Articles by Joe Tremblay
The Church in Exile
Dec 13, 2013 / 00:00 am"I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile." -Pope St. Gregory VII T.S. Eliot once said, “When the Christian is treated as an enemy of the State, his course is very much harder, but it is simpler. I am concerned with the dangers to the tolerated minority; and in the modern world, it may turn out that most intolerable thing for Christians is to be tolerated.” He may, in fact, be right. Whenever the people of God throughout biblical history became too mainstream, or too assimilated by the world, their fidelity to God was compromised. On the other hand, when the Church of God suffered as castaways in exile, her mission seemed to prosper all the more. She was in a better position to fulfill what God required of her. Take for instance a recent example: The Catholic Church in America. Between 1940 and 1960, the Church doubled in size. A remarkable growth spurt to be sure. Construction for church buildings, Bible sales, Mass attendance, priest and religious vocations were through the roof. Archbishop Cushing of Boston was reported to have said in the 1950s that he expected to have 100 ordinations. And why not? And Bishop Fulton Sheen hosted an Emmy award-winning television show, Life is Worth Living, in that same decade. And in 1960 the first Catholic won his bid for the presidency. Even Pope John XXIII, two years later, in his opening speech for the Second Vatican Council, predicted the following: “Present indications are that the human family is on the threshold of a new era.” Indeed, things looked promising. Yet, not even a decade later, in 1970, Joseph Ratzinger, future pope, said that the "City of Man is striking terror in our hearts.” The Church was being shaken to its core. And in 1971, Sister Lucia, the only surviving seer of Fatima, wrote to her nephew warning him about the diabolical wave that would produce spiritual casualties. In fact, it became apparent that the Church’s influence on culture would come to an abrupt end. In fact, it was more true to say that the world’s influence poured into the Church in unprecedented fashion. And the result is that the Church is relearning what it is like to be a marginalized and persecuted Church. But in recent decades, not a few Catholics forgot that the Church is a Church in exile; never at home in any nation or civilization. As with each individual soul in search of a better place, the Church, as a body of believers, is a pilgrim and a foreigner in a strange land…away from her true home. Decades ago, when the future of the Catholic Church looked promising, it would have done us well to remember the words of the Catholic historian, Christopher Dawson, who said the following:“Christ came not to bring peace but a sword and that the Kingdom of God comes not by the elimination of conflict but through an increasing opposition and tension between the church and the world. The conflict between the two cities is as old as humanity and must endure until the end of time. And though the church may meet with ages of prosperity, and her enemies may fail and the powers of the world may submit to her sway, these things are no criterion of success. She wins not by majorities but by martyrs and the cross is her victory.” (The Kingdom of God and History, 1938) As if to build upon the truth that Dawson voiced decades earlier, the Second Vatican Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit, reminded the Church where she stands in relation to the world. In The Pastoral Constitution on the Church it reads: “Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God. So likewise the new Israel which while living in this present age goes in search of a future and abiding city is called the Church of Christ." And to drive the point home, the document adds: "The Church, while on earth it journeys in a foreign land away from the Lord, is like in exile...” In the bible, to be in exile was both a sign of divine punishment and an instrument of liberation; “liberation” because suffering and persecution are meant to serve as reminders that the hopes of God’s people ought to be placed in their native country, namely, heaven. Exile began with Adam and Eve. When they yielded to the Serpent’s temptations, they were sent out of the Garden of Eden, also known as Paradise. Although sinners, the First Couple were still friends of God. Yet, they were the first to be sent into exile; away from home, if you will. And their sin left a mark on every soul that would descend from them; a kind of emptiness and void in the human heart. That void would only be satisfied when the soul sees God face to face in heaven.Curiously, God too was compelled to go into exile, away from the world he created. In the liturgy we pray to him, “Heaven and earth are full of your glory.” But the shadow of death loomed over the world because of sin. And just before God decided to flood the earth in Genesis 6:3, he also decided to withdraw his Spirit because of the sins of his chosen ones, the descendants of Seth or as they are identified in Scripture: The Sons of God. Only from a distance would God lead his people. And it wasn’t until Pentecost, that his Spirit would come back into the hearts of his people. God too, from the great Flood to Pentecost, was in exile…away from the world he created. Part two of The Church in Exile will be published on December 20th.
Christmas hardships for St. Joseph
Dec 6, 2013 / 00:00 amIf anyone’s vocation deserved to be free from the hardships it was St. Joseph’s. After all, he was given the exalted task of protecting God and the Blessed Virgin. Yet from the word “go!” he encountered one hardship after another that could have been easily been prevented by God. In fact, he was given three hardships that gave him great anguish of spirit. If we but seriously meditate on his life we will never approach the work God has for us with the expectation that it should be without hardships. Rejection by our own people, scorn from others, the disappointment of failures, waiting for long periods of time, detours, exile and even the appearance that the Lord himself has abandoned us will not throw us for such a loop. Indeed, following the example of St. Joseph, we too can press on knowing that the Lord uses circumstances that take on the appearance of failure for our greater good and his greater glory. Estrangement from His Spouse: Have you ever wondered why, after appearing to the Blessed Virgin to announce the coming of Christ, the angel Gabriel did not immediately appear to St. Joseph in order to inform him that the Messiah would be conceived of the Holy Spirit; that God would make it possible for Mary to be both virgin and mother? Instead, there was an interim period of misunderstanding and anguish on the part of St. Joseph. God could have prevented this misunderstanding but he chose not to. And the reason he chose not to was due to some moral and spiritual benefit St. Joseph would gain. Certainly, a lot of tears could have been spared; but often tears can be every bit as redemptive as the blood of martyrs which, as the early Christian adage goes, is the seed of the Church. In his temporary emotional estrangement, St. Joseph, when having the wrong impression about his betrothed, had to rely on God. Indeed, during this short period of time not even the Mother of God could help him because, after all, she was the object of his suspicion and doubt. Alone he stood, confounded over God’s plan and anguished in spirit.” However, the angel appeared to St. Joseph in a dream in order to vindicate the virginal integrity of Mary’s pregnancy. At last, his anguish was relieved. With a sigh of relief St. Joseph concluded that in good conscience he could remain the Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And to be sure, his joy of doing so was revived. But in a matter of a few short months two things were to happen simultaneously that would make his calling as a protector and bread-winner of the Holy Family that much more difficult. Indeed, his hardships were only beginning. After he weathered the first hardship, the second one was soon to follow. The Edict: The census edict was issued by Caesar Augustus enjoining the head of each household to register in their hometown just when Mary was due to give birth. From a human point of view, the timing could not be worse! And as for St. Joseph, he probably hadn’t been to his hometown in Bethlehem, where he was to comply with this edict, in quite some time. After all, the traveling distance between Nazareth and Bethlehem was at least a two to three day walk, maybe even more. And because of the edict, traveling from one town to another would be like traveling on a busy holiday. Scores of people would be frequenting the roads and the inns. By the time the Holy Family would get to Bethlehem, St. Joseph’s innate instinct as a husband and father to provide for his Family would be greatly challenged. St. Joseph's second hardship then was leaving the security of his work and the comforts of his home when his Spouse needed the best kind of care for the birth of her First Born Child. Such was God's will. But as Jesus would say some thirty years later, "No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God." This man of God would be forced to totally rely on Divine Providence. Once the Holy Family arrived in Bethlehem, another hardship awaited him. Failure to Provide: Certainly a man as good as St. Joseph would deserve the hospitality of Bethlehem, his hometown, and any accommodations it could afford to provide. Certainly a nice warm room or a spacious house would be made available to him. And certainly, if he was called to make these sacrifices for the Son of God, he would get a little cooperation from Divine Providence. But God's ways are not our ways. The third hardship that was imposed on St. Joseph was certainly not to his liking. After all, there is no worse feeling for a man than to not be able to provide room and board for his family. A quick glance at this story may give the average person warm feelings. But when one really sits down and meditates on the real historic details of that story, one cannot help but consider the angst and worry St. Joseph must have felt after having encountered one closed door after another. It is even conceivable that he was tempted to despair. What a failure he must have felt!Regarding God’s chosen servants, Fr. Paul Marie de la Croix said that “sometimes they encounter a failure which he permits even though he has first assured victory; sometimes, for no apparent reason, they experience a reversal of God’s relationship to them. They seem to be permanently abandoned or even rejected, though divine favor and friendship had been theirs before. They have not been guilty of the slightest infidelity, but they must become fit for the final mystery of faith.” Indeed, in the eyes of the world being forced to seek shelter in a cave right outside of Bethlehem is not a blessing but a curse. However, it was the will of Jesus Christ himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, to be born in humble circumstances. It was fitting that the King of Kings be born in a grotto so that even the despised and yet humble shepherds would approach him and do him homage. Hence, little did St. Joseph know that what appeared to be a “failure” on his part was a great blessing for the world.
The stumbling block of the Crib
Nov 29, 2013 / 00:00 amIn his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius of Loyola has us meditate on the Crib of Christ during Advent. And to help explain these spiritual exercises is Fr. Bertrand de Margerie’s book, Theological Retreat (1976). He said, “The ‘stumbling block of the crib’ places us face to face with the mystery of a poor God. The infinitely rich is presented to us in the swaddling clothes of poverty.” The Crib of Christ was every bit as an enigma and stumbling block to the world as the Cross of Christ. Unlike the royalty of earthly kings, our Lord’s Crib suggests that the poor, the lame, the social outcasts and sinners are invited to be his friends. More than this, the birth of Christ outside of Bethlehem also tells us that happiness and fulfillment is not to be found in wealth or material belongings. Poverty and simplicity are reminders that we are creatures in need. And the greatest need we have is the need for God. For this reason, the Catholic Church has always shown a special affection for the poor. Furthermore, every canonized Saint has had a special love and predilection for them. The poor are living symbols of that great spiritual need that resides in each and every soul. In fact, Fr. Bertrand de Margerie suggested that the rich need the poor than the poor need the rich. “In his Church,” he said, “the privileged will be, not the rich, but the poor. The salvation of the rich depends on the poor, and on the acceptance, by them, of the alms the rich offer them. It is then, not so much the rich who do a favor to the poor by offering them alms, but rather the poor who become benefactors of the rich by accepting such alms.” This is confirmed when our Lord is quoted by St. Paul as saying, “It is better to give than to receive.” To be sure, when we die, we take with us what we gave, not what we received. Before the birth of Christ the unbaptized world was morally and spiritually impoverished. The human race had lowered itself to such degradation because it sought joy and happiness in the wrong places. Very much like ancient world, the modern world pines after fame, sex and material pleasures. For this very reason, the Son of God was born into humble circumstances so that we would not put our hopes in the things of this earth. Whatever satisfaction the flesh and the world provides, it is not only short-lived but it will eventually disappoint and leave a void that is impossible to fill.Jesus Christ teaches us that in order to find ourselves it is necessary to first lose ourselves in him. This is the greatest of paradoxes and it is one that the world simply doesn’t understand. Indeed, self-forgetfulness in pursuit of God and in the service of others is the way in which we are called to lose ourselves. Similarly, in order to save the world, Christians have to die to the world. They have to die to its group-think ways, its conventional wisdom, its priorities and its values. And right from the start, at the moment of his birth, our Lord defies conventional wisdom in that he, as King, was not born in a palace but rather in some abandoned grotto. Just as with his death, what seems of little account to observers is, in fact, God’s instrument of bringing about new life and great achievements. In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius of Loyola has us meditation on the following passage: You could have come into this world through the richness of the flesh, in the midst of wealth. It has pleased you to make yourself a part of the great human family through the poverty of the virginity, not in the bosom of need and misery, but in a stable of a poverty momentarily needy as a consequence of inhospitality of the hearts you came to save. Your poverty and your celibacy are not the condemnation, but the salvation of marriage and ownership, restored by purity of heart and poverty of spirit. Today, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, in the wealth of divine glorification, wish to introduce in their holy family countless poor and chaste men and women... I will make myself a poor little unworthy slave, and as though present, look upon them, contemplate them, and serve them in their needs with all possible homage and reverence. Infant Jesus, my Lord and my God, I thank you for having become poor to expiate my avarice. Today, too, you are cold in so many hearts and in so many bodies. I adore your right to be warmed by the fire our loving poverty. In offering it to you for the evangelization and for the salvation of your poor, I renew my resolve to associate myself with your poverty and enrich myself with it.This is what the Crib of Christ has meant to a world in what the prophet Isaiah referred to as “darkness and gloom.” Its light emanated from an unlikely corner of the world. And from that quiet and humble corner came forth God’s Answer to a world that needed saving. Through our Lord’s poverty, we became rich. And that holy poverty and simplicity is held out to us in a special way during the seasons of Advent and Christmas so that we can renew it in ourselves.
