policy, terror activities--which of these will Obama know how to handle, and handle well? Perhaps, by some miracle of grace he'll be able to navigate the policy and life issues with God's will in mind and God's love in his heart. This will be my prayer, anyway.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Countdown...
Here it comes. Nov 4th: time to separate the men from the morons and the women from the wimps. Please make sure to vote and vote with your beliefs in hand. Remember that it's all about conscience. Don't leave home and don't enter that booth without it.
And if you think there's too many issues for your conscience to sort through, all I have to say is this: there's nothing more important than life. Watch this. Vote Nov. 4th and remember that the fate of this nation is in our hands.
And if you think there's too many issues for your conscience to sort through, all I have to say is this: there's nothing more important than life. Watch this. Vote Nov. 4th and remember that the fate of this nation is in our hands.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Beginning of Sin
How many times have you heard money is the "root of all evil." But doesn't evil start from within? After all money is just an object to which we've assigned value. The money itself is morally neutral. But what comes from within us--that's a different story.
Whether you call it pride, selfishness, self-centerdness, the root cause is our fondness for saying--"I'm more important, my thoughts more real, my dignity more precious, my success more noteworthy than (fill in the blank)."
Wait a minute. Can this be true of everyone? It's impossible that even two people are the MOST important let alone 7 billion. And really, did we do anything or did God give us everything? Check what St. Gertrude has to say about this:
"Pride being the beginning of sin, humility destroys it in its root, cuts off in their very source the evils it has produced, and atones directly for the offence it has committed against God. Thus humility is the especial characteristic of the reparation of which Jesus shows us the example in the Eucharist. There, even more than in His Incarnation. He has humbled, annihilated, stripped Himself, not only of His Divine, but even of His human form, and presents to our senses only an appearance without reality.Eucharistic soul, behold your model! "
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Will the Real Shepherd Please Stand Up?
If there was a bumper sticker that read "I love Archbishop Chaput" I would consider buying it. I say "consider" only because I don't really like the idea of putting an extremely sticky piece of paper on my bumper, especially because it may get dirty, ugly and never come off. Otherwise, I would definitely get a Chaput sticker.
In case you don't know who Archbishop Chaput is, he's what I consider to be a voice of hope speaking from within the heart of the Church. When wolves like Nancy Pelosi bring scandal to the flock, Archbishop Chaput brings out his shepherd's staff and gives them a good beating. Charitably, of course...
According to a recent interview with the Hoover Institute at Stanford U., Chaput says very plainly that he merely saw the Pelosi abortion scandal as a teachable moment. He doesn't rant. He doesn't foam at the mouth. He's just representin'. He's just staying with the basics of the faith, and if it seems like other "Catholics" don't agree it's not because Chaput is extreme, but because the others aren't even basic.
When asked if there's an undercurrent of anger at times present in what he says, Chaput says that there's a little initially. He goes on to quote St Augustine. To paraphase: Hope has two beautiful daughters. One is anger, the other is courage. You have anger at something that's not right. You also need the courage to do something about it. Both of these come from God.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
The Heartbeat of a Nation
Before you vote this November, I encourage you to listen to this 30 second radio commercial. It's literally a life or death issue. Just click and be patient as the audio file loads. While you're waiting, I want you to ask yourself the following question: When (not if) I vote this coming November, will I worry about the state of the economy? (You should). Will I consider the healthcare crisis? (You're bound to need it sooner or later). And most importantly, will I think about how my vote will affect the dignity of human life? (You can't be a bystander on this one). Just think. Without the right to life, maybe I wouldn't be alive to write this and maybe you wouldn't be alive to read it).
Thank God for life. Vote for life.
Thank God for life. Vote for life.
Friday, October 03, 2008
The Right Kind of Feminists...
Motherhood has always been a choice. Love it or leave it, the choice is between the mother and the child. Even among those who choose to give birth, the choice remains: do I eat more, sleep more and breathe more, or do I make sure my child gets all of the above before I worry about myself? A good mother makes a daily choice in favor of her children. That's the fact that all well reared and well nurtured children know. Extended to the abortion issue, the choice is no different, with the exception that the choice involves an UNBORN CHILD. When a woman becomes pregnant she's not GOING TO BE a mother, she already IS one.
