ARETHEOS.COM

The Burdens of Saint Joseph

2012-01-27T13:07:00.001-08:00

The Burdens of Saint Joseph

When we think of the sorrows of Our Lady, our own sorrows receive healing. Why? Because our sorrows are purified of their poison in Mary's acceptance of suffering and healed in her victory of faith. In similar fashion, when we consider St. Joseph's burdens our burdens are lightened. St. Joseph steadfastly tried his best to provide for and to protect the Holy Family. Events, resources and emotions were challenging but he persevered by faith.

The Annunciation To St. Joseph

(Mt. 1:18-25) The burden of the news that Mary his espoused was with child before their life together. His first concern was not himself but protecting the reputation of his beloved.

The Journey to Bethlehem

(Lk. 2:1-5) The burden of obeying the civil law. He had to care for his pregnant wife Mary while travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to fulfill a civic requirement.

The Birth of Jesus

(Lk. 2:6-7) The burden of caring for Mary and the newborn Jesus without the ordinary resources that a father wants for his family. He accepts the humiliation of using the poorest lodging for his wife to bear her son. He does not give up. He later finds them a decent “house”. (Mt. 2:11)

The Presentation

(Lk. 2:24) The burden of acknowledging poverty in public again – they cannot sacrifice a lamb as the standard offering prescribed by Leviticus but only the turtledoves or young pigeons used as a poor man's substitute.

Herod's Threat

(Mt. 2:13-14) The burden of Herod's threat against his family. Joseph must wake his wife and tell her the fearful news of the murderous threat. He must protect them on a dangerous journey through the night.

Refugees in Egypt

(Mt. 2:15) The burden of providing for Mary and Jesus while living as refugees in a strange land of grotesque gods and foreign values.

Return to Nazareth

(Mt. 2:19-23) The burden of returning and re-settling years later in Israel which still held political dangers for his family.

Loss of the Child Jesus

(Lk. 2:41-50) The burden of searching in sorrow for his lost foster child Jesus. Seeing the disappointment and fear in his wife Mary's eyes. Accepting that Jesus was growing to be a man.

Two "Million" Initiatives

2011-09-22T07:50:00.000-07:00

Last minute news: I want to use every means to inform prayerful people about two separate initiatves in two widely separated places that I believe are linked by Divine spiritual Providence. One is an initiative to pray one million Rosaries by Filippinos and the other to have one million Europeans present a Pro-life legal initiative to European entities. Please pray for the success of both works of mercy. To read more, see www.zenit.org. 8/31/11 for the article on Filipinos ready to pray one million rosaries. 9/14 for the news about Pro-lifers attempt to use the Lisbon Treaty. PRAY.

GOODBYE

2011-08-10T11:54:00.000-07:00

In January 2002 my family started a web magazine titled "Aretheos.com". A few years ago it was downsized to the present blog site. It does not seem appropriate to pursue this occasional site at this time. We hope you pray and follow the Church's teachings.

Stephen Hawking's Mistake (Part Two)

2011-05-16T12:11:00.000-07:00

Not believing in anything truly non-material (spiritual) Hawking says that there is "no heaven for broken computers" and that he is not "afraid of the dark".

We are just autonomous (self-operating) computers according to this view.

Look at your computer. You're operating it - the computer is not self-aware.

Oh, our self-awareness is just the critical mass of the self-referential qualities of our brain's software? Right, and the universe popped itself into existence.

Back in the 1980's I used to make the intellectual mistake of trying to point out the immaterial side of our minds by using images as an example. I would say that if anyone, even employing the finest techniques, were to dissect our brain they would not find an image. That analysis was flawed. If you dissect a photograph or a monitor you will not find an image either. The image requires the entire "system".

But that leads us to this realization: Close your eyes and bring up an image. Who is looking at it? Now go another step. Recall an abstract axiom of geometry. Who is comprehending the idea? Or even finer: who is bringing up or who is recalling?

Look at yourself looking at your computer, Mr. Hawking. Cause and effect ad infinitum is nonsense. If there is an infinite series of universes or an infinite regression of self-reference then neither the universe nor self-awareness would come into being.

God took the clay (shaped the earth) and gave us the breath of life, an immortal soul. As in the previous post the word "God" is Aristotle's humble "uncaused cause". Human logic cannot go beyond that position.

Of course, if the uncaused cause caused a universe with creatures capable of asking these questions, capable of communication, might there be revelation? I see you and know you exist but I won't know you until you reveal yourself.

Stephen Hawking's Mistake

2010-09-02T07:49:00.000-07:00

Since "A Brief History of Time" was published Stephan Hawking has declared that there is no need for God the Creator. His most recent comments reaffirm this opinion. The law of gravity shows that "spontaneous creation" is possible. As an additional indication that a personal Creator is absurd he points to the discovery of extrasolar planets. Mankind's place in the Universe is not unique or special.

And where did the law of gravity or, as he put it in Brief History, the properties of zero come from? The complete scientific view of the physical universe today is not the collection of either observed mass or dark mass but space and time itself.
In other words, to return to a Biblical metaphor, energy and mass are contained within the "bowl" of space-time. When Hawking and other physicists say that the universe is the result of the law of gravity or string theory "branes" colliding they are incorrectly referring only to the contents of the bowl. Experiments do seem to show "virtual" particles arising in a vacuum. But a man-made vacuum cannot eliminate the very structure of Space. Space-time is a thing. It may be a property of this thing to perhaps "spark" a particle.

A critic correctly said that Hawking did not answer the question of why anything exists and continued on to state this was a matter of faith. I beg to differ. It is a matter of empirical physical scientists not being properly trained in classical philosophy. Hawking sees "spontaneous creation" within the container of space-time. He fails to ask the question again, "What is the cause of space-time?". Aristotle was not a man of religious faith. At this point he simply has the necessary scientific humility to say that there must be an "uncaused cause".

And those extrasolar planets? How great God is!

2010-06-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

Night and Sunrise

As the moon begged
the life-giving water closer,
they were yet sleeping
and I was wondering:
If night never was,
would we ever see
the sky of other suns?

The boat gently sways
in the cradle of the sea
as we see the edge
of the sun; again
our planet has turned
untold times in uncounted
circles around this star,
which rotates with the wheel
of a galaxy curving the universe
in the Thought of God,
Who stands on shore cooking
fish for his brothers' morning.
(John 21:1-14)

Concerning Traditionalists

2010-06-08T08:04:00.000-07:00

As I write this, I pray that God will allow me to speak with fraternal charity. I ask that you pray the same.

There is so much to touch upon that I must use the walking stick of chronology, public and personal, to help me. Be patient as I often seem to wander.

In 1956 the Sacred Congregation of Rites allowed English to be used in certain ceremonies during Holy Week. Additionally, the U.S. Bishops received permission to have English as predominant in the administration of the sacraments. (Living Our Faith, Book Three, 1958, p. 120) At the same time in 1958 the same Sacred Congregation authorized the Latin Dialogue Mass. (My first communion missal) Let it be remembered that the faithful had no response in a low Mass before this. (Recently two newly ordained Latin rite priests wanted to learn more of the Mass in Latin. Attending Mass they knelt on kneelers in the sanctuary and recited the responses. The priest after Mass told them they were not really allowed to recite any response!) Also well before 1958 the Eastern Churches, such as my own Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, changed from traditional liturgical languages to the vernacular.

Archbishop Lefebrve in Europe and Fr. Gommar De Pauw in America were the first two dissenters from the implementation of the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council. Yet they had both accepted in 1958 the election of Pope John XXIII, a man devoted since childhood to the Rosary and the Priesthood. Read “The Journal of a Soul”. Both accepted the Pope's calling of the Council. Both attended the Council and were officials of that Council. Both accepted the election of Pope Paul VI and continued their official presence at all sessions of the Council. Both by their acts are witnesses on behalf of the legitimacy of the Popes and council after 1958.
Padre Pio, Sister Lucy of Fatima and Mother Theresa of Calcutta also accepted and supported the Magisterium of the Church during and after this same time. And, please, no evil detraction, malicious gossip or baseless conspiracy fairytales will hide the historical fact that these above mentioned five refute by their official acts the people who want to make 1958 the end of the papacy or magesterium.

So what did happened as a result of Vatican II? The word “reaction” is key. In a response to a comment on the previous post I did not show that the actual teaching of the Council caused any real problem. I stated that the reaction to the Council by some was to invent a false zeitgeist to cover their overthrowing of Church discipline. Let me propose a
case of proper spiritual direction and wrongful results: Imagine a priest who is the spiritual director of a younger cleric in 1935. The young priest seems exhausted mentally and scrupulously confesses in Penance the smallest incidents. The confessor-director while dispensing penance and absolution in administering the sacrament also gives pastoral advice to his young penitent. He tells him to remember that Tanquerey said that “done for the love of God to recreate was love”. (The Spiritual Life; Tanquerey; 1930; p.175.) “Go out and go to a ballgame with some friends. Have a beer and a hot dog! I hear those Yankees are coming to town! [Remember St. Paul's advice to Timothy about a little wine for the stomach.] Now lets pretend that a few days later Fr. Confessor happens to meet Fr. Young Cleric at the same baseball game. Hello! How are you! But he notices that the younger man looks flushed after finishing his (perhaps literally) first beer and is ordering another. Fr. Confessor had assumed in Confession that the young cleric had been as socially mature as himself at that age. Fr. Confessor is conflicted. He cannot bring up Confession. He hesitates to interfer and throw his charge into confusion and greater moral compulsion. The young cleric turns out to be much more immature than the older man could have imagined and is prone to alcoholism. Does this outcome make the original administration of Penance invalid? Does it show that Tanquerey in 1930 was a heretic? Of course not. What it shows is that good spiritual direction was not capable of being followed by one so mentally immature.

Even as a relatively untrained adolescent in the late sixties and early seventies I could not accept Fr. De Pauw's original contention that a previous Pope had taken the keys of St. Peter away from his successors and frozen (even the adding of St. Joseph to the Canon before Vatican II was a crime against God some traditionalists claim!) the Latin liturgy for all of history. In fact this notion was so lacking in credibility that it was used by some to try and silence those who were struggling for better vernacular translations.

Now back to the Magisterium. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the office or function in the Body of Christ of Teacher. This office is held by the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles. While ( as explained implicitly by the previous post on the local churches) an individual magister might become a heretic, indefectibility means that the whole office of Magisterium cannot defect. Yet this is the direct statement of one of these Traditionalist sectarians. You might as well say, for instance, that the sacrament of Matrimony in 1938 up and left the Body of Christ. If you really believe that the Church founded by Christ cannot fail, you cannot state that any integral part of the Church has defected. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, ibi Deus. The original founders of Traditionalism knew where Peter was and they all obeyed his call to Council.