What you may not know about Christmas
Nov 22, 2013 / 00:00 amIf you ever watched the History or Discovery Channel you may have come across progressive theologians or historians who dismiss out of hand the historical accounts of Christ's birth as told in the Gospels. Quite often scholars look down upon tradition, the testimonies of the early Christians and their ancient writings. For some of these intellectuals, it is beneath them to give any credibility to traditions associated with piety and religious devotion. Yet, by confining their judgments within the narrow circle of contemporary scholarship, they deprive themselves of valuable insights which the traditions of the Church do provide. Perhaps, this may be one of the reasons why many people do not know the following about Christmas.Take for instance the date of Christ's birth. Many scholars have said that it is highly unlikely that December 25 was the actual date of our Lord's birth. One principal reason was that shepherds in the Holy Land did not normally graze their pastures with their sheep during the month of December. Rather, the more likely month for such activity would be during the month of March. But, as we shall see, there are reasons to believe that the tradition of the Church got it right.For starters, early in the fourth century (300s), St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, wrote Pope St. Julius, bishop of Rome, to inquire about the date of Christ’s birth. One might think that if anyone was qualified to answer the question it would be St. Cyril himself; primarily because he was the bishop of Jerusalem, just twelve miles away from Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ. Nevertheless, it just so happened that the city of Jerusalem was pillaged in 70 A.D. by the Roman army, led by General Titus, in order to repress an uprising of Jewish zealots. In the process, the Temple was destroyed and its records- along with the census documents – were brought back to Rome only to be filed among the Roman archives. Less than three hundred years later, these documents were evidently still in existence. Interestingly enough, Pope St. Julius was the acting bishop of Rome after Christianity had been legalized. As such, he had privileged access to the Roman archives. St. Julius wrote back to the Saintly Bishop of Jerusalem and assigned December 25th as the birth date of Jesus Christ. “St. John Chrysostom [Bishop and Father of the Church in the 400's] quotes the same authority of the Roman archives as the source of the date of Christmas.”As regards to the likelihood shepherds overseeing their sheep on a cold December night, we learn the following: It just so happened that right outside the town of Bethlehem was a watch tower called the Migdal Eder. This was a special watchtower that overlooked a pasture of sheep. But these sheep were no ordinary sheep. The sheep at the Migdal Eder were specially groomed for the Temple sacrifice "throughout the year." This pasture land happened to be alongside a road leading to Jerusalem. The Migdal Eder shepherds were trained to keep these sheep unblemished, that is, with no broken bones or any other kind of infirmity. Unblemished lambs for sacrificial offerings, of course, were required by the Law of Moses. These providential circumstances, no doubt, foretold that the Christ-child would fulfill the Messianic role as the “Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world.”Interestingly, it is believed that the Angel announced the glad tidings of the Saviors birth to these special Migdal Eder shepherds on Christmas night. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that after having witnessed the angelic apparition and having visited the baby Jesus in "swaddling clothes," these shepherds got to talking at the Temple when they transported the sheep there. Perhaps, this is why St. Simeon and the prophetess Anna (Luke 2) recognized the Christ-child as the long awaited Messiah when he was presented in the Temple forty days after his birth. After all, the following prophecy from Micah was well known within the Jewish community: “But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah too small to be among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.” Tradition also has it that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the age of three to the time she was betrothed to St. Joseph, had lived in the Temple. Just like Hannah did with her son Samuel in the Old Testament, Mary’s parents, St. Anne and St. Joachim, dedicated Mary to the Temple (probably due to their old age). According to an ancient document known as the Gospel of St. James (or the Proto-evangelium), Mary was to spend most of her childhood in the Temple precincts. As such, her holiness and even her vow of virginity could very well have been made known to the likes of St. Simeon and the prophetess Anna who also lived in the Temple (not to be confused with St. Anne, Mary’s mother). Perhaps, the reason why this holy man and holy woman immediately recognized the Christ-child is because they first recognized his Mother!Some scholars, for their own reasons, have maintained that Christ was not born in Bethlehem but rather in Nazareth. However, the early Christians have something to say about the exact place of Christ’s birth. It was virtually unanimous among the early Christians and Fathers of the Church that Jesus was born just outside of Bethlehem in a cave, also known as a grotto. St. Justin, a Palestinian by birth and a Christian philosopher who lived about a hundred years after Christ, writes that Jesus was born in a grotto near Bethlehem. He said, “Since Joseph did not find where to lodge in the village of Bethlehem, he repaired to a certain grotto near to it; and being there, Mary brought forth Jesus and laid him in the manger, where the Magi, coming from Arabia, found him.”About fifty years after St. Justin died (165 A.D.) Origin, a Catholic priest and well known Father of the Church, had this to say about the place of Christ's birth: "At Bethlehem is shown a grotto where Jesus was born. The fact is well known throughout the whole country. Even pagans know that in this grotto was born a certain Jesus adored by the Nazarenes." When Christianity finally had become legal in 313 A.D. by the Roman Emperor Constantine, his mother, a canonized Saint, traveled to Bethlehem and found the grotto where our Lord was born. As an ancient Church historian in the third century, Eusebius, relates, the Emperors mother restored it. "Helena adorned the holy grotto with rich and varied decorations. Sometime later, the Emperor himself, outdoing his mother's munificence, embellished this place in truly royal fashion, lavishing on it gold, silver and sumptuous tapestries.” From that time forward, the grotto, later turned into a shrine, became a favorite holy site for pilgrims. Even the famous Saint and scholar of the fourth century, St. Jerome, had visited this hallowed grotto. However, he lamented that it did not retain its original simplicity when Christ was born a little over three hundred years prior to his visit.In conclusion, although modern scholarship has furthered our knowledge about Christ in many ways, it is, nevertheless, comprised of fallible judgments based on many premises which may or may not be true. One thing is for sure: If we want to know the truth about Christmas and the circumstances of that wonderful night, we cannot afford to ignore the traditions that have come down to us through the Catholic Church. These traditions have a lot neat insights to offer. What is more, many of them are credible. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the story of Jesus Christ’s birth, as it is read to us from the pulpit at Mass on Christmas Eve and on Christmas day, really did happen the way the Gospels say it did.
A new form of dating; a new society
Nov 15, 2013 / 00:00 amThe entertainment industry does exceptionally well in highlighting the advantages and thrills of falling in love. What it doesn’t do so well is to give people clues as to how to stay in love. This shouldn’t surprise us because falling in love is a lot of fun and it doesn’t take a lot of work. But this one-sided emphasis on the hormonal and emotional phase of love – while overlooking the sacrifices and graces necessary to sustain a relationship – is a recipe for disaster; both for couples and society at large. Perhaps, this is why more people in recent years are giving up on marriage altogether. Anne-Marie Ambert, in her article “Cohabitation and Marriage: How are they related?” reviewed several Canadian and American studies on cohabitation and marriage rates. She wrote, “While cohabitation rates have shot up in the past decade or so, marriage rates have come down substantially.” “More recent trends,” she continues, “indicate that perhaps a higher proportion of cohabiters than in the past simply drift into cohabitation because it is more convenient than dating. That is, it makes it easier to be with each other sexually than when living separately.” Surprisingly, cohabitation is not only becoming an attractive alternative to marriage, but it is slowly becoming a form of dating. This shouldn’t surprise us because Hollywood and public education – two very powerful forces in America – do not hold up, for imitation, those virtues and beliefs that make for a lifelong marriage. Yet, it is undeniably true that people who are married and are in it for the long haul are much happier than cohabiters who run from partner to partner. To be sure, the latter is like a bird in flight without a nest. People who go from partner to partner may accumulate many falling-in-love experiences, but they never reach the purpose for which the phenomenon of falling-in-love exists. For many, the falling-in-love experience and the sexual thrills that accompany it exist for its own sake. This is why they feel the need to reproduce as many of these experiences as possible. But this kind of indulgence is nothing new. In the first century, for instance, the Gospel of John suggests that the Samaritan woman at the well was a cohabiter. Indeed, our Lord even called her on it, saying, “For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband.” St. Paul, too, spoke about those restless souls who never settle down in marriage. Specifically, he cautioned St. Timothy about lovers of the flesh and explained that in the latter days women will be especially vulnerable to the sexual exploits of men. He said, “For some of these slip into homes and make captives of women weighed down by sins, led by various desires, always trying to learn but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth.” (II Timothy 3:6-7) The truth about what? you might ask. The truth about how relationships and sexuality can build us up or tear us down. Cohabitation plays right into the Hollywood narrative that the only thing worth pursuing is the experience or the falling-in-love process. It does not inspire a true and lasting love of the person. It can even be said that it fosters an entitlement mentality because, by its very nature, “shacking-up” seeks to obtain the perks or the fruits of marriage (i.e. living together and sex) without the love, sacrifice and patience it takes to merit such benefits. Not too long ago, the man was expected to court the woman; to earn her affection and self-disclosure. He was to “put in his time” before she rewarded him with herself. And it wasn’t until he made a public and sacred commitment to her before God and the community that he would enjoy her intimacy. However, with cohabitation, no such chivalry is warranted. In fact, earning the love of the beloved is discouraged. It is like saying the wage-earner no longer has to earn his wages; or that the med-student should be permitted to practice medicine before he graduates from med school; or it can be likened to an NFL franchise signing up football players who never tried out and hence proved that they are qualified to play in the big league. To put it simply, cohabitation turns the natural order of love and marriage on its head. What is more, just when a man and a woman ought to be discerning whether or not they are compatible with each other, they cloud their own judgment by strengthening their sexual ties. In Proverbs, it says, “Lust indulged starves the soul…” (13:19) To put it another way, lust has a blinding effect upon our perception of reality. But in order to detect red flags or problem spots in the relationship there has to be a sense of detachment and objectivity. It just so happens that sexual purity provides that needed clarity and objectivity. As such, the prospective spouse is much more likely to be seen for what he or she really is. It is for this reason that sexual purity or chastity better serves the purpose of dating than does cohabitation.Communicating the perils of cohabitation and the stability that marriage affords couples is taking on a great sense of urgency. Marriage rates have dropped dramatically in many dioceses and in the greater part of society. Moreover, the practice of cohabitation has gone through the roof. Recall that the vocations to the priesthood and religious life took a big hit in the 1970s. But the hit that the vocation of marriage is taking now, by all appearances, is even bigger. And just as the consequences of the sudden drop in priestly vocations in the 1970s was difficult to anticipate (i.e. one priest overseeing 3-5 parishes), likewise, the effects of the sudden drop in marriage vocations will be equally difficult to foresee. But we do know the effects will not be good. As Pope Leo XIII said, "The family is the cradle of civil society, and it is largely within the confines of the domestic hearth that is prepared the destiny of nations."