Here's a piece by Joshua Mercer that further explores the unborn and life issue from a feminist and celebrity point of view:
"Supermodels have spoken out recently against the use of animal fur, actors in favor of government funding for arts, rock stars against nuclear proliferation — and so on.
Now a small, but growing, number of celebrities have begun to step forward to proclaim their opposition to both abortion and the death penalty."
Monday, September 22, 2008
Gianna Jessen Saline Abortion Survivor
Have you ever wondered if one of the over 48 million American children aborted since 1973 might have found the cure for cancer? Maybe it's a more mundane thought, but I've always wondered what those children would look like? What kind of personalities would they have? If they were allowed to speak, what would they say?
This video put something of an end to that speculation...
Friday, September 19, 2008
Still and Small
Even Christ seemed to have trouble praying when he wasn't quiet and alone. That's telling, isn't it? No wonder we have so much trouble finding God ANYWHERE in our lives even though he's EVERYWHERE. I mean, just imagine if Elijah was rocking out with his new IPOD. Would he have heard the "still small voice"?* Could he have discerned God's presence?
I'm not ragging on IPODs (just as long as they haven't become a permanent part of your anatomy and physiology.). I'm just saying. If we clutter our minds with whatever, how can we discern a God who likes to work in subtle and silent ways? For me the ridiculous running commentary I hear in my head is enough to block out what God's saying. If, once in a while, I shut up...a holy whisper, a still small voice, God has been speaking all along.
If you have a moment, find your silence. Listen. If you get a chance, put in a word for me too. We all need it...this habit of silence. It's the requirement for cleaning house within ourselves and for changing the world. Why? Because if our own things aren't in order, we can't order anything else outside of us. The clutter within just keeps spilling out into the world.
*1 Kings 19 11-12
[11] And he said, "Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD." And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake;
[12] and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.
Monday, September 15, 2008
If It Walks like a Catholic...
What do Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden have in common? Answer: Foot in mouth politics. First up,Pelosi. She recently stepped up to her pulpit and claimed that her views on abortion are consistent with those of the Catholic Church. It turns out the Church hasn't always considered abortion to be an intrinsically evil act. Hmm...If this is really what the Church teaches why have the bishops torn off their zuchettos and folded up the sleeves of their cassocks in denunciation of what she said?
Strangely, Pelosi doesn't recant. Instead, she pontificates with renewed zeal. (Maybe that's just the way political rhetoric has to come off: absurdly self-assured) Her "research" (and misinterpretation of Church history) has led her to defy and deny, and then she takes it upon herself to pontificate, freely and often. Maybe Pelosi has taken her post as Speaker of the House to mean that she can speak about anything.
Biden is our second heavy hitter. Unfortunately, he decides to take a good whack at his own foot with a clumbsy piece of logic that contradicts itself within the next sentence over. Biden stated (in the same show Pelosi appeared in) that he assumes the pro-life stance as a matter of faith, but will graciously refrain from "imposing" his "pro-life" views on the people of America. While this sounds really noble in the pandering, political sense of the Cuomo doctrine, I find it to be about as attractive and logical as a yeast infection. I wonder if Biden would likewise say that he believes in his own right to life but wouldn't want to impose this view on a group of people who wanted to murder him.
I mean c'mon. When was the last time you saw two politicians rise up to say that Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes? Or that Tiger Woods could use some pointers on how to swing his club? Maybe Stephen King needs Pelosi and Biden's help to write his next work of horror. Seriously.
So here's the bottom line on Pelosi and Biden. They walk like Catholics. They talk like Catholics. They look like Catholics. But don't be fooled. They're really politicians who pretend to be theologians.
Strangely, Pelosi doesn't recant. Instead, she pontificates with renewed zeal. (Maybe that's just the way political rhetoric has to come off: absurdly self-assured) Her "research" (and misinterpretation of Church history) has led her to defy and deny, and then she takes it upon herself to pontificate, freely and often. Maybe Pelosi has taken her post as Speaker of the House to mean that she can speak about anything.
Biden is our second heavy hitter. Unfortunately, he decides to take a good whack at his own foot with a clumbsy piece of logic that contradicts itself within the next sentence over. Biden stated (in the same show Pelosi appeared in) that he assumes the pro-life stance as a matter of faith, but will graciously refrain from "imposing" his "pro-life" views on the people of America. While this sounds really noble in the pandering, political sense of the Cuomo doctrine, I find it to be about as attractive and logical as a yeast infection. I wonder if Biden would likewise say that he believes in his own right to life but wouldn't want to impose this view on a group of people who wanted to murder him.