[A personal example of how the documents of the Council said one thing boldly and the ignorant and the rebellious made up a fairytale (idol in fact) to suit themselves: my local pastor wrote in the Sunday church bulletin that using the terms “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” was a “pre-Vatican II” idea. I responded to this egregious comment with a letter asking him if the entire Counciliar document “Constitution on Divine Revelation”, which offers a wonderful teaching on nothing but the relation of Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture, was also “pre-Vatican II”. He, of course, had no answer.]

In the mid 1970's I was sitting in the seminary library of St. Joseph's Dunwoodie. A layman was using the facility and we struck up a conversation. He was the cardiac surgeon Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. He invited me to his family home in Connecticut. I learned of his conversion from Brahmanism to the Catholic Church. He was deeply concerned about spiritual life. Unfortunately, brahmans are trained to strictly preserve every word of a human tradition. When the vernacular Mass was introduced, Coomaraswamy was offended and became a Traditionalist. But he was also a friend of Mother Theresa. He had written her of his problems with the new rite and she had sent back a letter which I read. She included a response from an Indian Catholic priest to all of his objections. Coomaraswamy did not accept this answer. Thinking about this afterwards gave me the basic insight that has guided my understanding of sectarian Traditionalism since. Arguing with a Traditionalist about Sacred Tradition is essentially the same as arguing with a “bible Christian” about Scripture. If you use either source of Revelation in your conversation it is to no avail – they both will counter with their own citations. The Protestant and the Neo-protestant Traditionalist both reject the authority of a living Magisterium. For the faithful Catholic, it is the Magisterium that preserves and interprets equally Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. At that time I composed a letter to Coomaraswamy but, to my lasting regret, never sent it. I thought: If he won't listen to Mother Theresa and her priest, why would he he listen to a mere seminarian? I learned about 25 years later that Dr. Coomaraswamy became a noted writer for one of the Traditionalist sects.

In our concrete situation I would say that all this means that a Catholic cannot usurp jurisdiction and pass sentence of heresy on the teaching of the Popes and Fathers of the Council. They cannot declare, “ Our objective reading (according to us, of course) of the missal of Pius VI clearly shows that no one is allowed to change the Latin rite”. You may substitute any of their unjust findings for the above. What we may say is, “I accept your authority to call for the use of the vernacular in the Latin Rite but the way you put this into practice was too rushed and authoritarian. You then let the spirit of liturgical renewal become an excuse for wholesale abandonment of discipline.” It took the entire Papacy of John Paul II to begin restoring respect for public order in the churches.

A last personal note. In my twenties I really did not take the documents of Vatican II all that seriously. They seemed to me a collection of well-meaning flowery sermons. But as I came to a greater appreciation for the Catholic understanding of Scripture as a result of attacks I have returned to these documents and grown in appreciation. Yes, error has no rights. People do. We must not be tempted by Satan to try to force people to violate their religious conscience. The need for this simple reminder from Vatican II was seen throughot the religious wars, the threat against Jews of exile if they did not convert in Spain, etc.. Unlike Moslems, we Catholics are not called to construct a society which is a prison for members of other faiths. As to our brothers and sisters in Christian baptism, just yelling at them about their errors will not go far. Perhaps we should read Pope Pius XII's “Mystical Body” more carefully. To be a member of the Mystical Body we must be baptized and not deliberately reject the faith or any teaching of the Church or be excommunicated. This may be a problem for the likes of Luther or Calvin but not for those who received sacramental baptism, baptism of desire or blood and who, like Traditionalists, because of an invincibly erroneous conscience have not deliberately and openly separated themselves from the faith of the Nicene Creed. Respect for religious liberty ( in the actual Counciliar documented context of always preaching the need for the full Catholic Faith) and ecumenical respect for assemblies of Christians ( in the same Vatican II documented context) is exactly what our times call for. The Holy Spirit in these documents has prepared the Catholic people for the greatest battle of the 21st Century: the growing attack of the worshippers of Secular Dehumanism. He wants us to be like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He calls us to true martyrdom – not making martyrs of others.

Again, I may seem to have been drawn into an argument of particulars with the Traditionalists. But this article is really addressed to those having to deal with these poor, hurt and understandably at times scandalized fellow Christians. Do not argue this or that document. The Church's Magisterium is the inspired guide to Sacred Tradition. Keep praying that they will be struck like Saul on the road to Damacus and realize this.

The Golden Lampstands

2010-05-07T06:33:00.000-07:00

The Golden Lampstands

ONE: The Apocalypse or Book of Revelation shows us the proper way to view the churches and the Church. Our Lord Jesus reveals hinself as intimately aware of the detailed virtues and faults of the seven local churches listed in the early chapters (Apoc. 1:17-3:22). He acknowledges their good but chastises them for their evils. He encourages them to be steadfast in virtue and to promptly repent from sin.

So we have a complete picture of the local assemblies or churches of His people being good but also containing serious evil that must be immediately addressed. Yet in this same book of Scripture we have the description of the Church as the woman glorified by the sun, the moon and the stars (ch. 12) and as the spotless Bride (ch. 21).

TWO: In St. John's first vision in the Apocalypse (ch. 1) Jesus is standing amid seven gold lampstands holding seven stars in his hand. The Scripture itself explains that the golden lampstands are the seven churches to whom the revelation is addressed and the stars are their angels.

Before the Book of Revelation we encounter the exact same Greek word for “lampstand” in Mark 4:21, Matthew 5:15, and (twice!) in Luke 8:16 and 11:33. Each usage concerns revealing – revealing good deeds or someone's goodness. While the Gospel of John does not seem to use the word for lampstand, the whole gospel speaks about light versus darkness: John 1:4-5 and 3:19 are important examples. In John the wicked love darkness to hide their evil deeds.

THREE: Jesus is within the lampstands. He is the light, the local churches display the light. Our Lord in the passages mentioned above says that we do not have a lamp to hide it but to put it on a stand for light. The Apocalypse is clearly using this imagery with the churches and our Lord. And please note: these “ecclesias” are not random slices of the Christian people located in some civic population center. Their identity should be seen as it is examplified in the rest of the New Testament – centered around the bishop and presbyters.

FOUR: Jesus speaks to the seven churches and details how they have responded to grace and how they have fallen to temptation. He reveals their spiritual condition – all are golden lampstands with angels in Heaven but they also obscure the light by falsehood, sin and mediocrity. Jesus says: “But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth.”(Rev. 3:16).

FIVE: Is it not extraordinary to our ordinary idea of the Church and the New Testament to realize that Sacred Scripture ends with Jesus' criticism of the various local churches? There is a tendency in churchmen with Holy Orders to attempt to hide their human limitations, mistakes, errors in administering the sacraments, pastoral bad judgment and sins by only emphasizing the holiness of the Church universal and our faithful obligation to love her and reverance her deacons, priests and bishops.

Every deacon, priest, bishop and pope is a sinner. They can be terrible sinners. They are often more in need of repentance and the sacraments than others in different callings. Does that imply a lessening of respect for them and their office? No – it means that we try to love and honor them as we would a parent. We honor our origin in the Church by honoring those we call “father”. But we honor the Church by following our Catholic moral and doctrinal training as officially given and interpreted by the Magesterium. We dishonor the Church when we passively go along with “pastoral” activity contrary to that training.

SIX: Enlightened by the Catholic Faith we can clearly see the development by the Church of her understanding of doctrine. As a case in point, simply read the Acts of the Apostles on the question of admitting and how to admit gentiles. But in viewing the wonderful increase in faith and numbers what is sometimes obscured is what was mentioned in FIVE – the human mistakes and sins of even New Testament Christians. During the gospels, did the Apostles understand and accept all that Jesus did and said? Throughout the Acts, did not the Church realize the fuller implications of Christ's redeeming act
(Acts 10:34 – 11:26; 15:1-29)? Was there not fraud (Acts 5:1-11)? Was there not jealousy (6:1-2)? Clerical ambition (8:17-24)? Disagreement and division between saints (15:36-41)? Fear about churchmen abusing authority (20:28-35)? Is not every epistle concerned with some falsehood, disorder or sin in individuals and the local church?

SEVEN: Yet, in spite of sin, there is the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Acts 21:2). We individual sinners and groups of sinners assembled in local churches can attempt to hide the light under a bushel basket but the Body of Christ, the Church, participates in the sinless glory of her head.

“The light shines on in darkness, a darkness that did not overcome it.” John 1:5

Post Script on Today's Scandals
See above.

Exploring Our Understanding of the Resurrected Life

2010-03-26T08:11:00.001-07:00

The “our” in the title refers to two themes in this article: the Church's understanding and our own personal comprehension. As the Church meditates on the Word of God, Jesus Christ, and develops a deeper understanding of the mysteries, we in turn listen to this deveoloped doctrine and deepen our spiritual life.

Christology and Eschatology

You can have an intimate knowledge of the heart and mind of a person you love but still find it difficult to describe him to someone else. The Church during the first centuries would struggle to find the words to describe Jesus, especially to refute false statements about her Beloved. Today this is called "development of doctrine". Not that doctrine "evolves" into something different but rather the Church's understanding grows as a seed grows with genetic integrity. We see a summary of this growth in understanding in the ancient Apostle's Creed and the Christian-defining Nicene Creed. Jesus is true God and true Man. It is of first importance that we accept true doctrine about Christ, Christology. There is also no reason I know that our understanding of true doctrine about the last things, Eschatology, cannot grow as well.

Early Christians were instinctively moved by faith to reject opinions about Christ that belittled or impinged his true humanity or divinity. A similar theological situation in my opinion may exist today concerning our Christian belief in the nature of the resurrected life. We know that the people of God under the Old Testament grew in their understanding of life after death – from a vague image of a shadow in Sheol (hell) to the resurrection of the flesh. This later understanding is especially made clear in the scene of Jesus with Martha and Mary at the raising of Lazarus. We also see from St. Paul's letters to his churches that people were caught up in imagining what the resurrected life would be like. We Christians have continued to meditate on this life. The struggle is between exaggerating either the physical or spiritual condition of the resurrected ones.