ENDA: Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Nov 8, 2013 / 00:00 am“Ten Republicans joined with all Democrats in a 64-32 vote to pass the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, known as ENDA. Ten Republicans had voted to advance the measure in an earlier procedural vote,” said Michael A. Memoli. The Senate gave it the thumbs up, now it goes to the House of Representatives.Reporting for the L.A. Times on Thursday, November 7, 2013 in his article, “Senate passes workplace protection for gay, transgender Americans,” Memoli went to say, “On Wednesday, senators approved an amendment offered by Republicans to strengthen an exception provided in the bill for religious organizations, and to ensure that the government could not retaliate against such groups in awarding contracts and grants.”It was partly due to this amendment that well-known conservative, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, lent his support of ENDA. "A person's sexual orientation,” he said, “is irrelevant to their ability to be a good doctor or engineer or athlete or a federal judge." But he was equally concerned what this might portend for religious freedom. He didn’t want businesses with religious affiliations to be forced to hire gay employees if such measures would violate the tenets of their faith. Still, with this amendment, Mr. Toomey thought that ENDA was good legislation. After all, no one should be discriminated against. The question that immediately comes to mind is this: Why is it necessary? In fact, Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws are interpreted to mean that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This is plainly stated on the U.S. Equal Employment Commission website. And in more and more cases, this interpretation is being used to violate conscience rights. That is, it is compelling people to act or to provide a service that they deem contrary to their faith.In August of 2013, for instance, the New Mexico State Supreme Court ruled against Elane Photography for their decision not to photograph a ceremony involving a same-sex couple. Elaine Hugenin, owner of the photography business, claimed that her refusal to carry out the services was due to her religious beliefs. However, the state Supreme Court justices were not persuaded by Elaine’s position. Neither was Louis Melling, the Deputy Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union. She praised the decision saying, "Today's opinion recognizes the sincerity of those beliefs, but makes clear that no one's religious beliefs make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others." Indeed, this view seems to be prevailing. Recall that in 2010 that “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was successfully repealed in the military. Since then, gays can be open about their sexuality. So, again, why is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act necessary? I’m afraid it will not be exclusively used to prevent unjust discrimination against employees or prospective employees who may have same-sex attractions. If past is prologue, as in the Elane photography State Supreme Court decision, it will be used to discriminate against those who oppose same-sex marriage or the homosexual lifestyle.Keep in mind: laws are of secondary importance nowadays. The interpretation of the law is where the power is. But bad laws make bad interpretations much easier.As Congressman Paul Ryan recently stated, no one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. But his concern was that ENDA might have unintended consequences. Personally, I am not convinced that the consequences will be “unintended.” When he speaks of consequences I think he means that it may be used coercive purposes, compelling the private sector and even religious organizations cooperate with the gay-rights agenda.To repeat, the campaign to stop unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation is likely to be used, as it has been, to discriminate against those who cannot, in good conscience, cooperate with any activity that would suggest approval of same-sex unions. You see, it is not the thing itself that needs to be considered, but how that thing will be used. Case and point: Not a few Christians were in favor of the idea of nationalized healthcare. But in 2010, when the Affordable Health Care Act was passed, it was becoming clear that healthcare was a means in carrying out other designs. The contraceptive mandate was one such design. And now, the implementation of nationalized healthcare is creating all sorts of headaches. The idea of universal healthcare is noble. But how it will be used and by whom were not sufficiently considered. Did not our Lord say: “For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than the children of light.” And I have to wonder if ENDA is just another “prudent” tactic by the children of this world. Among good, believing Christians the naiveté of evil has been quite costly. We are at a crossroads in a nation when soft-despotism may begin to harden a bit. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America (1835-40), once made the point that democratic nations are not immune despotism. He said, “If despotism were to be established amongst the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them…[Under such despotism] the will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting…”Since the early 1960s, Christians have been “prevented” from praying and the reading the bibles in public schools; “prevented” from displaying religious symbols in the public square; and “prevented” from speaking openly about the sanctity of marriage in many of our public institutions. Now, however, there is a strong movement to force us to “act” and to “obey.” And as Jordan Lorence, a lawyer representing the Elane photography business, said, "Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country."
Hastening the Hour of the Saints
Nov 1, 2013 / 00:00 am“To avoid the confrontation with death is a refusal to live life to its fullest.” Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete goes on to say, in his article, Humanae Mortis, that the link between love and life is sacrifice and that the only way for man to gain his life is to lose it, to give it up, to sacrifice it. Indeed, the ultimate sacrifice is at the hour of death in which each person is called to freely give his or her life back to God. Yet, during life, God gives every person many opportunities for sacrifices and acts of self-denial as a kind of preparation for the hour of death. And it is the office of the Mother of God that the link between our love and our sacrifices be brought together as closely as possible for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Pope St. Pius said of her: “Hers was the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice.” Just as Christ offered himself through a ritual at the Last Supper before he personally offered his life on the Cross, the Blessed Virgin too offered her Son through a ritual at his Presentation in the Temple before she personally offered him up at the foot of the Cross. But sometimes we forget that she hastened the hour of our Lord’s death when she asked Jesus to perform a miracle at the wedding of Cana. When she informed him that the host ran out of wine, our Lord, curiously enough, referred to the hour of his death; that it had not yet arrived. He seemed to be suggesting that her request would inevitably trigger the process that would lead to that hour. Yet, Mary asked the servants at the wedding to “do whatever he tells you.” In other words, she was preparing the Lamb for the Sacrifice by creating the opportunity for his first public miracle! That miracle would get the ball rolling, so to speak.Is it any wonder, then, that she will do the same for her saints? At each Mass we are called to offer our love and sacrifices at the altar. And how efficacious will these sacrifices be if we offer them with the Blessed Virgin for the conversion of sinners. This ritual offering that we make on behalf of ourselves and others will undoubtedly prepare us for the hour of our death, the very hour we utter in every Hail Mary we pray. In fact, in 1859, when Our Lady appeared to Sr. Adele Brice in Wisconsin, she instructed her to do precisely this. She said, “You received Holy Communion this morning, and that is well. But you must do more. Make a general confession, and offer Communion for the conversion of sinners. If they do not convert and do penance, my Son will be obliged to punish them.” And as for trials of life, fifty eight years later in Fatima, she made a similar request: “Do you want to offer yourselves to God to endure all the sufferings that he may choose to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which he is offended and as a supplication for the conversion of sinners?” This, in my opinion, should be at the center of every parish program. Most of us are aware of the declining numbers at parishes throughout the country. It could even be said that the Catholic Church in the West is growing old. Daily Mass, quite often, is attended by people who are 50-60 years of age and older. Younger generations are cohabitating more and marrying less. So why not take what the Blessed Virgin has asked of us and make it the centerpiece of the New Evangelization? And if her messages are not persuasive enough, let us look to the Saints who were especially devoted to her. They will tell us that sacrifice and death – especially in Mary’s hands – are God’s chosen instruments for resurrection. St. Louis de Montfort and St. Maximillian Kolbe are arguably the best known Marian Saints. Both write at length about Mary’s role (along with her Spouse, the Holy Spirit) in conforming each of her sons and daughters to the image of Christ. According to both of these Saints, inviting the Mother of God to have her way with us is the shortcut to glory. But in getting us there, she prunes us and purifies us. In other words, she helps each disciple to gain his life by losing it, by giving it up, and by sacrificing it. As St. Louis de Montfort said, “If we do not die to self and if our holiest devotions do not lead us to this necessary and fruitful death, we shall not bear fruit of any worth and our devotions will cease to be profitable… we must choose among all the devotions to the Blessed Virgin the one which will lead us more surely to this dying to self. This devotion will be the best and the most sanctifying for us.” Practically speaking, St. Maximillian told his Franciscans that they should find ways to deny themselves two or three times a day. Offering up little things is quite beneficial, like not jesting with a friend when we are tempted to do so or not eating that extra piece of chicken at dinner. And what is even more important than these little offerings throughout the day is to accept the crosses that Lord gives us. And even with this, the Blessed Virgin will help us. He said, “The Lord Jesus does not expect us to walk exactly the same way He did. But He demands that we bear the cross of our duties daily and make sacrifices of our will. If, however, we find even these things difficult, let us go to the Immaculata and pray for help. She surely will not refuse us. This life demands sacrifices of us.” Yes. Life demands sacrifices of us. But for many, such sacrifices go to waste. Too often, they are not used for spiritual sacrifices and neither are they used to prepare for the greatest sacrifice of all, the hour of death. So, let us pray that, to use the words of St. Pius X, she will tend and nourish her little victims and at the appointed time present them for the sacrifice. By allowing her to hasten our hour, more Saints will be made and more souls will be saved. This, no doubt, is what the Church and society desperately needs.