I mean c'mon. When was the last time you saw two politicians rise up to say that Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes? Or that Tiger Woods could use some pointers on how to swing his club? Maybe Stephen King needs Pelosi and Biden's help to write his next work of horror. Seriously.
So here's the bottom line on Pelosi and Biden. They walk like Catholics. They talk like Catholics. They look like Catholics. But don't be fooled. They're really politicians who pretend to be theologians.
Catholic Vote 2008
This November, one of the most critical and momentous decisions of our time is coming to a voting booth near you.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Creative Liturgy
After experiencing "creative" liturgy this morning I just thought I'd offer a quick reflection. I would boil it down this way: if people try to imbue relevance into liturgy where they think it's lacking or bring clowns to mass as a sideshow they betray a myopic view of the Church's liturgy.
We don't own the liturgy. We can't claim credit for the grace it effects, nor is our job to make it relevant. The question has always been whether what we do is relevant to the liturgy. Strange how things get reversed.
How this happened I can't completely explain. Perhaps it started with an insatiable need to express creativity. Of course, this is not a bad thing, in and of itself, but creativity can lead to bad, nay, ugly results when misapplied. Creativity applies when presenting truth, not in determining it.
So this means that I take the truths of the Church as they are (the revelation of Jesus Christ). I don't pretend to create them ANEW. I don't play with creative interpretations that eschew what Christ made clear. Creativity has its place in how I decide to present truths--new angles, analogies, connections--but what I create is a novel presentation, not a novel truth.
There ARE times when novel presetation does go awry. For example, when valuing fidelity to the Church's highest prayer, the holy mass. If a priest decides to embellish or go extemporaneous during the Eucharistic prayer, he's taking ownership for something that doesn't belong to him. The Eucharistic prayer belongs to the Church. If changes need to be made, the Church at large will decide, not Fr. X at parish Y. Deviating from this is an affront to the Catholicity (universality) of the Church. We are Catholic precisely because we believe and do the same basic things the same basic way.
I invite you to pray with me that the few priests who get too creative will learn to use creativity in its proper context. In the meantime , let's pray for patience.
We don't own the liturgy. We can't claim credit for the grace it effects, nor is our job to make it relevant. The question has always been whether what we do is relevant to the liturgy. Strange how things get reversed.
How this happened I can't completely explain. Perhaps it started with an insatiable need to express creativity. Of course, this is not a bad thing, in and of itself, but creativity can lead to bad, nay, ugly results when misapplied. Creativity applies when presenting truth, not in determining it.
So this means that I take the truths of the Church as they are (the revelation of Jesus Christ). I don't pretend to create them ANEW. I don't play with creative interpretations that eschew what Christ made clear. Creativity has its place in how I decide to present truths--new angles, analogies, connections--but what I create is a novel presentation, not a novel truth.
There ARE times when novel presetation does go awry. For example, when valuing fidelity to the Church's highest prayer, the holy mass. If a priest decides to embellish or go extemporaneous during the Eucharistic prayer, he's taking ownership for something that doesn't belong to him. The Eucharistic prayer belongs to the Church. If changes need to be made, the Church at large will decide, not Fr. X at parish Y. Deviating from this is an affront to the Catholicity (universality) of the Church. We are Catholic precisely because we believe and do the same basic things the same basic way.
I invite you to pray with me that the few priests who get too creative will learn to use creativity in its proper context. In the meantime , let's pray for patience.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
From Banality to Beauty
As an antidote to "Music and Lyrics" (ML) I recently watched an Indie romance/drama called "Bella." The unlikely cook/protagonist struck me as a man who sought to anger the gods of the me-culture, not by any device of his own, nor even by clear intention, but by caring more about what he did to others than what they did to him. What's winning about the movie is that he did all this without sacrificing style. He was a saint in a pair of Converse , a "heart-throb" with a heart.
If you're itching to see a movie that has a cover and a spine, try Bella. It's themes are old but not tired. It has none of the banality of the do me now, and reflect on it later crap that Hollywood likes to package as a love story. Bella is about life. It's about authenticity. It's about wearing your heart on your sleeve no matter how dirty that sleeve becomes. (For more information check out the the official Bella website hyperlinked below)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