Yet, today, while there is a great body of Sacred Tradition and Scripture concerning the resurrection, most Christians must rely on the creedal formulae “I believe in...the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.” (Apostle's) and “I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” (Nicene). Again, in my personal opinion the Church would benefit today from a definitive expression on the true physical condition of the resurrected body and the true dominion of the resurrected soul. Real human flesh under the power of a real human soul in heavenly union with God. Aside from this Catholic development I also think our personal spiritual progress is indicated by our idea of the “life of the world to come”.

Heaven

First, and above all, heaven is the result of God's love. We are in heaven when every stain of selfish sin is removed and we are completely in love with God and all his holy ones. Pope John Paul II affirmed this when he issued a very short ( a few small paragraphs) teaching about “heaven”. He stated simply that heaven is not a place but a state of being. It is the state of being in complete union with God. We, of course, should fully assent to this teaching. When a pope teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church, we should also fully assent to that teaching as well. But both teachings must be received in the full context of all of Sacred Tradition and Scripture. True, to be “in heaven” is to be in union with God. However, our notion of a “state of being”, pardon the pun, can be amorphous. Being alive, being human, being Christian are states of being but ones that take place and need moment. It is not that the Holy Spirit, providing for the indefectibility of the Church, did not prevent an erroneous teaching by these Popes. It is that these statements can only be understood correctly surrounded by all of Catholic Tradition. In other words, they would be perhaps inadequate and misleading if taken out of that context. If I were there with Pope John Paul II, I might simply have remarked to him, “And the Resurrection?”.

Turning to John Paul II's great project, “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, we learn that it is essential that Man has a body and the dignity of the body (#364 – 366). We learn of the reality of Christ's risen body (#643 – 647). But we also learn that the risen body is “not limited by space and time” (645) and “beyond time and space” (646). The risen share, though as creatures always, the sovereignty of God over the world or universe. This clearly is shown in #645 when declaring that our Lord may appear at any time and in any guise. The point is that any state of being for a creature with a dimensional body will always require “place” even when that time and place is at the will of the gloriously risen one. We will not rise from the dead and our bodies evaporate or “ghostify” as we enter a catatonic ecstatic eternal state of being. Jesus did not ascend to the Father never to appear again. We not only believe in his resurrection and ascension but in “his coming again in glory”.

The Resurrection of Body and Soul

Do you think the Holy Spirit inspired the gospel words of Jesus in Luke 24:36-43 only as a teaching story? Jesus demonstrated that he was not just a spirit. Even earlier than this post-Resurrection appearance our Lord gave the starting knowledge of what the resurrected life would be like. The synoptic accounts in Mt. 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-36 detail his response to the Sadducees' rejection of resurrection of the body.

We can picture the Sadducee group. Barely able to suppress their grins, they approach this country “rabbi” with a delicious satire of the popular belief in the resurrection of the flesh. Surely he will make us laugh at his bumbling attempt to reconcile the ridiculous!

With calm authority Jesus wipes the smirk from their faces. You err, he tells them. Your very question is an error because you know neither the power of God nor the Scripture. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the living. Those who rise will not marry because they live like the angels.
Their life is founded on the abilities or law of the Spirit and is not dependent on the physical. They will not die, they are sons of the resurrection.

If we think about this passage carefully we will hear our Lord not only rebuke the Sadducees' sophisicated increduality about the resurrection of the dead but also his rebuttal of a naïve literalism about the event. We also err if we believe that the resurrection is simply a glorious resuscitation of the life in the Garden of Eden. We will not be running around sorting out spouses and third cousins.

It will be important to return frequently, however, to the Luke 24 passage I mentioned briefly at the start of this section. Jesus ate food. ( And perhaps also in John 21 though that is not perfectly clear – he certainly is protrayed by the inspired evangelist as cooking!) Jesus, risen and no longer dependent on food, eats. Is this done just to prove his bodily resurrection or is it an action that hints at the life of the resurrected? We will return again to this subject.

Our Spiritual Stage of Growth

A person's concept of life after our mortal death seems to be indicative of their spiritual development. Let me give two real descriptions of “heaven” I've heard from two people who may represent opposite ends of the spectrum. One good fellow is very religious in his conversation and is constantly available to others for concrete advice and prayer. When he speaks about heaven he describes becoming so united to God that we become God. He imagines a total union of love that we never achieve with God or neighbor in this life. When asked about our Catholic faith in the resurrection he is really not interested. For this person, body and place are simply besides the point. We will be united to God, the source of all good. Nothing else has value. Toward the other end of the spectrum, another friend describes a lovely cottage in a cozy country setting. In that cottage he can be a master carpenter building beautiful furniture. He is imagining the peace, personal serenity and skill that we want in this life but, again, never achieve.

Both pictures of heaven ssek the fulfillment of the heart. So, is the spiritual focus on the Beatific Vision much closer to the mark? Perhaps – but the second one includes the created universe and the neighbor that the furniture is being built for. What happens to our Lord's risen Body in the first vision? To our blessed Mother and the angels and saints? To the “new heavens” and “new earth” spoken of in Revelation? As it is necessary to keep in balance our Christological beliefs in the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, such a balance is necessary for our view of the resurrected life. We must acknowledge, in our idea of this life to come, God as center and also the real goodness of creation and the dignity of our intellect, free will and body. Again, it is vital to remember that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. We must also keep in mind both the spiritual and physical victory of the Resurrection. Personally I go along with another friend who says every time he imagines our heavenly life, his ideas soon deflate or “go squish”. We simply do not have the ability to see the resurrected life.

A Suggested Comparison

An effective way to proportion the relationship between our lives now and our resurrected life is to compare the unborn child to the adult man or woman. Look at the developing of the unborn but especially at the point where soon they will be born into the world. They are comfortable and seemingly secure in their mother's womb. Yet they are unseeing in an environment of extreme limits. While warmly enveloped they may feel the satisfaction of sucking their thumb. We may imagine them knowing something of “the other than self” by awareness of the bodily processes of the mother – heart beat, blood circulation, digestion, outside sounds and bumps and voices.

Yet what do these unborn children really know of the “born” world? Compare a healthy unborn baby to the fully grown healthy adult. The adult lives in a world that is almost literally infinitely larger. The adult has light versus constant shadow. He has the vision of others. His movement is again infinitely greater – just think of the vast difference between a young athlete and the same person in the womb. Beyond the physical, an adult has a mental and emotional world that defies the comparison. From others he has learned language, community, skills, love. Further, as adults we “sense” the spiritual mysteries as an unborn child would have a vague, undefined perception of the greater outside world. We who believe in the life that comes after the death of this body should realize that we are like an unborn child. The resurrected world will indeed be seeded from this one but more gloriously expanded. As St. Paul remeinds us, faith does not hope in what is seen. Again, we truly have no adequate idea of the glory of our risen life.

While it is true that we cannot know the glory of the risen world, something of the full growth can really be seen in the seed just as we relate the newly conceived baby to the born adult. We can catch perhaps a glimpse of our resurrected life in the Alpha of our Lord's resurrection – Jesus rose from the dead in a glorified body and ascended to the Father in that glorified body. But that body did not then evaporate. Remember that the Church teaches that even in his natural span of life Jesus had what we call the beatific vision. Yet the Scripture clearly shows us that Jesus lived like us in all things except sin. The Godly vision of the risen Just will not make the redeemed physical universe disappear – our world will end by transformation as, caterpiller to butterfly, the child is transformed into the adult, as Mary's body was transformed at the Assumption. We will not be left lying down on a blank planetary sphere in a physical catatonic state while our spirits enjoy a solely spiritual communion of the angels and saints. We will move, see, communicate and love God and neighbor in a way beyond what we can now. When we strain to imagine it, we use our limited womb-like experience and fail. But this unborn baby expecting merely a larger womb-world of warm comfortable bath water will be wonderfully surprised.

St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles

In the last book, book 4, of the Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas examines questions concerning the resurrection. In chapter 83 he denies eating and sexual union for the resurrected life. As far as I personally can understand the subject, I find his explanation of our Lord's statement about marriage and the resurrection to be reasonable. On the other hand, Thomas has an “awkward” (the way Aquinas himself describes ideas that are incomplete, inadequate or self-contradictory) stance on why Christ ate after the Resurrection. St. Thomas starts with the premise: “For, when the corruptible life is taken away, those things must be taken away which serve the corruptible life.” (SCG 83:2) Eating and marriage serve only to preserve human life. Since we will be immortal, no such activity would be necessary. St. Thomas says that even in their innocence the first humans, “Adam” and “Eve”, were imperfect because the human race was not yet multiplied as God commanded. Aquinas certainly seems to imply that God intended a specific number of people – when achieved marriage ceases to have any point. I think it is spiritually wise to accept our Lord's words and see that a union of two people, that ends in death, with the purpose of producing the fruit of increased charity and, hopefully, children will pass away as obsolete. But eating? Why “must” all the seemingly unnecessary disappear? Will conversation disappear? Will play disappear? Will art disapear? Music? And how about my friend who wants to make beautiful tables and chairs at which to share this “unnecessary” physical act of communal eating?

As mentioned, Thomas likes to speak of concepts as “awkward”. While Thomas acknowledges that Jesus ate after his Resurrection (Luke 24), he goes on to say that Christ was only doing this to prove the reality of his resurrection: “Hence, that food of His was not changed into flesh, but returned to the prior material state. But there will be no such reason for eating in the general resurrection.” (SCG 83:19)

Yes, The One who can enter a locked room and offer his wounds to the Apostle Thomas demonstrates that the Risen body is in control of the physical. Yes, and we will not have to prove to others that we are truly risen. What is not mentioned, however, is communion. Both meals and the marital act have a supreme value for humans above “the brutes” of being the occasion of possible growth in community. (The difference is that many can share in a meal for mutual physical, social and even spiritual nourishment while the marital act specificly joins husband and wife for a limited union directed at the possible fruit of that union – emotional and spiritual growth and children.) St. Thomas Aquinas states “only the occupation of the contemplative life will persist in the resurrection”. (SCG 83:24) As I have opined, Aquinas' vision of the heavenly or resurrected life relects his own spiritual life – granted, a very advanced spiritual condition. Yet I must ask, does the risen contemplative have a mouth and talk? Have legs and walk with his brothers and sisters? Does he have eyes and admire the awe-inspiring beauty of the redeemed and now transformed universe? No marriage, no eating, only contemplation – a super monastery? I liken such a view of our risen relationship to God to those who realize the sun is the center of the planets and the fuel of life yet would await the consumption of all in a super-nova. Like Jesus showing his Wounds and eating, it was all a pretense.