Wrestling with God: His way of proving souls
Oct 25, 2013 / 00:00 amAccording to a recent Pew Research study entitled, “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey,” less than half of Catholic parishioners believe that they can have a personal relationship with God and approximately one-third of them struggle to believe in a personal God at all. This is most unfortunate because Catholicism, especially gathering around the altar on Sundays, is unintelligible without an active, ongoing and personal relationship with Christ. Moreover, people who have an arms-length relationship with God not only miss out in terms of a meaningful participation in their own religion, but they miss out in the greatest struggle and conquest any human being could ever enjoy. As Fr. Ailbe J. Luddy said, author of the book, Holy Abandonment, “In heaven we shall enjoy perfect repose, the peace resulting from victory. But our time on earth is a time of conflict: of conflict against ourselves to repair our faults, to overcome our defects, and to grow in virtue and merit.” The relationship between the soul and its Creator is not merely a peaceful co-existence. Far from it! When the Holy Spirit seeks to make a dwelling place in the soul, the work to conform that soul into the image of Christ can involve a mighty struggle. Indeed, the way to heaven is not only counter-cultural; it is one that runs upstream, contrary to the current of our fallen human nature. As Fulton Sheen said, "It is very easy to flow with the current. Dead bodies flow downstream. It takes live people to resist the current." Jacob, our Old Testament patriarch, would come to learn this lesson with a wholly unique and personal struggle with God in Genesis chapter 32. And that struggle just happens to be a fine illustration of the kind of conflict each soul must enter if it is to make spiritual progress. Certainly, it is one of the more intriguing stories in the bible; intriguing, because the meaning of the event is not readily apparent. But if one peers beneath the surface, one could see a template of how every soul works out his or her salvation with God. The story in Genesis involves Jacob wrestling with God in human form. The curious thing is that the Lord not only allows himself to be engaged in a match, he allows Jacob to prevail upon him…but only during the night. But as The New Interpreter’s Bible (N.I.B) commentary points out, “Jacob cannot struggle with God if God does not want to be engaged.” The scrimmage is wholly voluntary on the Lord’s part. The biblical commentator goes on to detail the event: “God and Jacob struggle for a considerable period of time. When God sees that daybreak is near and that he has not been able to prevail in straightforward wrestling, God strikes Jacob in the hollow of his thigh (the exact spot is uncertain).”Indeed, such a victory is not without a price. The patriarch, son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, is struck by the Lord in the hip or thigh, thus causing him to limp for the rest of his life. According to N.I.B., “Jacob is forever marked by the struggle, as he limps away towards the Promised Land. His mark attests to success and to defeat.” The wound that Jacob receives seems to dimly foreshadow the wounds our Lord received before ascending to heaven. It also seems to suggest that, to use the words of Christ, the kingdom of heaven is taken by violence. But in his struggle with God, Jacob manages to secure a blessing from him. And this blessing would serve as the foundation for Jacob’s House, that is, the Twelve Tribes of Israel. This would be the great nation that God promised to Abraham. Judaism, the immediate heir of the blessing, and the Catholic Church, the eventually heir, learned from Jacob that to receive and pass the blessing on requires a struggle – not just with the outside world – but with the God Himself, the giver of that blessing. To be sure, saving souls is a costly mission. As our Lord said, the kingdom of heaven can be likened to a merchant finding a pearl of great price. It can only be bought by selling everything. As for Jacob, this struggle with God would prepare him for many a battle. In one of his homilies on the book of Genesis, St. John Chrysostom, Father of the Church, argued that because Jacob fought with God, he would become powerful in dealing with men. That’s right! It prepared him for the trials that lay ahead. The same applies to those who wish to serve the Lord. As the book of Sirach says, “My son, when you come to serve the LORD, prepare yourself for trials.” (2:1) In putting us to the test by delaying his answer to our prayers, by allowing us to feel a sense of abandonment and by stretching us beyond our limit, the Lord trains us to endure disapproval and opposition from mortals. I would go so far as to say that compared to the interior trials the Lord may test the soul with, exterior hardships (i.e. persecution, rejection and disapproval from others) will seem as child’s play. It is worth repeating that Jacob’s conflict was at night. The timing of the conflict is very telling. More often than not, it is when we suffer that our Lord invites us to engage him. When we ask “why me?” but then resolve to trust and love him nonetheless- even without having all the answers – there is a battle to be won. Through the story of Jacob wrestling the Lord, we are taught that blessings are to be had by embracing our cross. And the cross for each and every one of us is allowing God to do with us what he wills. As Fr. Luddy said, “We must not merely allow God to strike us, we must allow Him to strike us where He pleases.” That is to say, even though he may send us difficult and seemingly impossible circumstances, we are called to trust that the Lord will bring it all to a good and noble end. Despite what seems to be senseless suffering, the one who prevails over God stubbornly persists in loving and praising Him. As St. Padre Pio would pray, “I kiss the hands that smite me.” This is when faith in God and our love for him does its finest work. Jacob’s wrestling match with God traces out for every believer what it takes to seize the kingdom of heaven from God. To be sure, with a personal relationship Christ there are battles to won. But such a venture demands a sacrifice from each soul. Again, to quote Fr. Luddy in his book Holy Abandonment: “Certain people imagine that they are specially beloved by God when everything goes well with them and they have nothing to suffer. Such persons labor under an illusion: for it is by adversity, not prosperity, that God proves the fidelity of His servants, and separates the wheat from the chaff.”
Why Nietzsche's prediction is being realized in the West
Oct 18, 2013 / 00:00 amFrederick Nietzsche, a 19th century atheistic philosopher from Germany, broke new ground in his day by boasting that “God is dead.” Still living in what could be considered a Christian time period, this German philosopher was emboldened by something he recognized. He sensed that Christianity had begun to weaken from within. In his book, Daybreak, published in 1881, he wrote the following: “[O]ne should notice that Christianity has thus crossed over into a gentle moralism: it is not so much 'God, freedom and immortality' that have remained, as benevolence and decency of disposition…And [when] the belief that in the whole universe benevolence and decency of disposition [should] prevail: it is the euthanasia of Christianity.” But what is wrong with benevolence and decency of disposition? And why would it lead to the euthanasia of Christianity? Again, Nietzsche was able to pick up on something a hundred and thirty years ago that many Christians today have a difficult time grasping. That something is this: When one set of principles or virtues are impressed upon the minds of people at the expense of other complimentary principles or virtues, an imbalance is created. Disorder sets in. As for Christians in the late nineteenth century, Nietzsche took it for granted that if the exclusive emphasis on “gentle moralism” or just “being nice” was to prevail within Christian circles, soon, other needed virtues would fall by the wayside. From there, the defenses that for centuries had preserved the mission to win souls for Christ would eventually wither on the vine. You see, the strength of Christianity is the ability to juggle opposites. For instance, the Holy Spirit is symbolized in the New Testament with both the fierce image of fire and gentle image of water. Christ, too, is given the title the “Lamb of God” and the “Lion of Judah.” St. John the Evangelist is said to have “leaned back against Jesus' chest” during the Last Supper as a son would affectionately do with a father. (John 13:25) But in book of Revelation his familiar disposition towards Christ gave way to awe and reverence: “When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead.” (Rev. 1:17) As we transition from theology to pastoral practices we find the same principle of juggling of opposites as well. Not infrequently, the admonition to be gentle is emphasized by the apostolic writers. “A slave of the Lord,” St. Paul said, “should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness.” (II Timothy 2:24-25) And as for St. Peter, he said, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence…” (I Peter 3:15-16) Indeed, we can be sure that diplomacy has its place in the New Testament. Yet, in addition to gentleness and diplomacy, there are other pastoral approaches to consider. For one, Jesus uses violent imagery to communicate our moral obligations. He said if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. And as for those who might lead a child astray, he said that it would be “better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6) He also characterizes his followers in a peculiar way: “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) And, when needed, a kind of forceful approach was used by the Apostles. With our modern and refined sensibilities, we have a difficult time coming to terms with the taking of the kingdom of heaven by force. Frederick Nietzsche, prophetic in his own sinister way, saw what this difficulty would imply. Benevolence and decency of disposition, without their opposite virtues, leads to a paralysis of will in the face of evil. When reluctance to confront evil becomes normative among Christians, as it has, evil advances with very few checks while goodness is slighted at every turn. Like Nietzsche in the nineteenth century, the Church Fathers in the early years of Christianity took this truth for granted. Taking the kingdom of God by force, as Pope St. Gregory the Great saw it, meant that public offenses were to be confronted publicly; especially when high profile Catholics led others astray by their bad example. More important, for those who wanted to be in good standing with the Church, the pastoral policy among the Fathers was always one that insisted on repentance as a precondition to living the life of Christ. Without repentance from serious sin, they argued that good seed was bound to fall on rocky ground, thus bearing little fruit, if any. To be sure, the old self has to die in order for the new self in Christ can emerge.St. Augustine was one Church Father who maintained that many Christians want to begin anew and follow Christ where he goes. However, they have difficulty enduring the sufferings that threaten. As such, they stop short from doing what Christ demands of them. In his book, On Pastors, he said this was especially case when one’s pastoral duty requires them to correct the wrongdoing of wayward Christians. To heal and bind up what is broken, a pastor must reveal what is hidden: “There are men who want to live a good life and have already decided to do so, but are not capable of bearing sufferings even though they are ready to do good…Weak men, are those who appear to be zealous in doing good works but are unwilling or unable to endure the sufferings that threaten…Reveal therefore what is hidden, and thus you will open the roof and lower the paralytic to the feet of Christ. As for those who fail to do this and those who are negligent, you have heard what was said to them: You have failed to heal the sick; you have failed to bind up what was broken."What applies to the clergy equally applies to the lay leadership. The violent who take the kingdom by force do so precisely because they are willing to endure the sufferings that threaten. They know that if the kingdom of heaven is to be ushered in, evil must be exposed and then exorcized. But as any exorcist will tell you, there is always a price to pay for liberating a soul from the powers of darkness. It is exhausting work!Nietzsche was right. A disproportionate and an exclusive emphasis on “gentle moralism” and “decency of disposition” renders the Christian ill-adapted for genuine spiritual warfare. As such, whenever this one-sided Christianity prevails, it ends up dying. It becomes prey to a myriad of unfriendly forces.
Crescendo: from discordant note to symphony
Oct 11, 2013 / 00:00 amCrescendo is a short film based on the diary of Maria Beethoven, mother of Ludwig van Beethoven. Pattie Mallette, mother of pop artist, Justin Bieber, is the executive producer. Like Maria, Pattie was also tempted to take the “easy” way by having an abortion as an unwed mother. But she received aid and comfort from people at a maternity house.The deeper underlying message of the film, in addition to its advocacy for life, is that through the Cross - that is, through suffering - great things and achievements are born. God, quite often, uses a discordant note to make a symphony.As for Maria, she married a man by the name of Johann, a man who turned to the bottle in time of distress. It just so happened that his musical ambitions went unrealized. Unable to process his shattered dreams in a spiritually productive way, he drank away his sorrows and became an abusive husband.Maria once characterized her marriage as a “chain of sorrows.” Perhaps, this is why, when she conceived Ludwig, their first born, she was tempted to have an abortion. In any event, although she stopped short of going through with it, she eventually came to know the pain of losing a child through death. In fact, four out of the seven children she gave birth to ended up dying in their early childhood years.Maria Beethoven knew suffering during her short life of forty years. After she had died, Ludwig, her eldest son, said she was not only a good mother, but a dear friend. As for the musical genius, Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827), he, like his mother, became acquainted with hardship. About the age of 30, he contracted a severe cold. But because his sickness was largely left untreated, it eventually led to the permanent loss of his hearing. So devastated was he over this disability, it led to a severe depression. He even entertained thoughts of suicide. In a letter to a friend, he poured out his lament over his loss of hearing:“From year to year my hopes of being cured have gradually been shattered ... I must live like an outcast; if I appear in company, I am overcome by a burning anxiety, a fear that I am running the risk of letting people notice my condition. ... How humiliated I have felt if somebody standing beside me heard the sound of a flute in the distance and I heard nothing…” It is interesting to note, to say the least that the best music he composed was during this time of darkness. Indeed, from this suffering came forth, this brilliant mind composed the world's most beautiful music. Incidentally, (or providentially) Beethoven was baptized a Catholic and died receiving the Last Rites from the Church in 1827. And I cannot help but believe that as he was going deaf and as he burned with anxiety, that his faith in Christ gave meaning to that suffering. Both Maria and Ludwig teach us that great suffering is not incompatible with great accomplishments. True, both of them almost failed to see this. After all, the former was tempted with abortion, the latter with suicide. But as we often see in hindsight, adversity may be what is needed to bring about greatness and even new life. This is an important prolife message! Raising awareness to human dignity does involve arguments that expose moral evils such as abortion and suicide. But in order for these moral arguments to be effective, there must be an interpretation of those things which lead to abortion or even euthanasia. To say it another way, Christians have to give meaning and dignity to suffering before the dignity of life can take hold in our culture. If the trials of an unwed mother or the burden of incurring a disability can be put into perspective for those who suffer from it, then these hardships can be borne with patience. Life, instead of being dispensed with, can then take on meaning. This is what the great moral revolution of the Cross brought to the unbaptized world. It gave dignity and purpose to suffering; and in so doing, it unveiled the splendor of human dignity.The short film, Crescendo, shows us that God uses discordant notes to create beautiful symphonies. For centuries, he has chosen do this through the instrumentation of the Cross, that is, through the sometimes exceedingly difficult circumstances that we find ourselves in. When these are united to Christ in a spirit of love and resignation, then God can take our discordant note to create a symphony. For a preview of the film, click here.
Roughly Clad: The man from Assisi
Oct 4, 2013 / 00:00 amMonasticism, more than any other way of life on earth, inspires a love of poverty. One man who epitomizes the monastic way of life, arguably more than any other, is St. Francis of Assisi. God raised him up just as the Catholic culture in Italy was beginning to prosper. As Pope Leo XIII said, “Amidst the effeminacy and over-fastidiousness of the time, he is seen to go about careless and roughly clad, begging his food from door to door, not only enduring what is generally deemed most hard to bear, the senseless ridicule of the crowd, but even to welcome it with a wondrous readiness and pleasure…”Careless and roughly clad, St. Francis preached the Gospel in such a way that redirected the people’s attention to the poverty and simplicity of Christ. To his brothers, St. Francis of Assisi used to say: "You know, my brothers, that poverty is the queen of virtues, because it is shone so brightly in the King of kings, and in the queen, his mother. Know my brothers, that poverty is the straight road to salvation, the nurse of humility, the root of perfection; its fruits are numerous, but hidden."However, since the early 1970s, we have had fewer religious brothers and sisters showing the way to this virtue. The love of poverty is seldom understood, let alone loved. Materialism, socialism, and a misguided interpretation of social justice within some Catholic circles have made poverty out to be the worst of evils and wealth a basic human right. With this, people are more apt to place the highest value on material things and on issues relating to the economy. Sadly, among some in the religious life, the love of poverty has been lost as well. St. Francis predicted that his order would not be exempt from this: “As Brother Leo writes, holy Father Francis used to say in front of the lord of Ostia and many brothers and clerics and lay people, and also preached frequently to the people, that his brothers, at the instigation of evil spirits, would depart from the way of holy simplicity and highest poverty.” (source: Francis of Assisi: The Prophet The Early Documents)Indeed, the Church has long taught that coveting material things eventually divides people and inspires envy among the classes; whereas the religious life or monasticism – when inspired by the ideals of Francis of Assisi – binds souls together and inspires a generosity unknown to people outside of the Christian world. In the first several centuries of Church history, it was the religious communities that created hospitals, hospices, cathedral-schools, orphanages and the universities. According to Rodney Starks, author of The Victory of Reason: How Christianity led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success, it was the monastic estates that inspired a cash economy and lending money on interest. So many of the institutions and enterprises we take for granted can be traced back to men and women who renounced everything to follow Christ.By the late twelfth century, St. Francis of Assisi took up this cause and renewed it. Even though the medieval culture in which he lived was refined and delicate, he made the love of poverty honorable again. He was a soul the Lord raised up to prune and to foster growth within the Church. Pope Innocent III had a vision “wherein it seemed to him that St. Francis was supporting on his shoulders the falling walls of the Lateran Basilica.” Unbeknownst to many Catholics of his day, this roughly clad beggar was pretty important to the Church, to say the least. St. Francis teaches us there is something holy about being rejected by people for Christ’s sake. And there is something holy about being less dependent on material things. Why is this? So that we can be all the more dependent on God. Again, to quote Pope Leo XIII:“Bereft of all, mocked, cast off by his own, he had again this great point in common with Jesus Christ – he would not have a corner wherein he might lay his head. As a last mark of resemblance, he received on his Calvary, Mt. Alvernus (by a miracle till then unheard of) the sacred stigmata, and was thus, so to speak, crucified.”The spiritual and moral implications of St. Francis of Assisi and all who follow his example are enormous. But so are the historic contributions and social implications. Monasticism or the religious life is not just a calling that benefits those who are called, nor does it exclusively benefit the religious order he or she is called to. It also has a profound effect on society. Religious orders exemplify the Christian standard and hold it high for all to see. And through their ongoing prayers, they appease the justice of God and set free many blessings for heaven; not just for themselves, but for all of us. It would seem that this special calling from God – the consequences of which are cosmic – needs to be explained to Catholics from the pulpit, in the classroom and elsewhere. People need to know why this man from Assisi, careless and roughly clad, is so important for souls, for the Church and for society.
Catholicism, Islam and Totalitarianism
Sep 27, 2013 / 00:00 amMohammad was a religious and a political leader. He, along with his followers, conquered other nations by the sword. And henceforth they grew in number through power and conquest. In early Christianity, on the other hand, the followers of Christ were put to the sword and as result, their numbers multiplied. This, I would say, is more miraculous in nature. Conventional wisdom for centuries was that victory was had by killing your enemy. However, the Church grew by leaps and bounds because her members were martyred. Tertullian, an early Church Father from Africa, was confident in this when he wrote to a Roman magistrate who sanctioned the execution of Christians. Tertullian said, “You will never destroy our sect [i.e. Church]! Mark this well: when you think you are striking it down, you are, in reality, strengthening it. The public will become restive at so much courage. It will long to know its origin. And when a man recognizes the truth- he’s ours!” Unlike Mohammad, Jesus Christ never claimed to have political authority. In fact, he drew a sharp distinction between Caesar and God. His kingdom was not to be confused with the State. But this distinction would inevitably lead to conflict between his Church and that political powers that be. In fact, according to St. Augustine, the tension of City of God and the City of Man would endure until the end of time. For the first three hundred years of Church history, Christians were martyred by the thousands. It was even reported that out of the first 30 popes, 29 died a martyr’s death. This should hardly be a surprise to us. Since the beginning of his earthly life as an infant, Herod, representing the State, tried to hunt down the new born Messiah in order to kill him. And at the end of our Lord's earthly life, it was Pilate, again, representing the State, who appeased the angry mob by sentencing our Lord to death. But no matter how corrupt political rulers became, the Catholic Church, beginning with Christ and the Apostles, never discounted the divinely appointed purpose of the State. Even when political regimes exercised hostility towards Christ and his followers, they always held that political authority comes from God and as such, whatever just laws they decreed should be obeyed. As St. Paul said, “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1) According to Catholic political theology, the authority of the State originates from God. However, this same authority is communicated or given to the people for whom it is meant to benefit. From this, it is the people who decide what kind of government they wish to be subjected to. The main principle here is that State or civil authority exists for the people and it is therefore determined by the people. In fact, it is through the citizenry that political power is conferred on the ruler. But Islamic autocracies and dictatorships violate these principles. In Islamic nations, political authority is not believed to reside in the people. This is why democracies struggle to find a secure place on Middle Eastern soil. Instead, it is believed by most Muslims that the right to rule comes straight down from God to the State. As for the people or the body politic, they have no share in it. The share in governance bypasses them altogether. Furthermore, Muslim governments are often indistinguishable from the religion of Islam; hence, the lack of check and balance. To be sure, the distinction between Church and State, at the very least, is blurred in Muslim nations.Unfortunate but true: There is no mechanism to offset or challenge an aggressive Islamic State precisely because there is no single institution possessing moral authority similar to that of the Papacy or Holy See. In any case, the State- Islamic or Christian -needs to be held accountable by an institution of a higher moral and spiritual authority. This is what Christianity provides to the people (By the way, this is why secularism is so dangerous. It takes Christianity and the people out of the equation). In his book, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, Lord Acton expounds on the truly unique role Christ had on the State; a role that Mohammad could not put into effect: "In the fourth century A.D., there came to be one essential and inevitable transformation in politics. Popular governments had existed, and also mixed and federal governments, but there had been no limited government, no State the circumference of whose authority had been defined by a force external to its own. That was the great problem which philosophy had raised, and which no statesmanship had been able to solve…But when Christ said, 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,' whose words, spoken on His last visit to the Temple, three days before His Death, gave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a sacredness it had never enjoyed, and bounds it had never acknowledged; and they were the repudiation of absolutism and the inauguration of freedom. For our Lord not only delivered the precept, but created the force to execute it.” As with Mohammad, the Islamic religion, even up to this very day, is incapable of delivering this service to civilization. The chemical warfare in Syria is case and point. There is no single authoritative Islamic voice to condemn such atrocities. Perhaps this is why moderate Muslims are muddled together with Jihadists in the minds of Westerners. This, no doubt, is due to their lack of religious authority that is so useful in spelling out to the world what Islam is and what it is not. Absent the accountability and delineation that a singular and uniform religious authority brings to the table, unlimited power naturally accrues to the government. Indeed, where religion and politics converge into one or where religion is absent all together (as with a secular America), very often what we get is totalitarianism. And, as the sad events in Syria attest, innocent people suffer.
'Let us enjoy…the Church!'