Here is the basic question. The soul is perfected in heavenly union with God, the ultimate act of contemplation. But why have a risen, glorified body? As a mere static platform for that contemplation floating in a pre-Copernican ether? In defense of Aquinas his following chapter 84 is a strong confirmation of the reality of the risen body and our Lord's words in Luke 24: 39 - “...for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me to have”.

It is clear from Genesis, from our Lord's Baptism in the Jordan, and from the groaning of creation cited by St. Paul (Rom 8:18-25) that the physical universe is good, made sacred by the Incarnation and awaiting final transformation. Think again about our Catholic teaching not only on the Resurrection of Christ but also the Assumption body and soul of Mary. Ultimately, the greatest case against an excessively spiritualistic view of our experience of the heavenly life is simply love of neighbor. “...one who has no love for the brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus is clear that the love of neighbor and self are simultaneous with the love of God. But, someone may object, in heaven we will have direct spiritual communion between God, our self and our neighbor. I repeat the response, why have a risen body? No, in the risen life the “planets” will not be absorbed into the sun. Again to be fair to Aquinas, his subsequent chapters declare that the body will be perfected by the blessed soul and share in the sovereignty of God. To repeat myself, as was said in the comparison to the unborn child, we cannot imagine our resurrected life but we can live in hope.

In the end, the greatest weight must be given this consideration: the Flesh of Christ that suffered scourging and crucifixion must in justice share in his Victory.

Suggested Readings in Scripture about the Resurrected Life

All Scripture and Tradition can only be understood within the Church, the Body of Christ.

Psalm 16:10-11
Daniel 12
Mt. 22:23-33
Mark !2: 18-27
Luke 20:27-38; 24:36-43
John 20:19-29; 21: 1-14
Rom. 8:18-25
1 Cor. 15:35-58 (Body transformed: “Not all of us shall fall asleep, but all of us are to be changed...”
1 Thess. 4:13-18 (Unlike Protestant rapture fantasies, this re-affirms 1 Cor. 15)
Phil. 3:17-21
Rev. 21:1-3

Sweet Words, Strong Words

2010-01-25T09:47:00.000-08:00

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.”
John 1:1

“In like manner, of course, it was manifestly suitable that, even in the human generation of the Word of God, some spiritual property of the generation of a word should shine out. Now, a word as it proceeds from a speaker – whether conceived within or expressed without – brings no corruption to the speaker; rather, the word marks the plenitude of perfection in the speaker. It was in harmony with this that in His human generation the Word of God should be so conceived and born that the wholeness of His Mother was not impaired. And this, too, is clear: It became the Word of God, by whom all things are established and by whom all things are preserved in His wholeness, to be born so as to preserve His Mother's wholeness in every way. Therefore, suitably this generation was from a virgin.”
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, ch. 45

“But in like manner the Spirit also helps our weakness. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself pleads for us with unutterable groanings. And he who searches the hearts knows what the Spirit desires, that he pleads for the saints according to God.”
Romans 8:26-27

Novices in the spiritual life often receive spiritually sweet experiences. Later their inner selves can suffer bitterness (Rev. 10). For now let us just consider the wonderful sweetness of the words of the Hail Mary.

God speaks:

Hail – Remember the joy when you greet someone whose mere presence lifts your spirits. Imagine, you are allowed to greet the loving Mother of God! Immediately, without distraction, she attends to
you. She listens to your mind and heart.
Mary – In every human language this name is feminine and beautiful. Ave Maria. “Mary” calls to mind the great blue-green oceans and forests. Mother Mary.

Full – Overflowing with life,
of
Grace – the life of God. How sweet to our sense and thoughts when someone is brimming over with life and goodness.

The Lord – Almighty God, our Creator, our existence, our glory...
is
with thee. – God is with Mary. Mary on earth has entered the Kingdom of Heaven already. When we are with Mary in this sacred prayer we are beginning contemplation, we are in Heaven.

Blessed art thou – Full of grace , again, but in the aspect of the overbrimming benefits God gives as the result of His Life of grace.
among women – not only the new Eve but, just as “man” should be understood generically, the queen of all mankind in Christ.

And blessed – The source of goodness is the sweet baby born with the cooperation of
is the fruit - the heart,mind and body of Mary, flowering under the light of the Holy Spirit in her
of thy womb, - innermost being. The Mother contains her child and yet is contained within Him
Jesus – There is no sweeter or stronger word than “Jesus”.

The Church resonds:

Holy Mary, - She shares the glorious holiness of God as we, too, her children are called to share.

Mother of God, - Isaiah 49:15
- Theotokos
- by Baptism, our mother.

Pray - How good it feels when we ask someone to pray for us who we know is prayerful and whose
prayers are powerful. At Cana Jesus tells his mother that it is not time. She simply turns to the
waiters ( and us) and says "Listen to him".
for us sinners - O happy fault! We come to a merciful mother and our sins make her more eager to
cleanse, discipline and teach us. And not just those whose clothes are dirty by venial
sins but grave sinners are embraced by the Mother of the Shepherd.

Now - At this moment, in these circumstances Mary will aid us.
and at the hour - And, no matter what kind of death we suffer, she stands
of our death. with us by our cross.

Amen.

Memories of the Nativity In Scripture

2009-12-14T17:18:00.000-08:00

The Purpose and an Axiom

The purpose of this article is to propose keys found in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke supporting the credibility of their birth narratives and, in doing so, illumine a Catholic understanding of those passages.

First, lets us look briefly at St. Luke’s introduction to his gospel (Luke 1:1-4). St. Luke states clearly that he will adhere to the sources of Revelation. His intention is to gather and hand on from both “eyewitnesses” and “ministers of the word”. That is, both the historical memories of the events of salvation and the Church’s reflection on those events in the preaching of the apostolic generation. St. Luke feels obligated to pass on only what he, who we believe is an inspired author, thinks is trustworthy. Because of the early date of the composition of the Synoptic gospels, these traditions were not a novelty but must extend to the first Christians. The reliability of these memories and preached reflections? It is not impossibly difficult for people to gather and remember a correct outline of shared events yet to present and reflect on that history from the diversity of human viewpoints. This is the axiom that underlies all history - to deny it is to lose all history.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke share common material and thus are called the Synoptic gospels. There is an interesting academic puzzle involving these gospels called the Synoptic Problem. The material that Matthew has that is not also in Mark is not found in Luke and, similarly, the material that Luke has that is not in Mark is not in Matthew. This is very evident in their accounts of the infancy of our Lord. In light of our above-stated historical axiom there is no real Synoptic “problem” but simply the diverse views of an important event. When an important event happens we tend to consult several sources to build the most complete account of the event. Perhaps the term “problem” really indicates that some students of the Scripture just have too much time on their hands. The real problem arises when someone claims that there are contradictions, for example, between the differing Birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke that suggest these stories are only based on the spiritual imagination of Christians. To answer this claim let us restate the axiom: Given any set of people, their reports of a shared experience can vary in detail and even accuracy but be correct in at least broad outline. Ask any mentally competent mother and father about the day their child was born. Their memories must be different but will agree on essential facts. Then ask the father to describe his memories to one person and the mother to another. In turn these two individuals must again describe or write accounts of that birth day which will be entirely separate but not uncomplimentary or contradictory.

There is another factor when studying the Bible other than the historical minimum offered above. It is a factor that I wanted to bring up only at the end of this article but which should be mentioned now considering our adolescent age of skepticism: faith.

The Bible can only be understood fully with faith. We believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and are contained or, at least, not contradicted by either source. Therefore the events of salvation and the preaching about those events contained in Scripture are divinely guaranteed as to the Revelation God wills to make. In other words, there are no errors concerning the divine matters of faith and morals when considered in their full context. Neither Scripture nor Sacred Tradition is guaranteed concerning non-essential (non-essential to the Divine message) facts of astronomy, geography, biology or even history. More on faith and context will follow the discussion below.

Key Verses We Consider in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke

Let us now consider specifics in Matthew and Luke that may be helpful. We focus sharply on a single phrase in a single verse, even a single preposition, in Luke. In Luke 2:24 we find the words “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons”. These are a direct citation from Leviticus 12:8. This citation tells Luke’s readers that Mary is a poor woman since this is what the Law states someone who cannot afford a lamb must offer in stead for her ritual purification. Circumcision of a male child occurred on the eighth day after birth; the mother’s ritual purification on the fortieth day after birth. (Keep this length of time in mind when, in a moment, we turn to Matthew.) Did St. Luke or his sources (more likely since the writer of the gospel establishes he is relying on sources at the start) just presuppose Joseph and Mary were good Jews and would follow the Law after the birth of a son or did they have a historical basis? If St. Luke was writing based on his or someone else’s religious reveries there would be no reason to give the Leviticus quote in the manner it was used, leaving a somewhat awkward “or”. Luke or his source would have made a choice of what Mary sacrificed for the imagined scene. Yet he does not feel free to make an “educated guess” between turtledoves and pigeons for the sake of narrative. In other words, he does not write something that is baseless.

Turn now to key verses in Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus: 2:7 and 2:16. Matthew repeats himself in both verses for emphasis: Herod knew exactly from the Magi when the star of the new king appeared. Based on this knowledge Herod has all boys two years old and under killed. King Herod is shown to be a “furious’ murdering criminal but not as stupid. He calculates. His calculations are based, as Matthew goes out of his way to tell us twice, on the exact time of the star’s appearance. Matthew is clearly indicating an age for Jesus that is after the forty day period covered by the gospel of St. Luke. This is after the birth in a stable annex, circumcision and purification in the Temple. One of the supposed “contradictions” between Matthew and Luke is that the shepherds go to a stable while the Magi visit a house. No, it is our imagined conflated nativity scenes that are too condensed and misleading. A man concerned about his young family responsibilities has obtained decent housing for Mary and Jesus by the time the Magi are reported. There is no foundation in Scripture to think that Herod could know about Jesus in the eight day or even forty day time period of Luke.

Complimentary Traditions

So, to imitate Matthew in our own poor fashion, I repeat that Luke is dealing with forty days while Matthew can reasonably be seen as writing about events at least months later. In any “calculation” there is generous room to reconcile, dare I say, synchronize the peaceful domestic religious tapestry of St. Luke with the dangerous secular circumstances of St. Matthew. The gospel of St. Matthew presents traditions about the birth of Jesus that can be described as derived from the natural fatherly concerns of Joseph. The main concern that fills the mind of a man with a young family? Protect and provide. The Joseph-father memories are shown in protecting Mary’s reputation (Mt. 1:19), protecting both wife and child from a direct threat (2:13), and providing a secure home (2:22).