Sep 20, 2013 / 00:00 amPope Leo X, when he was elected to the papacy in 1512- just prior to the Reformation -was alleged to have said to his brother, “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” Then, of course, in 1517, while a relaxed attitude prevailed in the Roman Curia, Martin Luther encouraged countless souls to leave the Church. And that they did. The Protestant Reformation was underway and Christian civilization would never be the same. Almost 500 years later – especially during the latter half of the twentieth century –that same attitude had made a comeback; especially among those who work on behalf of the Church. Indeed, it is still with us today. As for myself, I have worked for this same Church as a volunteer and as an employee, off and on, for the last 25 years in four different States. To be sure, I probably have been guilty of this “let us enjoy the Church” attitude from time to time. But over the years, the more I have seen this complacent attitude in my fellow co-workers within the vineyard, the less I like it. And the less I like it in others, the more I dislike it myself. For this reason, I try to remind myself why the Church exists to begin with.For not a few Catholics, the Church has come to be primarily viewed as an end in itself; that is, as venue for one’s social life. If one were to visit some of our nation’s apostolates and parishes, an impartial observer might come away with the impression that the life of the Church is more about parish picnics, fish fries and fundraisers than it is about the hard work of winning souls for Christ. Now, do not get me wrong, such activities that center on food, fellowship and fundraising go a long way in building up Catholic communities. No argument there. But the question is: Where does the emphasis lie? If Pope Francis were to answer that question, one can argue that he would say our attention is not where it should be. He once said, “When the Church does not come out of itself to evangelize, it becomes self-referential and then gets sick.” He went on to say that the Church then becomes inward-looking. And by doing so it gives into a spiritual worldliness; one that leads the Church to live in itself and for itself. With this “ecclesiastical narcissism,” the missionary spirit is subdued and the serious and hard work of evangelization becomes less of a priority.Perhaps, the family can tells us something about the priority of evangelization and conversion in our parishes. To be sure, the solemn duty to transmit the faith from one person to another finds its highest expression in the witness parents give to their children. Parents, more than anyone else, have the primary responsibility of forming their children after the likeness of Christ. Yet, the inspiration and incentive to do this originates from the local parish as well as the Church at large. In other words, what can be said about the family can be said about the parish.So, how well do Catholic parents pass on faith in Christ to their children? According to the Center for the Applied Research in the Apostolate (A Catholic Poll: CARA), only 8 percent of young people report that their parents talk to them about religion daily; whereas 20 percent say their parents do so at least once a week. About 14 to 20 percent do spiritual exercises such as reading the bible or praying the rosary on a monthly basis. And as far as parents encouraging their children to participate in the life of the Church, CARA found that their success rate is about 7 to 15 percent; that is, this percentage of Catholic youth surveyed participated in youth group and bible study activities on a semi-regular basis. These statistics can tell us something about the average parish and its priorities. If the number one priority was conversion and repentance in parish ministries, then perhaps an ambitious evangelistic outreach would be more the norm. And most certainly, a higher numbers of parents talking to their children about Christ would be reflected in the numbers. But the numbers are low because the zeal to convert souls to Christ and his Church are not as high as it can be. These priorities, whether it be a social one to enjoy or a missionary one to convert, is shaped by how we see the purpose of the Church. As for the Apostles and the Saints, the central mission of the Church is to prepare souls for heaven; that is, to make as many people love and follow Jesus Christ as possible. The zeal that inspires such an ambitious enterprise takes us outside of the Church herself and into the hazards of the world. And such an enterprise, no doubt, puts us in harms way. For that reason, there is a real temptation to make the Church into a kind of refuge from the world. As Bishop Sheen once said, “The Church is not, and never can be, an end in itself. It is a means of salvation for the world, not just our own sanctification. We cannot save ourselves alone…The Church is the agent of salvation for mankind. It is not a refuge of peace; it is an army preparing for war. We seek security, but only in sacrifice; this is the mark of the Church and the hallmark of the cross.”Indeed, if the Church is to be enjoyed as a social venue for its servants, then its missionary character eventually gets lost. The zeal and even the art of passing on the faith to younger generations will inevitably be hindered. But if, at the heart of every mission, exists a zeal for the conversion of souls and a willingness to beg God for such conversions, then not only will the Church fulfill its purpose by populating heaven, but the less important aim of drawing more people to parish picnics, fish fries and fundraisers will be realized too.
Despised Prophets, Fallen Israel and Assyria
Sep 13, 2013 / 00:00 amThe Old Testament prophets were holy men who were persecuted by kings and ostracized by religious elders. If truth be told, their contemporaries had no use for them. And it is not an exaggeration to say that they were called by God to embrace a thankless job. Yet, several years after they had died, their writings were enshrined into the Old Testament canon. That's right. They were eventually heralded by the Jews as great men. To be sure, the writings of the prophets took on great importance for the faith of the Jews in the centuries to come. They even had national significance for Israel. And after the Apostles were sent out into the world, the writings of the prophets were honored by many nations throughout the world. Eventually, it was understood that these prophets spoke and had written the very words of God. Nevertheless, it took the destruction of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom) in order for the Hebrews to realize this. Indeed, it wasn’t until after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. and the people of God were deported from their homeland that the writings of the prophets were seen for what they were- the inspired Word of God! The suffering that afflicted Israel and Judah was captured in the writings of Habakkuk: “How long, O LORD? I cry for help but you do not listen! I cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not intervene. Why do you let me see ruin; why must I look at misery? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and clamorous discord.” (Habakkuk 1:2-3) As for the prophets, during their lifetime they received little respect. They had to be content with being outsiders for the Lord’s sake. The reason why the Old Testament prophets were met with such hostility when they communicated God’s message was because Israel enjoyed considerable prosperity and comfort at that time. Between the years 1000 and 740 B.C., for instance, not a few citizens had a regular home and a vacation house. At the same time, however, many Israelites had fallen into idolatry and had practiced the lowest forms of immorality. The poor were neglected. Sexual deviancy was rampant. And child-sacrifices were even performed to appease their new gods. Is it not true that false gods demand innocent blood? Pardon the digression, but I wonder if America has drifted towards a new god; certainly not a Greek god like Zeus or a Roman god like Jupiter, but modern god like the State. Keep in mind that prosperity or political power – by themselves – are no indication that God’s favor is upon those who enjoy it. Historian Guglielmo Ferrero, in his book, "Ancient Rome and Modern America," (1914) reminded us of this truth when he said, "A civilization is not always in reality richer and stronger in times when it bears the most visible marks of so being. We are rather apt to find that when it is most dazzling and outward seeming, its decadence has already begun." Indeed, Israel dazzled on the outside just before she was conquered by Assyria around the year 740 B.C. As Old Testament theologian, Bernhard Anderson, once said, “Although Israel seemed healthy outwardly, inwardly she was diseased with a malignant cancer. Israel was not merely guilty of social crimes; she stood accused of unfaithfulness to her calling as the people of Yahweh.”But God is merciful. Through the prophet Amos- to name one -he warned his people about the consequences of their sins long before the fall of this once great nation. In fact, the prophet Amos was from the southern kingdom of Israel known as Judah. He was called by God to prophesy to the northern kingdom of Israel. He was just a plain old farmer minding his own business when God called him. In his book, he briefly described how he was called by God. But such a calling won him no friends among his contemporaries. In his book he writes about how he was treated by the priests of Israel: “To Amos, Amaziah said: ‘Off with you, visionary, flee to the land of Judah! There earn your bread by prophesying, but never again prophesy in Bethel; for it is the king's sanctuary and a royal temple.’ Amos answered Amaziah, ‘I was no prophet, nor have I belonged to a company of prophets; I was a shepherd and a dresser of sycamores.’” (Amos 7:12-14) That’s right. Amos and his message were not welcomed. In times of ease, spiritual sacrifices and repentance is rarely a popular thing. The rejection of the Amos probably had something to do with what he prophesied to the nation of Israel. It was a message of tough love. He said, “Hear this word, O men of Israel, that the LORD pronounces over you, over the whole family that I brought up from the land of Egypt: You alone have I favored, more than all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your crimes.” (Amos 3:1-2) As harsh as this message was to hear, it was one of liberation. But neither the kings of Israel nor the religious establishment took heed in the prophet’s words. However, if the Israelites had taken to heart the Word of God as spoken by Amos, the nation most likely would have been saved. But no! Israel had to learn the hard way; much like many nations throughout history. When she was conquered by the Assyrian army, 27, 290 Israelites were deported to the region of Persia and repopulated Israel with colonists from Babylonia, Elam, and Syria. The ten tribes were lost forever.The vocation of an Old Testament prophet was not an easy one; rather, it was lonely and strenuous. Like Amos, the prophet Jeremiah was a fine illustration of this very point. The Lord just happened to communicate His Word through his wild series of emotional highs and lows. Things would get so bad for Jeremiah, that he regretted the day he was born. At one point, he cried out: “Cursed be the day on which I was born! May the day my mother gave me birth never be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, saying, ‘A child, a son, has been born to you!’ filling him with great joy.’” (Jeremiah 20:14-15) He, like Amos and Habakkuk, knew what it meant to see his own people – a nation he grew up to love – disregard its great religious traditions and even God himself. And as a bearer of God’s Word, he knew all too well that a prophet is never accepted in his home town.
Smart phone curiosity and the New Evangelization
Sep 6, 2013 / 00:00 amRecently, I saw a picture of St. Peter’s Square when they announced a new Pope, namely, Pope Benedict XVI, in 2005 contrasted with 2013, when the announced Pope Francis as the new Pope. As for the latter, it looked as though every single person were using the video capacity of a smartphone. The world changed in those few years. The blessing of a smartphone is that it not only facilitates communication, but it can do just about everything a computer can. Yet, with every positive, there is a corresponding negative. With texting, emails and the internet so readily available now, people are bound to experience a kind of chronic and insatiable curiosity. A curiosity about what, you might ask? A curiosity about the most recent text or email received. Although it is not true to say this about every user, it would seem that this curiosity continually draws people to their smartphones. And in doing so, people in the room and their immediate surroundings are often lost sight of. I would even go so far as to say it is becoming an addiction among many young Americans. According to a recent Wall Street Journal’s article, “A Rising Addiction Among Youths: Smartphones”, South Koreans are suffering from this addiction in epidemic proportions: “Earlier this month, the South Korean government said it plans to provide nationwide counseling programs for youngsters by the end of the year and train teachers on how to deal with students with addiction. Taxpayer-funded counseling treatment here already exists for adult addicts.” But the article goes on to give us something very insightful: With an over reliance on texting, especially among the youth, interpersonal and nonverbal communication becomes impoverished. "Students today are very bad at reading facial expressions," said Setsuko Tamura, a professor of applied psychology at Tokyo Seitoku University. "When you spend more time texting people instead of talking to them, you don't learn how to read nonverbal language." Furthermore, strong relationships require a sense of being present to family members and friends. Without this attentiveness, our dealing with others becomes superficial. Yet, nonverbal communication is not the only thing that is compromised. This is where the New Evangelization can have relevance. The ability to think in silence for long periods of time is less attainable. This is important because thinking in silence is when our communion with God is most intense. What is more, the compulsion to communicate with and see the world through the smartphone distracts us from the following: From thoughtfully preparing for the day ahead, from being attentive to our duties, and from examining each day in hindsight as it nears its end. I would go so far as to say that it hinders our creativity and productivity. In decades past, children used to have to make their own fun. Today, it is already programmed for them. Children used to have the whole town as their playground. Today there’s no need to even step outside. The family that used to travel for vacations was forced to talk to each other and experience the thrill of seeing new places in the same vehicle. Today each child has his or her DVD player and is watching his or her own movie. They might as well be in different vehicles. Back to the smartphone: Modern technology is a benefit to us only if we are the masters of it. But if we are needlessly and constantly using it when there are more important matters that need tending to, then we have to learn to subdue our smartphone curiosity. Imposing self-discipline in this regard makes for good penance. It takes us back to the basics of using our own creative imagination. The New Evangelization can provide a service here. It can remind people that the imagination is made for the infinite; that, it is best fostered when the mind is allowed to think- to think about time and eternity in silence. And as for simplicity, God knows we need it in our lives.
Sin and gullibility
Aug 30, 2013 / 00:00 amThere is an unwritten law in the world of morality: The holier you are, the less you know it. The flipside is also true. That is, the more sinful you are, the less you know it. As to the latter, sin makes one gullible because it darkens the mind. This is especially the case when the mind and the heart are burdened with sexual sin. When we get sex wrong, we get life and even God wrong. Without God’s interior voice and without His infallible guidance resounding through the Catholic Church, the human mind is incapable of seeing the world as it really is. The Devil knows this. For this reason, his temptations are strategically applied to our human weakness. In fact, when Satan tempted our Lord in the desert, he was quite methodical. And if you look closely, his methods in the first century and his methods in the twentieth century are similar. Throughout history Catholic missions have always benefited from spiritual vigilance; that is, from being mindful of how the Enemy undermines the salvation of souls. The New Evangelization in the twenty-first century will also benefit from this spiritual vigilance. A good place to start is the Gospel of Matthew. This is where we begin to see a pattern emerge. Below, each temptation by Satan is divided into three parts: The first is the temptation itself. Second, is the rating or what kind of person Satan assumed Jesus to be. Keep in mind, it is a common teaching among many Saints that Satan “did not know” if Jesus was God, a holy man or a prophet. That is why he prefaced each temptation with, “If you are the Son of God…” And finally, the third part is the penalty or consequence if Jesus would have consented to the temptation. With each temptation, you should notice a pattern. Here is the sequence of the three temptations of Christ in the desert according to the Gospel of Matthew chapter 4:1-11:First temptation: Turn stones into bread Rating: God – Only God can do that. The penalty (if complied with): Sin or breaking the fast Second temptation: Jump from the heights of the Temple and be protected by an angel Rating: A holy man – If an angel catches him, he must be a holy man. The penalty (if complied with): Physical death Third temptation: Worship the Devil Rating: A sinner – Only the greatest sinner would worship the Devil The penalty (if complied with): spiritual death – hell. Notice that Satan begins his series of temptations by assuming that Christ is God. Again, only God can change stones into bread. But what if Jesus would have complied? An educated guess would be that if our Lord were just a man, he would have displeased God by breaking his fast. So, with the first temptation Satan rates (or assumes) Jesus to be God and his temptation has a minimal consequence. With the second temptation, Satan rates Jesus a notch lower. After all, if Jesus were to jump off of the Temple and if an angel were to catch him, he would be holy but not God. God would not need the assistance of an angel. But as the rating lowers, the penalty or hazard increases. Anyone jumping off of the Temple without such angelic assistance would obviously die. And finally we come to third and last desperate attempt to get Jesus to stumble. Satan tempts him with the temptation to possess the kingdoms of the world. Here Satan is rating Jesus as a sinner because only a sinner would forsake his faith and worship him. But with what consequence? The worst consequence of all: eternal damnation! The point to be had is this: Satan takes for granted that the more a person sins, the more gullible he becomes. And the more gullible, the greater the damage he can inflict on the sinner. When St. Paul describes the pagans of his day, he said that “although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.” (Romans 1: 21) Their minds were darkened! They became exceedingly gullible. They fell for lies of the worst kind. Not much has changed. What worked with ancient pagans has proven to be effective with moderns. But this time his temptation does not begin with the belly; it begins with the organ under the belly. As for the twentieth century, Satan commences his series of temptations with what only seems to be a preventative measure in the use of contraception. But the end result is the culture of death. It goes something like this: Between the 1930s and the 1960s, contraception is popularized. In short, this is sex without life, that is, sexual love without the possibility of having a baby. Then the tempter moves to fan the flames of the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960’s. With the help of fallen human nature, he inspires sex without love, that is, sex outside of marriage. Then shortly afterwards, in 1973, we greeted with the legalization of abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is life without love. First, it was sex without life, then sex with love, and finally, life without love…which is a kind of hell. With each temptation, the stakes get a little higher. The seemingly harmless act of preventing life culminates with the killing of life. Through this series of temptations, in one generation, the culture of death was created. Satan has his methods of inaugurating the culture of death but Christ has his way of building up a culture of life. And what is that way? A big part of Church’s success in civilizing the cruel and barbaric world of the ancient pagans was that it insisted upon sexual purity as the condition of being a Catholic. Coupled with the spiritual value of suffering, the sanctity of sexual purity restored the family; and by restoring the family it restored civilization. Since the early centuries, the prophetic voice of the Church has always insisted that to live the life of Christ is to break with sexual sin. As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, no fornicator will inherit the kingdom of God. But today, repentance from sexual sin is optional in many, if not, most Catholic parishes. This is unfortunate because repentance from serious sin used to be mandatory. Indeed, optional repentance is a serious departure from our pastoral tradition as it was practiced throughout most of Church history. This has allowed Satan to make sure that good seed (i.e. God’s Word) falls on rocky ground. With this, sin continues to cloud the minds of would-be converts to Christ and his Church. Satan knows that the more we sin, the more gullible we become. And the more gullible we become, the more we fall for – not only his lies – but the lies of the world.
From Servants to Celebrities: A growing phenomenon in the Church
Aug 23, 2013 / 00:00 amFred A. Allen, a radio comedian who was popular in the 1940s, once said, “A celebrity is a person who works hard all of their life to become well known, and then wears dark glasses to avoid being recognized.” In other words, fame is not all what it seems to be. There is a price to pay for being well known. Nevertheless, it is coveted by many. The night of the Oscars, for instance, with the red carpet and adoring fans, can make the life of a celebrity look rather attractive. And why not? Being adulated and accommodated by admirers has its perks. Unfortunately, Catholics are not immune from coveting the kind of accommodations Hollywood stars enjoy. We have many gifted speakers, writers and musicians within the Church who set out to be servants of Christ but who, nevertheless, behave like celebrities. Instead of setting out to wash people’s feet like our Lord demonstrated, too often, some of these gifted Catholics come to parishes wanting their feet to be washed. Oh yes. They have a list of demands to be met. They, like the Hollywood celebrity, want to be accommodated.If you are a diocesan or parish event-organizer you may know what I am referring to. Increasingly, I am hearing more stories from people who work for the Church. They tell me that high profile Catholic speakers and musicians go beyond requiring the essentials; that is, the means necessary to carry out their ministry. The funny thing is that these Catholics- many of them well known –profess to follow Christ and hold up the Saints as models to imitate.For some reason, however, when their God-given gifts and talents are sought after by Catholic communities, something happens. Something gets lost. And that something is the instructions our Lord gave to his disciples. For instance, he said, “Whatever town you enter and they welcome you, eat what is set before you…” (Lk 10:8) Elsewhere, he had this to say: “Do not take gold or silver or copper for your belts; no sack for the journey, or a second tunic, or sandals, or walking stick.” As you can see, Jesus requires of his followers a simplicity and detachment from material things. Why? So we can avail ourselves to more effectively serve souls.Now, many Catholics who are gifted speakers, writers and musicians start off with the intention of being servants. But when they become well known, some turn into celebrities. Instead of wearing sun glasses so as not to be noticed, the Catholic celebrity develops a long list of demands; not of essentials but of luxuries. One musician came to a parish to share her musical talents. Before the event, she sent word to the parish leaders that she was “hyper-carbohydrate intolerant.” No, she wasn’t allergic to any foods. She just wanted a Jenny Craig-like entrée because she wanted to watch her weight. Another high profile Catholic author and speaker demands a specific kind of purified water in addition to other non-essentials. And yet, another one insists on having a certain kind of granola bar. As for one musician I recently heard about, he will not play for any event unless the host has the newest top-notch keyboard.Probably what is of high symbolic value of why Church is struggling the way it is with Mass attendance decline etc., has a lot to do with the hotel accommodations our leaders enjoy when they travel on their missions; hotel accommodations that the average person would be hard-pressed to afford. This suggests that many of our leaders – both clergy and laity – have either lost their way or are missing the point. I could be overstating this, but what has happened to many of them is that they turned a vocation of service into a position of privilege. This, it should be emphasized, is a radical departure from what Christ and the Saints have taught us. The great spiritual classic by Thomas Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, tells us that they endured hardships and persecutions. And yet it was through these trials that souls were saved. In it, Kempis wrote the following:“Saints and friends of Christ, they served our Lord in hunger and in thirst, in cold, in nakedness, in labor and in weariness, in watching, in fasting, prayers and holy meditations, and in frequent persecutions and reproaches. Oh, how many grievous tribulations did the Apostles suffer and the Martyrs and Confessors and Virgins, and all the rest who resolved to follow the steps of Christ!”Several centuries later, our Lord confirmed the spiritual value of sacrifice and suffering to St. Faustina by saying, “You will save more souls through prayer and suffering than will a missionary through his teachings and sermons alone.” Yet, how is this truth being observed when our Catholic celebrities practically demand a manicure from the parishes and dioceses they are supposed to serve? If suffering is an instrument through which conversion is brought about, then they better learn how to start washing feet again.
Time Magazine's bid for a childless nation
Aug 16, 2013 / 00:00 amA featured article in the August 13, 2013, edition of Time is "The Childfree Life" by Lauren Sandler. She begins the article by citing some sobering statistics. And for a moment, I thought that the secular media was finally coming to terms with the seriousness of the unfolding demographic crisis in America. And maybe, just maybe, this nation could start having an honest conversation of what a childless nation portends. Sandler reported America’s birthrate decline as follows: "The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest in recorded American history. From 2007 to 2011, the most recent year for which there's data, the fertility rate declined 9 percent. A 2010 Pew Research report showed that childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups, adding up to about 1 in 5 American women who end their childbearing years maternity-free, compared with 1 in 10 in the 1970s. Even before the recession hit, in 2008, the proportion of women ages 40 to 44 who had never given birth had grown by 80 percent..." However, my hope that Sandler would make a case for having more children was premature. Without any serious consideration of what a childless nation would portends, the Time contributor, avoids the issue. Instead, she addresses the unfairness of those couples who are childless by choice and are “judged” for it by their peers. And sadly, she celebrates selfish reasons why some choose not to have children. For instance, she makes reference to Jena Starker, a Web designer and one who is childless by choice, as saying the following about the difficulties of being a mother: “If it’s the hardest job in the world, I’m damn happy I don’t have to do it. You’re not supposed to say that, but it’s true.”The featured article in Time is illustrative that people can be so zealously opposed to that which is absolutely necessary for a nation’s survival and happiness. Materialism and secularism can so twist human thinking that people can hate what is positively good for them and love what is positively bad. Such is the mystery of sinful humanity and the effect it has on the soul.History shows that once people cross a certain threshold of prosperity, materialistic lifestyles set in, spirituality dries up, the appetite for sacrifice wanes and reproductive attitudes hardens. It is usually at the tail end of this development that the State sees that a childless nation is not in its best interests. As such, political leaders try to legislate their way out of the demographic crisis, but with little success.Although some European countries have come to this realization in our day, such as France, America has yet to realize that a family with many children is in her best interests. Historically, declining tax revenue and the disproportionate ratio between the young and the elderly are but natural results of a low birthrate. America will be no exception to these trends.In the last forty years, Catholics – both clergy and laity – have been bashful about what may prove to be the most prophetic and important doctrine of our times: the truth on contraception. As a result, very few teachings at the local and diocesan level (and even fewer sermons at Sunday Mass) have even mentioned what impact contraception has had on marriage, the family and culture. Our silence has left the door wide open for the propaganda – such as Time’s featured article – that children are a burden to society. Indeed, once children are widely portrayed more as a liability than an asset – viewed as mouths to feed instead of hands to build-up and minds to invent – then we can be certain that what America is suffering from what Ross Douhat, a New York Times columnist, termed “late modern exhaustion.” No doubt, when this exhaustion leads to a demographic winter, the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception will be vindicated. And we are just beginning – only just beginning – to feel the effects of that winter. We have to pray for our clergy and parish leaders, that they may encourage married couples to be generous with God in terms of having children. It is incumbent on all Catholics, but especially our leaders, to articulate what a childless nation portends.One such effect of a low birthrate is this: What the family loses, the State gains. When families shrink and breakdown, the State only increases and becomes more powerful. History bears witness to this fact. The present day challenge of American citizens to retain their liberty and prosperity can be traced (although not exclusively) to the breakdown of the family and the unwillingness of couples to have children. On the other hand, if the American people were to value having more children, this would be a sign of recovery; a harbinger of better things to come. Long before the birthrate of the West became an issue, Bishop Sheen issued the following warning in 1948 with the publication of his book, Communism and the Western Conscience, He said this:“If our birthrate should again decrease as it did 15 years ago [1933], and that decrease should continue, would we not become the prey of other nations? History does not reveal the survival of a single nation with a declining birthrate in a moment of trial and crisis…The decline of the population always begins with the economic top; those who could most afford to have children do not. The group less economically blessed produces more. Soon the infection against the family spreads from those in high economic brackets to those below, and a civilization goes into decline.” Then he adds, “There is no doubt the State will claim more power for itself as the family declines, but the state and society are not identical. As the vital energy of society goes into decline, the mechanized bureaucratic machinery grows by leaps and bounds.” This, no doubt, confirms the famous quote from the historian Arnold Toynbee, “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder.” But nations that welcome each and every human being that comes into this world and a people who celebrate children as a blessing from God, live and prosper.Contrary to the views espoused by some Time Magazine contributors, children are always referred to as a blessing from the Lord in Scripture. Any nation that believes otherwise hastens their own decline. And decline is what a childless nation portends.