St. Luke’s gospel gives us the memories and tradition of a joyful young mother. What is first and most important in her memory is not outside forces (Joseph took care of that) but the joy and wonder of domestic occasions: learning she would be a mother, the visit to her cousin Elizabeth, the birth of her cousin’s son, the birth of her son Jesus, the shepherds, the circumcision, her ritual purification and presentation of her first born son, what people remarked about her baby and herself, and, years later, the finding in the temple.

Why so many Joseph and Mary traditions in the Early Church? The gospels of St. Luke and St. John and the Acts of the Apostles firmly attest that Mary was notably present in the newborn Church. Together Luke and John offer Mary as the prototypical Christian. It would be ahistorical to the point of absurdity to think the first followers of Jesus and the entire Church in the first century did not seek the memories of the mother of the Lord or did not find them precious to maintain. As to Joseph, need we remind ourselves of Jesus’ relatives in the primitive Church? Joseph is presented in Matthew as the prototypical Christian elder with inspired leadership to provide for and protect the Church.

Faith

The true key to Scripture is faith. We cannot understand Scripture with the doubting question of Zechariah (Luke 1:18-20) but with the seeking to understand question of Mary (1:34-35). The response to Mary’s trust? Not according to the way of men but the result of a miracle. If, in blind devotion to the empirical side of science, you eliminate the miraculous, you have prejudged the very idea of Revelation and therefore cannot understand the Bible. Sadly, much of modern “biblical criticism” is founded on this premise: Since miracles are discounted, how do we study the Bible as secular literature?

The Church documents (Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council) do not endorse suspending faith as a prerequisite to the scientific study of Scripture. {Note: Since the first writing of this article Pope Benedict XVI has spoken in confirmation of this theme: http://www.zenit.org/article-27344?l=english }

The study of Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition depends on faith in the entirety of Revelation. Ultimately this is faith in Jesus, the Word of God (the gospel of St. John) and the final and complete revelation from God (Hebrews). Now, if you trust someone, you receive their statements and hold them in context. Context is the legitimate place for the scientific part of Scripture study: language, idiom, history, culture, human psychology. We also take into account the limitations and mistakes of ourselves and other students of Scripture.

Since Christ is the Revelation of God, the real context of Scripture is the body of Christ, the Church. All members who can should read and study the Word of God but only those apostolic members whose function it is to shepherd the Church can give authoritative interpretation. The Catholic approach to Scripture should be the via media, the middle way. There are those who take a naïve literalistic approach to each word in the library known as the Bible. (While this article seeks to restore balance away from the overly-critical, the “or” phrase of Luke can also demonstrate that the author did not dictate a transcript of history as spurious non-scriptural writings purport to have.) Others, who dominate today, view the Bible as an interesting example of culture and myth which they as modern critical thinkers can better understand than anyone else. Both of these stances towards Scripture are wrong. We must have a critical sense of history and literature at the disposal of an enlightening faith. Mary at the Annunciation: her question is derived from realistic knowledge, her acceptance on real trust.

But how does this apply to a naturalistic synchronization of the Birth narratives in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke? It is intended as a counter-balance to the approach to the Bible that discounts the historicity of events. If one’s starting premise in approaching the Scripture is that only the empirical is reasonable, then this a priori prejudice spreads to even the understanding of ordinary events. In other words, since miracles reported assigned to the birth of Jesus are mere cultural expressions, even the reported outline of historical events is dubious. These Zechariahs, who have made the pre-judgment that miracles are doubtful, would reduce us all to dumbness in response to Scripture.

Once again, consider Mary’s response to the angelic message: “How can this be since I do not know man?”. Mary was “deeply troubled” by the angel’s words. God’s word to us is often difficult to understand. The full discipline of science depends on both the empirical and the logical, not just the empirical. Mary’s question is logical based on the empirical facts of life. But she is not just an empirical object in a merely physical world. She has a hope-producing and therefore an enlivening and enlightening faith. Once she is told that she would be a mother not in the empirical way but through the miracle of the Holy Spirit, she accepts and our salvation is assured. As Jesus often said to those whom he healed – “Go, your faith has saved you”.

The Snake Speaks

2009-05-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

The Snake came slithering into N.D.U. seeking only "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words... common ground". The Snake wanted Adam and Eve to listen.

"No, you shall not die; for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:4-5

John Jenkins, president of N.D.U., said "...President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him". So, for the sake of the appearance of good, Jenkins and the graduates of N.D.U. listened to the Snake. When a protester shouted "Stop killing our children!", the crowd responded "Yes we can!"

"Barabbas!"

Obama was right in declaring that there are "irreconcilable differences" between abortionists and those who hold human life as sacred.

"...the Lord God said... I will put enmity betwen you and the woman, between your seed and her seed..." Genesis 3:14-15

We must respond to the idea of compromise with evil with hate. But hate the sin, love the sinner. We must continue an undespairing witness to the sacred origin of human life. We must increase our pleas to our Blessed Mother for help. Our Lady will crush the head of the snake under her heel.

It Would Be Strange

2009-04-07T18:14:00.000-07:00

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” Dom Helder Camara (1909 – 1999)

It would be strange if you, especially if you call yourself “Christian”, would have a friend come to your door robbed of his food money and all you did was feed him without any interest in the crime. It would equally be as strange if you were only outraged at the injustice and didn’t bother to feed him.

The problem with taking the late Brazilian bishop Camara’s quote out of context is that it is not the role of the bishop to only to do either or both. The bishop, while caring for the poor and justice, must first preach the Word that prompts effective charity and justice. In other words, if you don’t have a reason, why care about the poor or about justice?

The early Church quickly and wisely dealt with this situation: please see Acts 4:32-35 and Acts 6:1-3. The community shared physical goods but recognized that proclaiming the Word came first.

Bishop Camara, by saying what he said, was doing three things: preaching, feeding the poor and seeking justice. I have experienced firsthand “religious” communities that abandoned preaching the Word of God for a social agenda. They indeed want to both feed the poor and seek social justice – but they forgot that “the poor” are human beings, children of God, who are worthy to have the same Gospel given to them as to “the rich”. We Christians believe in the Body of Christ. We believe that only “in Christ” are we alive and fruitful in charity and justice (Acts 4). The Body has many members – some are called to mainly preach, some to mainly almsgiving and some to mainly seek justice – but all are called to share their faith, their motivation to do so, with both the poor and the rich (Acts 6). Sharing the real flesh of Jesus, the Word of God, is the first and enlivening act of love. It is the cause of our caring about our brothers and sisters.

Without love, we would have no friend at the door.

Stem Cell Big Lie

2009-03-09T09:42:00.000-07:00

Please do not fall for the Nazi Big Lie technique. They want you to be fooled into confusing all stem cells with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are just a type of cell; embryonic stem cells are the result of the frankenstein making of an unborn baby and then killing that baby for body parts. Another basic aspect of this lie is to label human beings and make it easier to forget their humanity. Remember: embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent, adult are all terms referring to a stage of human life.
Please go to the site: WWW.STEMCELLRESEARCH.ORG for a complete education on the subject.

Important News

2009-02-19T10:06:00.000-08:00

Jesus loves his mother Mary very much.
Mary wants you to listen to Jesus.
You would be well-advised to do so.
To Jesus through Mary

The Rosary

2008-09-17T19:36:00.000-07:00

The Rosary is a beautiful gift. Rejoice in it.

The Rosary is based on the Word of God which comes to us in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The only way to fully receive the benefits of the Rosary is to be fully rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium on both. This requires the attitude of Mary displayed in the first Joyful Mystery: based upon your faith in God, you humbly listen and study.

The Rosary is a meditation on the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ with Mary, First among the Faithful and the Mother of God, in the prayers and mysteries recited privately or publicly.

The Rosary as such reflects the Sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy. It prepares us before to be lifted up with Christ in the Divine Liturgy and strengthens us after to follow him.

Can you outgrow the Rosary as part of your spiritual life? Can you outgrow meditating on the Lord’s Prayer? The Gospels? Sacred Tradition? The Divine Liturgy?

Remember this – the events of Jesus’ life are not becoming more remote in time. On the Contrary: each day his life is becoming more and more the center of the human race. All of mankind must answer his question: Who do you say I am?

Throughout our history and world Christ is drawing us up as his Grace triumphs over sin. Every day members of broken or dysfunctional families are being made whole as real members of the Holy Family in Nazareth. The mentally and physically ill are being healed by the touch of Jesus in Israel. We selfish and evil sinners are being redeemed by the love flowing from the Cross outside Jerusalem. We are victorious with Christ over the oblivion of death in our faith in the certainty of the empty tomb and the Final Judgment.

The Joyful Mysteries
We listen to the good news. We receive the Word of God.
We respond with overflowing love to Jesus within us and others.
We give birth to the presence of Jesus.
We dedicate, consecrate our lives to God in the Temple of the Body of Christ.
When we are separated for any reason from Jesus, we remember him and search for him.

The Annunciation

Mary, a beautiful Jewish maiden, opens her heart and mind through the prayers of her people to God.

In her prayer, her conversation with God, she listens intently in silence. She meditates on what the angel of the Lord says. She asks a question to fully understand the word from God. “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to thy word.”

Mary, daughter of Abraham and full of grace, pray for us.
Gabriel, angel of God
Doubted and questioned by Zechariah,
Questioned and understood by Mary, pray for us.

Comment: You did not invent the Our Father and the Hail Mary. These prayers are God speaking first to you. Listen carefully in your heart.

The Visitation

Mary receives good news both about herself and her cousin Elizabeth. She immediately goes to Elizabeth.
Elizabeth and her unborn child immediately rejoice at the sound of her voice.

Blessed art thou among women!

Mary, pray that the love of God may move us.
St. Elizabeth and St John the Baptist, pray for us that we may bring Christ to others and receive Christ in others.

Comment: Mary heard good news. Did she sit around thinking about her self?

The Nativity

Christ is born.

Sacred Scripture and Tradition tells us that this event is not an ordinary childbirth but a miracle. Mary, virgin before childbirth, virgin in childbirth and virgin after childbirth.

Jesus begins his life of conquering love.

Jesus, true God and true man, our Lord and Savior!

Mary, our mother, pray for us.

St. Joseph, our foster father, pray for us.

Comment: When you listen and love, you give birth to the presence of Jesus.