The younger generation’s work ethic
Aug 9, 2013 / 00:00 amStudies Confirm It:A study by San Diego State University confirmed what employers toil with on a daily basis and what many of us have suspected for a longtime. The work ethic of this nation is getting weaker with each younger generation. San Diego State University conducted a study among 355,000 U.S. high school students from 1976 to 2007. Two interesting findings reveal that the more materialistic youth become, the weaker their work ethic is. For instance, only 62 percent of the youth surveyed from 2005-2007 put a high priority in having a lot of money, whereas only 48 percent from 1976-1978 had the same priority. Yet, when asked about wanting to work hard, those surveyed from 2005-2007, a whopping 39 percent admitted that working hard was not a high priority for them, whereas from 1976-1978 it was only 25 percent.Several managers from different corporations tell me it is becoming increasingly difficult to find young employees with a strong work ethic. What shows itself in the work force among the younger generations is an entitlement mentality which has severed the relationship between hard work and its reward. In fact, this same study carried out by San Diego State University found that more young people surveyed between 2005-2007 want a big house than from the sample surveyed between 1976-1978. The desire “not” to work hard and the desire to acquire wealth increased proportionately over the last 30 years by about 14 percent. Once on the Same Page:Interestingly enough, these findings seems to correspond with the testimony of high school teachers who claim that parents will defend their son or daughter “tooth and nail” no matter how much of an underachiever he or she is. If the student receives a low mark, well, according to many parents, it must be the teachers fault. This is a departure from just a few decades ago. As late as the 1970s, parents, teachers, and school administrators were pretty much on the same page. A child, if he was disciplined at school for bad behavior, could expect to have his parents discipline him just the same when he got home. But no such uniformity of action among authority figures exists today. The result is that children in our culture are seldom forced to examine themselves for the purposes of amending their faults. However, if they are not made to put forth a maximum effort to achieve high grades, they will hardly rise to the occasion when a high work standard is required of them in the work force. The relationship between parents and schools (especially public schools) that once existed for the benefit of children, has broken down in recent years. This is largely due to the absence of Christian principles. The preaching of the Gospel fosters a spirit of sacrifice and service. When our Lord knelt down to wash the Apostles feet at the Last Supper, the night before he made the ultimate sacrifice for souls, he demonstrated what every one of his followers should aspire to. His redemptive sacrifice may have begun with the Last Supper and ended with Calvary, but the effects of that sacrifice translated into a strong worth ethic among Christian peoples. Restoring the Work Ethic:What is often associated with Christianity is its corporeal works of mercy to relieve hunger among the poor. But in the early centuries, the Catholic Church restored the value of hard work. Sloth, mind you, is one of the seven deadly sins. Nothing could have been more anathema to the Christian spirit than having an entitlement mentality. In fact, St. Paul said, “We instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10) Idleness was a sin while working hard took on spiritual importance. Indeed, Christ taught, through his example and teachings, that work was holy.Few know that ancient pagan civilization had grown to despise manual labor when Christianity came on the scene. Henri Daniel-Rops, author of the book, The Churchof the Apostles and Martyrs, said, “The Christian attitude towards work placed the subject in a nentirely new light by insisting that labor sanctified the individual who performed it. This completely broke with the idleness and sloth of which the classical world was dying…” By the time the Roman Empire fell, many fields had gone untilled because the hard work that agriculture required was not highly esteemed by the Romans. This weak work ethic, so common among the Romans, was one contributing factor to the decline of that once great empire.In the centuries that followed, a work ethic unknown to humanity was advanced by Catholic monks and missionaries. From the ruins of a fallen empire, a new Christian civilization flourished. It was only because the principles of the Gospel were diffused far and wide.What worked for ancient Rome, can work for post-Christian America. However, it is only Christianity that can restore a balanced work ethic among younger American employees. The incentives that the Gospel offers for hard work is to, above all, please God and merit a blessing from him. Yet, this is not the only thing. The Church offers the means of grace to give a hundred percent – a total dedication – to the daily duties that the Lord has given us. Christians have an eye for long-term gains. In fact, we are taught by Christ to see through short-term sacrifices in order to achieve long-term gains. Resurrection is the goal, but it must be seen through the Cross.The declining work ethic among the younger generations is a sign of the times. It is a painful reminder that when the soul is not saved, nothing is saved. Not even our work. This is one of many reasons why we must insist that our public institutions be the beneficiary of the Gospel once again!
Pope Francis: To judge or not to judge
Aug 2, 2013 / 00:00 amI’m sure you heard about the quote from Pope Francis. During a press conference he made a fundamental distinction between gay activism and persons with same-sex attraction, saying, “When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they’re our brothers.”Since then his comment has come under some scrutiny. For instance, Andrew Comiskey, former gay activist and recent convert to Catholicism, had expressed disappointment over the Holy Father’s choice of words: “Here he goes beyond affirming the dignity of persons with certain tendencies; he unintentionally affirms an identity which in our age has become the rallying point for an artificial ‘ethnos’, a people group, whose misbegotten activism has redefined marriage throughout the world…I fear he did not represent well the faithful in his words. His desire to provide a fresh open face for seekers is welcomed as long as he grounds it in the call of costly grace.”Personally, I would not go so far as to say that Pope Francis is “affirming an identity” so much as he is trying to make a fundamental distinction between certain individuals who push the gay-rights agenda and persons who have same-sex attraction. As for the latter, Pope Francis qualified his "non-judgmental" approach to a gay person on the condition that he or she accepted the Lord and demonstrates good will. By accepting the Lord, I take this to mean that such a person is living according to his teachings as taught by the Church. For this reason, a distinction has to be made between the same-sex attraction and the person who possesses it. Quite often, same-sex attractions are not only involuntary but they are a burden to those who are trying to follow in the footsteps of Christ.With that said, Mr. Comiskey’s point shouldn’t be altogether dismissed. Catholics who engage in public discourse have to juggle opposites; especially with the complicated issue of homosexuality. That is, on the one hand, the sin of homosexual behavior has to be condemned as gravely immoral and unnatural (i.e. contrary to natural and divine law). Too many Christians, I’m afraid, go soft on this part of the equation. Yet, on the other hand, the person who merely experiences same-sex attraction or who openly engages in the homosexual lifestyle must be loved as Christ would love them. You heard the saying: Love the sinner but hate the sin. Nevertheless, the world- and particularly American culture -swings between two extremes.Jacque Maritain, Catholic philosopher, put it this way: The bigot begins by hating the sin; in this case, the homosexual act. So far, so good. But he will then transfer his hatred to the sinner and will end up hating them both. This is not good! Conversely, the liberal will begin with his love for the sinner. So far, so good! But he, like the bigot, will end up transferring something that shouldn’t be transferred, namely, transferring his love or affection to the sin. As such, the liberal ends up loving them both. This, too, is not good. You see, both the bigot and the liberal are at odds with Christ. The Christian, for his part, must make a distinction between the sin and the sinner and do so with clarity. Out of love for the sinner, he must not only hate the sin but is duty-bound to caution the person (or sinner) about the sin. The Lord, in no uncertain terms, requires this of his prophets and apostles. He said to Ezekiel, “If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death.” (Ezekiel 33:8)Now, there is a great deal of pressure by those who represent the world’s way of thinking who tell us that we would be “cool” if we just dropped our rigid ways about sexual morality. For instance, there are those like Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, Senior Religion Editor at the Huffington Post, who are blatant about their agenda. In one of his recent articles entitled, “How Christianity Became Cool Again,” he said,“If more Christians can speak out the way Pope Francis [i.e. who am I to judge?] and Archbishop Tutu [I’d rather go to hell than go to a homophobic heaven] have this week and so many have been in recent memory -- it will change the way people view Jesus and the faith that he inspires in so many of us.”Mr. Raushenbush is not a Christian. According to him, he is an outsider. But he is an outsider who took the words of Pope Francis out of context. Unfortunately, there are not a few “insiders” or Christians who are more subtle in their attempt to downplay biblical teaching on homosexuality. In her recent CNN blog, “Why millennials are leaving the church,” Rachel Held Evans suggested that the Christian churches should be focusing more on reaching out to the needy and less about sexual morality. Keep in mind, it is not so much what she says as what she doesn’t say:“We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities. We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.”This, I think, is what rubbed Andrew Comiskey the wrong way about the words Pope Francis chose to use. Given the context, I understand what the Holy Father was trying to communicate to the press. But, like never before, there is a great deal of pressure exerted on the Catholic Church to either change her teachings on homosexuality or to just be silent about it. This is why, in my opinion, that what we don’t say as Catholics can be just as important as what we do say. And when it comes to sexual morality we have to make distinctions and be clear about those distinctions. Christ and his Saints were unrelenting about sin, especially sexual sin. And it was precisely out of love for souls that they openly deplored it. But the entertainment industry, academia, the media and sadly, people within the Church, want to foist this notion that our silence about the sin of homosexuality is somehow proof of our love for homosexual persons. On the contrary! If we can take Christ and the Saints as examples – and that we should – we would do well to do as they did. Love requires this kind of courage.Love, as every parent knows, does not only affirm and embrace the person but it confronts wrongdoing. In every functional household, this is taken for granted. But for some reason, this kind of practical love has been lost in translation once we start talking about God or religion.Yes, there is a price to be paid when we speak of sin; especially the sin of homosexual behavior. Yes, we will be called “hateful,” “bigoted,” and “intolerant.” But when it comes to the sanctity of marriage as with the sanctity of life, it is well worth the pain. We gotta take the hits.After all, sexuality and spirituality are so interwoven that they are inseparable. If sex is not saved, the soul is not saved. And if the soul is not saved, nothing is saved!