The Presentation of the Child Jesus in the Temple

We are consecrated and consecrate those among whom we live to God in the temple of the Body of Christ, the Church.

Mary, take us in your arms to Mother Church.

St. Joseph, protect our family.
St. Simeon and St. Anna, pray that we may recognize Jesus.

“Behold, this child is destined for the fall and the rise of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” Luke 2:34-35

Comment: We are brought to the Church by others and bring others to the Church.

The Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple

The routines that support us blind us.
Where is Jesus in our lives? Search for him again; find him. Follow him on the way to the Cross. But now rejoice that you have found the Way.

Mary, pray for us that we may see how Jesus is missing in our lives and search for him.

St. Joseph, go with us and help to find and care for our Lord.

Comment: You forget that Jesus is the Center, not you? Remember him; search for him.

The Sorrowful Mysteries
We pray that we may be united to Jesus so he can sustain us in agony, scourging, humiliation and crucifixion.

The Agony in the Garden

“Sit down here while I go over yonder to pray.”

Mary, pray for me that I may persevere in prayer with Jesus your son.
Mary, pray for me that I may be one with Jesus in his resolution to do the Father’s will.

“Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; yet not as I will, but as thou willest.”

Comment: Pray to stay with our Lord Jesus in prayer and sacrifice. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”

The Scourging

Jesus suffered terrible pain in his body so that our pain and suffering would not destroy our souls. “By his stripes we are healed.”

Mary, our mother, pray that we may be strengthened by the sufferings of your son Jesus so that his grace may overcome the scourging of our souls by our sins.

Comment: Offering up our sufferings with Christ really makes us able to go the way of the Cross, the way of love, the way to eternal Life.

The Crowning with Thorns

Do you see yourself one with Jesus, mocked and humiliated?
No, you are the one crowning your neighbor with sarcasm, jokes with your companions, feigned politeness and quick judgments. You are imposing mental suffering on our Lord, spitting in his Face and mocking him.

Mary, pray for us that we may share in Jesus’ humility of mind, purity of heart and obedience of will.

Comment: Before we are worthy to be humble with Jesus Christ, we must stop degrading our neighbors.

The Carrying of the Cross

Jesus said to pick up our cross each day and follow him. Because of how weak sin has made us, putting God first and loving our neighbor is often a heavy burden.

Mary, pray for me that I may not run away from the Cross.

Comment: Only clinging to Jesus do we have the strength to carry our cross.

The Crucifixion

Jesus is tortured to death that we may rise with him to Eternal Life.
Lord Jesus, lift us up with you in your Cross, Resurrection and Ascension.
All our sins, mistakes, our worlds
Are shattered,
The dead rise,
The Kingdom of God
Breaks in.

Mary, pray for us.

Comment: Accept death with Christ on his Cross.

The Glorious Mysteries
We die and rise with Jesus in Baptism.
We listen to his instructions and wait for the Holy Spirit.
We respond to God with all our being and we hope for a crown of glory with Mary, our mother.

The Resurrection

The appearance of the angel was like lightning. The shattering of death and sin began on the Cross and is completed at the tomb Sunday morning.

Mary, please pray that through faith we may share in the Resurrection victories of your Son Jesus.

Comment: We believe in the Good News that Jesus Christ has risen in glory from the dead and is victorious over sin and death.

The Ascension

Christ lifts us up with him in his life, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father. This is all one Sacrifice. Reunited to the Father in His Son Jesus, we will be given the Holy Spirit.

Pray for us, Mary, that we may follow the instructions of your Son and be ready to co-operate with the Holy Spirit.

Comment: We must remain in Jesus through Faith as he ascends to offer the one Sacrifice to the Father. We have trust in Jesus because we both believe and hope in him.

The Descent of the Holy Spirit

Wait and pray for the Holy Spirit with Mary, the apostles, all the disciples, the Church.

Mary, pray for us that we may be filled with courageous love.

“Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the Fire of your love.”

Comments: Trusting in the teachings of Christ and his Body, the Church, prepares us for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Assumption of Mary

Mary with all her being, body and soul, responded always to the Holy Spirit.

[Jesus] told them in reply, “My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and act upon it.” Luke 8:21

Let us pray that our spiritual life – our judgment and the decisions of our free will – and our physical life are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Mary, mother of our spiritual life, pray for us.

Comment: Jesus came to us completely through the cooperation of Mary with the Holy Spirit. To Jesus through Mary.

Again, the Rosary

Rooted in Sacred tradition and Scripture, we hold a rosary. It is a … vessel for our prayers… a staff to lean on… a rope to cling to. We pray with others to Jesus and Mary. We go off to a quiet place to talk to Jesus or Mary alone.

God speaks to us in the Rosary. Did you make the mysteries of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection? When we try to meditate or think about these and try to remain in a prayerful attitude, God speaks to us. Did you make the Our Father or the Hail Mary? When you listen to these words as you pray them, you are listening to God.

It is hard for us in our weak state to listen. Just always try. When you talk to God or Jesus or Mary or the angels and saints, they listen. It is not hard for them to listen. It is we who grow sleepy or weak or anxious or fickle.

Imagine Mary our mother when one of her children talks to her. She does not find you boring or unpleasant. She listens to you with all the loving attention of her fiery, wounded Heart. She has all eternity. She is with you now and will not just give you all the time you need, she will happily spend with you all the time you want.

Our Lord Jesus and Mary and the citizens of Heaven are not distracted by the demands of time or desire. They are totally in your presence and do not want to leave you to go somewhere else or do something else. All the time you speak to Jesus will not subtract one moment that he has for all the others he loves.

May the Rosary give you a share in the peace of Heaven. Jesus our Lord and Savior together with his mother and all the angels and saints are with us.

True Liturgical Reform

2008-08-25T10:14:00.000-07:00

I. Reform Before Worship

Since the 19th century people have thought that liturgical revivals or reforms would change the condition of the Christian people. Revive Gregorian chant. Put missals in the hands of the laity. Encourage them to participate, to pay attention. Dialogue Latin Mass. Worship in the vernacular language. Liturgical archeology. Lately, a return to Mass in Latin.

What does God say about a people who pay him lip service? In Mt.5:23-24, Jesus says if we remember on the way to the altar that our brother holds anything against us, leave our gift at the altar and first go and reconcile with our brother. Reform comes before our worship not after.

The worship that Jesus offers to the Father and which he gives to us his brothers and sisters is a multi-faceted mystery which we will never fully fathom. We start, however, by realizing that we are offering Sacrifice. The sacrifice is the life, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord which he brings and offers to the Father.
As such when we gather together for the Divine Liturgy we are offering through the Christ-like office of the bishop and his priest a real sacrifice.

In the last part of the 20th century the understanding that we were offering a Holy Sacrifice seemed to be overshadowed by the idea of "celebration". Lets have a community rally!

Indeed the Divine Liturgy is a real celebration where our Risen Lord Jesus both offers the sacrifice and comes to us in Holy Communion. Yet we are tempted to reduce the Divine Liturgy to a mere temporal human celebration to promote temporary human community. Perhaps having become aware of this shortcoming, we think a return to artificially imagined past liturgical practices will straighten everything out.

II. Our Reform

No changing of liturgical prayers and practices in the name of "reform", tradition or ecclesial archeology will, mechanically, produce better Christians. No Industrial Revolution massive or streamlined production improvements are called for. As we approach the table of the Last Supper, the altar of the Cross, the empty stone tomb of the Risen Lord we must return to the beginning of the Gospel: "Reform your lives! The kingdom of heaven is at hand."(Mt.4:17) Reform first, the rite of penance first!

The Divine Liturgy is offered in Christ as worship, not used by us as a tool. It is not a means for social engineering the Church and certainly not a media for entertaining display.

Pray for our reform as a priestly people. Our spiritual repentance
joined with physical reverence and the mental acknowledgment that this is a Sacrifice will, with the necessary Christian faith, hope and charity, lead to true liturgical reform.

Let us go to the Temple of the Body of Christ and beat our breasts, saying: Be merciful to me, Lord, a sinner! Then our Sacrifice will be pleasing and acceptable to God.

Voting

2007-08-21T10:25:00.000-07:00

Is voting a right or a duty? Both? How does a full Catholic Christian vote? I challenge you to find information on the Catholic teaching about voting.

Josef Pieper in his work The Four Cardinal Virtues (my edition is Notre Dame Press) has some valuable things to say. Read this book and see what he writes in the section on "Distributive Justice"

Scranton Coal Mine Revisited

2007-08-21T10:07:00.000-07:00

This year my son, Joseph, and I went to the Lackawanna Coal Mine Tour. It was my second visit. I had gushed to my college-aged son and everybody else who would listen what a eye-opening experience this had been last year. (See article below)

I left very upset. No, not at the way people, especially children, had been treated by the "Christian" coal mine owners but the way the whole labor struggle had been eliminated from the Tour. A new little-orphan-Annie hard-knock-life film in the new yuppieized visitor center mentioned NOTHING about the mine workers fight for labor justice. The film sounded like labor unions never existed. In a retro faith-based initiative it mentioned that only "churches" and other local organizations were sources of help to the miners and their families. But I reassured my son that the tour guide would set things straight. Well, he turned out to be what I can only describe as a retired carnival barker. He gave a hurried mumbled tour that again avoided any reference to the labor union or the historical strike of 1902. What a disgrace!

Were the recent coal mine victims in Utah union members?

Archeologism

2007-08-21T09:52:00.000-07:00

Taking past practices as inherently better than present practices is archeologism. When "liturgical reform" was prompted by the occasion of the Second Vatican Council, many rituals were picked artificially from different sources and times. They were imposed immediately in an authoritarian manner. Think of the rediscovery of Pompei as an example: works of art and sculpture were looted out of context and placed in various palaces. Pretty stuff but not living art.
Another example from a story my friend Dan told me. Dan is active on his parish council. In one recent meeting someone was talking about the "responsorial psalm" after the first Scripture reading. They wanted to get more "response" from the worshippers and reminded everyone that this responsorial was an ancient liturgical practice revived in the new liturgy. Dan simply responded (!), "Why do you think they dropped it?".

I Didn’t Know Washington D.C. Was This Isolated

2007-03-06T07:17:00.000-08:00

January 6^th I mailed a formal first-class letter to the new Senator from Pennsylvania congratulating him on his election and urging him to show leadership in opposing killing newly conceived unborn babies to get their body parts (embryonic stem cells). I tried to remind him that “embryo” is simply a clinical term for a stage in our human lives just as “adolescent” or “adult”.

As of February 12^th I had received no reply so I emailed his Washington office. I had written early before Senator Casey even took the oath of office to allow time for the postal anti-anthrax scanning and the set-up of his new office. But I thought five weeks was enough. February 14^th I called directly to Washington. The office staff acted as if the first-class letter I had sent was a non-issue. The fact that they neither had the letter nor cared about answering it was something they expected me to think was understandable.

The administrative officer working for Senator Casey said that the Senator had released a statement on January 22^nd and it should be on his website. As we were both looking at the site she realized that it had not been posted. She assured me that she would email it.

As of the 22^rd of February the statement was not on the website so I called again. This time I got the press assistant. She seemed to understand my concern. She emailed the statement below. (The administrative officer had apparently emailed the document but my AOL spam filter must have dumped it.)

This statement was printed to be handed to the Right-to-Life marchers when they went to the Senator’s office. No press release was given to the press for the rest of the public.

Scranton Coal Mine

2007-03-02T07:54:00.000-08:00

You know the song …

Sixteen tons and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
St. Peter don’t you call me
Cause I can’t go –
I owe my soul to the company store.

A few months ago I went to the coal mine tour here in Scranton, PA, with my wife and my brother-in-law. Historically and morally it was an eye-opening experience. If you had said to me before this tour that coal miners and even children had been exploited by mine owners I would simply have nodded in agreement. This is an accepted assessment of a general historical situation. While after the tour I certainly appreciated the almost impossible situation of the coal miner’s family, I was truly astonished at the amount of unrelenting child abuse. Children were not only employed in the dangerous coal sorting work outside the mine but were constantly injured and killed down in the mine as part of the standard workforce. One job: lead the coal hauling mule through the tunnel. If the boy and mule died… the family would owe the company the price of the mule. These boys were often employed because their father had died working for the mine. That gets us back to the opening lyric.

A miner was required to excavate eighteen tons of coal in order to get any pay for that day. Yet nearly everything he need to work and live had to be purchased from the company store. Hence you always fell into debt. When a man died working for the mine a company lackey would bring his body to his home. The widow would then have three days to pay off his debt or give a son to the mine to prevent her family from being evicted from her company house.

Economic Zen - Neti, neti - Not capitalism not communism.

How are things different for us today compared to these mine workers? What does it really mean to be “employed” in our society? First, it means you do not have the means to support yourself – you do not have the independent business, trade or wealth to buy food, clothing, shelter, etc. for yourself or your family. You need to ask someone else for the work necessary to make a living. If someone cares to employ you for their business they know they have you at a disadvantage. Whether your pride admits to it or not, you have the status of a beggar. Do what your employer demands or lose the means to care for yourself and your dependents. But is it not fair? Did your employer force your parents to be poor or have no family farm or business or force you to have no trade? The employer is simply offering a fair exchange: work for food. Are there no homeless shelters? No welfare? Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?

When researching this article I read about indentured servants in colonial America. I had thought there might be a useful comparison. There was a comparison but not the one you might suspect. Many indentured servants were far better off than most modern American employees. When their period of indenture was completed, these individuals were often able to buy their own farm or business. What is the percentage of American workers who can work for an employer for seven to ten years and then be given the means to buy their own business? A much, much lower percentage than among indentured servants it seems.
We are longer-lived coal miners.

The story of how we became coal miners is the history of the industrial revolution. But it is not the history of mass production but of the ownership of the means of mass production. Researchers in the past decade discovered an interesting historical anomaly – Henry VIII of England in his zeal to attack the Catholic Church destroyed a monastery where the monks had developed mass produced modern steel for their tools. Imagine (better than yoko-onoized John Lennon) a world where the means of mass production was owned not by wealthy individuals or phony corporations but by villages, monasteries, neighborhoods, families? We would not need to be exploited as assets by private capital but struggle to work together as neighbors and family.

Private capital should remain private. When a private individual or “corporation” can virtually buy the whole life of another human being (laborers, clerical workers, coal miners, slaves), private capital by definition has exceeded its rightful place and encroached on the res publica. This usurpation damages our shared community. This is political – in the Aristotelian sense of the right ordering of society. No one should be able put a mortgage on themselves or another.

While private capitalism engorged on the power of modern mass production is abusive, the anti-matter solution of State ownership proposed by Marxism is simply changing the bosses and not the real status of the worker. The difficult road to journey is to promote anything that returns ownership to natural human communities where that community cannot shirk its responsibilities to its members. Profit and enterprise are still very necessary - not the profit intended to expand individual riches but the profit necessary to maintain a natural growth in family, village, etc.

We look at the enormous needs of our family or friends or the world and it is easy to become discouraged. At the risk of being “preachy”, remember the multiplication of the loaves. Start doing some determined good and let God worry about the rest.

How To Crash The Party In Heaven

2007-02-28T09:53:00.000-08:00

Comes Judgement Day I have a suggestion about how to sneak into heaven. Have you noticed that when people go to church the right side tends to fill in first? I think this has something to do with our predominate righthandedness. Now imagine the great plain on Judgement Day: people are running in to fill up the best spots, mostly on their right. But when our Lord Jesus comes to face the crowd in judgement those on the right will be on his left. The gospel says that Jesus will separate those on his right and left; the charitable on his right going to heaven and the selfish on his left going to hell. In other words those who depended on their own right will be on the left.

Well, our Lord’s standard of loving service may be too high for someone like me. Here’s my two part plan to get by. First I am going to try my best to practice humility in this life. Why? I don’t think there is any guarantee that the intellectual concept “I must remember to go to the left, Jesus’ right” will survive the experience of death and judgement. I want to be so practiced in humility that I will automatically let everyone in ahead of me and be forced to go to the few places left on the left. (This “automatic” tendency of the will is a virtue.) The second part is this: I want to pray to Jesus’ mother Mary as much as possible. After several billion people have filed past our Lord and I am close to the Gate, I want to wave at Mary the Queen Mother and say “Hail, Mary!”. I hope she will then recognize my voice and give me at least a faint smile. Jesus will see this and think anyone who’s a friend of his mother is alright with him and let me pass.

Global Smoking

2007-02-27T07:48:00.000-08:00

My natural tendency is to doubt popular analysis of public issues. The popular misconceptions about “population explosion”, abortion “rights”, two-party “democracy”, etc., etc., shows the public is easily misled by whoever owns the media. So when the popular media chants together about the dangers of global warming I am on my guard. I listen very carefully to any voice raised in disagreement. My caution is re-enforced when proponents of the idea of human activity increasing global average temperature engage in alarmist rhetoric. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel originally seemed to suggest that anyone who disagreed with the above idea should have their credentials revoked. Later she said that she would listen to others – once – and then move on. A recent episode of her show was promoted with the blurb that the Florida Everglades were “on the brink of extinction”. The phrase “on the brink” in a promo does not imply that forty or fifty years from now the Everglades will vanish, it seems to warn of their disappearance in four or five years. The Everglades, just like the Mississippi delta, have been severely damaged by mistaken water management. They are not going to disappear tomorrow if corrective action is taken.

Yet despite my misgivings I sense the issue of global warming is historically comparable to the issue of tobacco smoking. If you ceaselessly pump toxic smoke into your lungs and bloodstream you can expect negative consequences. If we ceaselessly pump pollutants and greenhouse gases you can expect negative consequences. Those who oppose this general concept of cleaning the environment remind me of those scientists and businessmen who downplayed the dangers of smoking to health. Doing things to make our energy production and consumption less damaging to the environment is the same as quitting smoking.

Feature: The Falling Boy

2006-12-01T10:42:00.000-08:00

When I was eight years old I remember walking up to our second floor apartment starting to cry. My mother at the door looked at my wet eyes and asked, “What’s the matter?” I told her I had seen another boy walking with his big sister and he was constantly falling to the sidewalk. No one, not even his sister, would help him. My mother just looked at me and said, “Why didn’t you?”

My tears stopped and I was stupefied. I had expected my mother to be sympathetic with my tearful sentiments. Instead her remark pointed out that I had the power to help someone and I had failed even to see it.

Was it her intention to hurt my self-esteem? She did not follow up her comment with any lecture or discussion. She had no desire to ridicule. I received a short to-the-point medicinal shot that lanced misused sentiment and made me realize that I was empowered to help someone and not just feel sorry for them. Here, perhaps, is the beginning of why we hesitate to give or receive correction. We will see our unpleasant reflection in a mirror – our pride challenged and our weakness exposed. How much more comfortable are the confines of a false man-made image of ourselves, of others and of the world.

We don’t like medicinal shots. What a harsh world if we were to expect everyone every time to be a doctor administering some medical procedure. Ah, but I’m willing to take my medicine and become a better person! But do we really want our eyes opened? I wish I could say that my mother’s “Why didn’t you?” was a life changing moment. With no exaggerated self-deprecation I estimate that ninety-nine percent of the time after the incident of the falling boy I was still blind to the way I could help others. Thomas Merton once wrote that we do not seek the truth but the half-truth that justifies us. It is painful to face ourselves and even more daunting to take up the task of healing or strengthening.

2.

We don’t want to make the difficult journey all the way to truth. We tire easily and want to settle for a substitute, an idol, a Golden Calf. We are reassured and made comfortable when joined by so many other worshippers of the Calf. I enjoy the security of being with the crowd. They confirm my subjective opinions and my self-image. The crowd protects me.

Not only am I reassured and protected by my fellow Calf-worshippers but I seem to make physical and emotional profit from them. With others at my side I can laugh and mock the falling boy, immune to dangerous sentiment and sharing the intoxicating drink of our normalcy.

At this point we not only dislike facing the truth but we begin to fear being cast out of what we see as normal human society. Perhaps not only to be cast out but attacked. And with long exposure to this intoxicant comes addiction. We don’t just get drunk once and regret it. We need the intoxication all the time whether alone or with companions.

Addicts are hostile to attempts to moderate their habit. Most of us seem to react with instant anger to any evaluation pointing to any mistake or problem. Even after we are told we are good and right in every way but one, we usually ignore all the positive compliments and focus solely on the single negative. We see it not as a healthy opportunity but as an undeserved piercing insult.

Falsity can be inebriating at first but it always ends in some kind of harm. Yet so can overdosing on “honesty”. The power of being critical, realistic, honest gives me a high. I stand upon a mountain looking down. Uttering lies about another person is so obviously tawdry – far beneath me! I’m going to inform you! “Did you know he used to…?” The taste of “telling the truth” about someone in order to subtract from that person’s attraction by detraction is sweet. It is our most frequent and entirely overlooked misuse of “being honest”.

Originally I only wanted to think and write about the puzzle of why we don’t speak the truth to each other. Sure, I realized immediately that what is objective reality and what we think is true are not necessarily the same. Yet the personal moral question that perplexed me remained – why do we withhold our full understanding, knowledge and insights from other people? But my notes and reflections were abruptly silenced just as my childhood thoughts on that second floor landing. I realized how “honesty” was most often arrogance and it had frequently distorted my perception of the real situation. Forty-six years after “Why didn’t you?”, I was still focused more on other’s behavior and not my own. I was staggered again. I had forgotten my role. I assumed and hid in a misshapened version of my mother’s: Why didn’t he? Why didn’t she? Why don’t they?

When you worry about how the rest of the world responds, it distracts you from your own response.

Jesus said not to try to take the speck out of your brother’s eye until you take the plank out of your own. People forget that he did go on and say that once the plank is removed then you can see to take out the speck.

How do I remove the plank, take out the speck?

Who would deny that conducting any surgery, especially eye surgery, on someone else is easier than on one’s self? I’m going to have to ask somebody to help remove that plank from my eye. I don’t want to overbuild on the hyperbole of Jesus but going to try anyway.

- Knowing I have a log jutting out leaves me cautious in approaching my brother’s speck. I don’t want to poke his eye out or smack him in the head with my plank.
- Knowing I have a plank and getting help pulling it out might teach me some skills necessary to operate on Brother or Sister.

Again, only somebody else can really assist us in getting out something stuck in the eye of our moral vision. While the company of the Calf deludes us, it is only through others that we come to know the truth. My mother showed me the difference between a helping hand and ineffectual sentimentality. I need the example and instruction of others. Who has enlightened you?

The cliché is that we cannot see the back of our head. In fact, we cannot fully see our physical or mental state without the mirrors provided by other people. We cannot even become self-aware without the presence and language given to us by others. Self-awareness is not the result of mere complication. Some imagine that the increasing evolutionary size and ability of physical brains (applied now also to artificial brains) leads, like critical mass, to human consciousness.

We simply wake up as from a dreamless sleep and are self-conscious? No one need speak to the first self-aware creature, “Awake”? This is the same logical fallacy as the self-creating universe. Someone who has never achieved any particular level of awareness ultimately needs the agency of another’s look, word, picture, sign or sound to enlighten them.

The difference between those intoxicated with the drugs of falsehood or arrogance and those whose eyes are full of specks and planks is that the first group have damaged judgment that requires them to reach a point that sobers them while the second group have basicly sound judgment once the impediment is removed. This second group are not usually Calf-worshippers but a fraternity capable of mutual correction. There is no fraternal correction of the Calf people, only casting pearls before drunken, stumbling swine. Members of the cult of self can be compared to domesticated animals because they live caged between birth and death. They see only what this temporal span can hold and that leads humans to every kind of physical, mental and spiritual violence.

When a person recognizes and accepts the difficulties of journeying to the promised land of the truth, they become free. This is not the faux substitute of mere “independence” – freedom from Egypt, freedom from Rome, the British, slavery, etc.. This is the free man or woman who leaves the limited world of self and is alive in the real world of Creation.

Perhaps a surgeon could kidnap someone off the street and, restraining them, perform successful surgery. But moral correction needs cooperation. I have been both a stumbling pig and a resigned patient. Looking at me, or anyone, it may be very difficult to tell which at what time. So, since most of us most of the time are morally uncooperative, many instances of attempted fraternal correction have left us with a bad taste in our mouth. This negative pavlovian training makes us excessively shy about offering correction to others.

How can I tell if I’m helping a brother or sister with a speck? Or arrogantly showing my power to step on another person by harsh judgments? Or throwing a pearl to a pig? One possible clue is that arrogant Calf-worshippers want to attack those who differ. Speaking for myself, I have rarely approached others with the gentle, skilled hand of fraternal charity. Finger-pointing, fault-finding are the hallmarks of being judgmental. Using our abilities to help others when they come to us or are legitimately placed in our care is love.

There is a lot of unnecessary and /or poor surgery in the world.

“Facts” should not be used as weapons. We use insight and knowledge according to the patient’s need. Kindness and courtesy are medicinal.

Do we need to say anything at all? Do we need to be “blunt”? Jesus spoke first of “sleep” when he meant death. Sometimes people really have no need to know some fact. Why disturb them when they might not understand this “fact” or be able to do anything about it? I certainly have to stop myself from pasing on “facts” that only serve to scandalize or slander. Sometimes people have no right or need to know what I know. I don’t tell them a falsehood. Yet, must I volunteer extra knowledge to correct their ignorance or misunderstanding? Cardinal Newman’s debate with Charles Kingsley in 19th century England on equivocation expands our sense of the care we should take in dispensing the medicine of truth. Need we voluntarily surrender every fact to others even when it could hurt us, them or someone else?

Being truthful does not require emotional public nudity. Simply to strip ourselves in public of all personal private thoughts and secrets is destructive. There is a difference between not speaking up out of fear and not revealing all out of concern for the ability of another to understand or benefit. The analytical realist often is not being realistic. Analyzing something or, worse, someone is frequently the dissection after death. The living whole needs to be communicated and received in order to be understood. Everyone will nod when this is said but most of us will return to the superficial look which ignores the subject or the analytical stare which eliminates the subject.

You may have noticed that the incident of the falling boy was more about orthopraxy (doing what is true) than orthodoxy (knowing what is true). There was no dispute that the boy should be helped – I just didn’t realize I should be the one giving the aid. But what help to others could the falling boy offer? A silly question – after he recovers then he can find his own ways to assist others. And what if he never recovers and is always falling? Or he thinks he is always in danger of falling?

Many of us suffer from what I call the drowning man syndrome. A man gulping his lungs full of water cannot consider the needs of people standing on the shore. We are so desperate to get the necessities of life that we feel we can’t look to the needs of others. This attitude can continue in our souls even after we are comfortably aboard the life raft. I’m still drowning, I’m still struggling to support myself or my family, what can I really do for others?

What are a few loaves and fish among so many?

I won’t speak the truth because of self-serving doubt – “How can I be right and know the truth?” So I will keep silent and feel very humble – as the truth is ignored or attacked. I will suppress urges to speak the truth because of hopelessness. Again I address the dumb idol in my heart – “Why should I? It will make no difference.”

The task is arduous and we refuse the effort. Or we take the “lazyman’s load” and want to rush the work of explaining our understanding.

Our pride convinces us to be always right. We want to win the debate, win the election, win the job, not speak the truth.

Sometimes, like very young children we innocently speak the truth as we understand it in our hearts. Why did Jesus say that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of God?

Sometimes, like martyrs trusting in God, we stand and witness.

New York Republicans Attack Right-To-Life Party

2006-09-26T11:13:00.000-07:00

After the 2002 Governor’s race debacle, the New York State Right-To-Life Party lost its place on the ballot. Supporters this summer attempted a comeback. The RTL submitted 17,237 signatures to the Board of Elections for John Broderick to run as candidate for Governor. The bad news--they were just 2,237 signatures over the minimum and the Republicans challenged the petitions. The Board declared 5,500 signatures invalid on various technicalities, and gave 11,737 as the official and insufficient count. Broderick is reported to be challenging the Board's determination in Court. A final judgment is due by 10/6--but with the arcane and difficult election laws designed to favor the Democrats and Republicans, it doesn't look good.

Casey or Santorum in Pennsylvania

2006-09-21T11:09:00.000-07:00

Senate candidates Casey and Santorum are both anti-abortion. Casey is immediately suspect because of his affiliation with a rabid pro-abortion national organization, the Democratic Party. But just as the Republican Party is perfectly comfortable supporting pro-abortion senators, congressmen and governors, the Democrats are trying to appear more tolerant in the Pennsylvania race. The argument about party affiliation is a wash. If a pro-abortion Republican is a negative then it must be admitted that a pro-life Democrat is a positive.

The real difference between Santorum and Casey is Santorum’s ignorance of the plight of working people in America and his unconditional support for Bush’s publicly stated policy that if we think another country might attack us we have the right to kill them.

Santorum endorsed and strongly supported the recent change in the Federal bankruptcy law. The poor credit card sharks were being cheated! The companies ( and not poor people) that borrow their cash from the Federal Reserve at 4 or 5 percent and the minute you miss a payment charge 25 to 29 percent!

I’m voting for Casey and praying he makes a difference. I hope the pro-unjust war policy and pro-robber baron Republicans can learn a lesson.

News Analysis: Mr. Pope, Know Your Limits!

2006-09-19T10:45:00.000-07:00

A few days before Pope Benedict XVI’s speech in Germany sparked widespread protest in the Muslim world, a priest friend forwarded a short article to me on the “dhimmitude” of Christians and Jews in Islam. “Dhimmi” describes the cultural prison in which all non-Muslims are held hostage in an Islamic country. When I clicked on a short report on AOL.com about the reaction to the Pope’s speech against religious violence and the marginalization of religion, the above headline was on a large street-wide protest banner.

Pope Benedict finds himself in an ironic position: he faces a problem parallel to Pius XII – say anything that could be construed as negative about Islam and provoke a pogrom. Still more ironic is that the speech apparently repeated a constant theme of the contemporary Papacy in Europe: building a society hostile to religious faith is self-destructive.

The ignorant reactions of religious fanatics are far less to be feared than the systematic elimination of religious beliefs in public life practiced in the “Western” world. And even that may be less to be feared than some of religion’s “friends” in sheep’s clothing – Let us crusade (oops, Mr. Bush) for Secular Democracy!

Yeah, let us make the world think the Christians in the West are fighting for unlimited
pornography, divorce, same-sex unions, abortion and the ousting of religion from the public square!

A Personal Experience

Recently I responded to a communications company employment advertisement for technical support rep. I filled out the online application. Then I was asked to come in to take pre-employment tests. I was then invited to come in for Human Resources and management interviews. During this process I was told two things very clearly: first, I would have to sign an agreement to help provide “Adult” (pornographic) content to subscribers and, second, my request to have time either Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning to attend Church was not possible.

When they called today to offer the position I said they were not offering me reasonable accommodation to practice my religion. The HR guy said they could not. I said I could not in good conscience assist in the delivery of “Adult” content. The HR guy said thank you and goodbye.

Mr. Christian, Jew or Muslim - know your limits.

Where is the true, most evil and destructive “dhimmitude”?