Of life and of death

Just a thought that I'd like to record somewhere (though I haven't the time to develop it now): it is likely that the underpinning for the Catholic doctrines on the morality of artificial contraception can be traced to (and probably beyond) that for the fifth commandment. How so? Well, it is the Lord who gives life, and it is therefore an arrogant act for one of his creatures to control one's life (or death). This needs some nuanced thought, of course, particularly when one is dying and resuscitation is futile because there is no hope of prolonging life in some way. In terms of human conception and artificial contraception, I think it's fairly straightforward. Not that every marital act must be fertile, but that if a marital act is fertile, only God may decide whether this act results in conception or not. Does this make sense? It is 1:21 am after all..

Fad atheism and where's the debate?

Funny, but it does present a challenge. Only one thing to do: test all things, hold fast to what is good. Maybe they don't want to go beyond the entertaining polemics, but we can't stoop to that level. Of course, when testing all things, we do need to be prudent and prepared.
[Thanks to Patrick Madrid for this one.]

Kids and their heroes

Just a thought that came to mind lately: who are the heroes our kids hold up on a pedestal? And why? What characteristics of theirs do they want to emulate? What choices in life would that lead them to? There was a time when I wondered why my kids bring home amoral (no moral teaching) books from Catholic primary school. Yes, they're about reading, but what's wrong with aesop's fables or Hans Christian Andersen? Aren't there any children's books about the saints and people in the Bible? Can't they learn to read with those as well as learn some good morals and maybe even practical wisdom?

But then again, why should it be the school's sole responsibility?

Nothing like getting your hands dirty

Just marveling at how much you learn from actual experience. Helping write texts for the Liturgy (introduction, penitential rite, prayers for the faithful), taking a New Testament course which includes exegesis and Greek (!).. Forget "if you build, he will come"... Say rather, if you try it, you might just learn something. Of course, I already knew this from being a network/systems administrator part-time (and formerly, full-time). Why I didn't put this into practice faith-wise, I can only chalk up to ignorance. And too much surfing on the web...

Less stress for married couples

.. according to a small study involving 500 masters students in Chicago University. That doesn't sound like such a huge sample size, but I can relate. However, the label "marriage" by itself doesn't guarantee it, especially if it means different things to different people. Is it religious, carrying with it all the implications of it being transcendent? Is it Christian, with all the implications of a covenant that relies on God, and being patterned after the relationship between Jesus Christ and his bride, the Church? Is it with the commitment and complete self-giving for life, through thick and thin, beyond the ups and downs of "being in love"? After all, even the word "love" gets thrown around lightly -- and ambiguously -- these days.

Fr. Val Peter: Love, Warmth and Discipline

This is a great podcast from Catholic Answers Live, on a more common sense approach to parenting that goes the extra mile to equip our kids with the skills and know-how they really need, and that includes loving them enough to teach them discipline.

On the Feast of the Assumption

Just how well does the Blessed Virgin know our Lord? How well does a mother know her own son? What conversations did they have, or what insights were given our Blessed Mother in all those years, even those from the moment of his death and resurrection? And yet only a few words of hers are recorded in Scripture! But the most important, perhaps. 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy words!' 'They have run out of wine.' 'Do whatsoever he tells you!'

And of course, the beautiful Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55):

‘My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord
and my spirit exults in God my saviour;
because he has looked upon his lowly handmaid.
Yes, from this day forward all generations will call me blessed,
for the Almighty has done great things for me.
Holy is his name,
and his mercy reaches from age to age for those who fear him.
He has shown the power of his arm,
he has routed the proud of heart.
He has pulled down princes from their thrones and exalted the lowly.
The hungry he has filled with good things, the rich sent empty away.
He has come to the help of Israel his servant, mindful of his mercy
– according to the promise he made to our ancestors –
of his mercy to Abraham and to his descendants for ever.’

And so we can marvel and honor our Blessed Mother as did God in these words:
'Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the Lord would be fulfilled.' (Lk 1:45) 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!' (Lk 11:28)

And in like wise do we hope to hear and to remain faithful!

Ukrainian Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics

... are together building a new church! Sounds like a great venture.

Bob Brown: Greens more Christian than Cardinal Pell

I guess Mr. Brown can say that based on what he thinks Christ teaches. On the other hand, if he really knew Christ, he might have to say additionally that the Greens are more Christian than Jesus Christ.

Saving the Child by Saving the Parents

I recently saw a poster advocating the vaccination of parents as a reasonable means of protecting children. Fair enough: if the parents are immune to that particular virus, then they probably won't pass the virus onto their kids. There can be other pathways to infection, but at least that from the parents is eliminated.

Are viruses the only things that parents need to worry about? What about bad habits? Crass language? Being lazy? Gossiping? Questionable fashion tastes?? Oh but there is so much more that can seem harmless enough at first glance. What are mom and dad's favorite TV shows? What do they really think about this or that issue? What is their attitude towards this or that ethnic group? Do we drive safely and legally?

And what about faith and morals?

It was only in becoming a father that I was truly challenged to be a disciple of Christ. If I want that of them, then I must be a good one myself. If I am truly convinced that Christ is the Way, Truth and Life, then I should want that of them.

Few are needed

‘Martha, Martha,’ he said ‘you worry and fret about so many things, and yet few are needed, indeed only one. ..’

While I don't want to give the Enemy too much credit, I have occasionally mused on how easy his job can be sometimes. Assuming that it happens to be to cause us harm (and in effect, to cause pain to our Heavenly Father), it seems to me that he can do a lot of damage simply by distracting us.

This reminds me of the junk-carrying lady in the movie Labyrinth, whose heroine was close to defeat .. by distraction. She was on her way to the heart of the Labyrinth in order to save her brother, but there was a deadline. Bad enough that she must weave her way through a labyrinth, then her search is interrupted by the junk lady, loading her up with trinkets, toys and baubles, objects that held some value to her from childhood. Soon enough, with her arms and back beginning to overflow, she oddly starts resembling the junk lady herself! In the meantime, dwelling on sentimentality as she hugs old toys and other little treasures, her time begins to run out.

A recent podcast from Catholic Answers Live, with guest Jeff Cavins, drove home this point for me when I heard it a few days ago. In God Has a Plan for You, host Patrick Coffin and his guest talked briefly about the distractions that are now truly pervasive in this century. So many online distractions: Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. Many things in our lives are not of themselves bad. Even toys serve good purposes .. when we were kids. Social networking and online utilities serve communication purposes, which can be a good thing.. but it can also become a bad thing. Do we really need to know if someone just made a ham sandwich? In the meantime, while we stay connected online, what are we missing out on?

Is it true that if we found ourselves with one free hour of peace and quiet, no scheduled activity, just by ourselves, then we would not know what to do? Do we really need to entertain ourselves in every waking hour? Always plugged into the iPod? Always checking our email?

Jeff Cavins asked a few penetrating questions in that CAL episode: (paraphrased) will we continue on this path at break-neck speed, never pausing to consider what exactly it is that we should be doing? Will we ask that question when we've only four years left to live? Are we simply entertaining ourselves continuously as if we're simply holding on until this is all over?

Is this it?

‘Martha, Martha,’ he said ‘you worry and fret about so many things, and yet few are needed, indeed only one. ..’
-- from today's Gospel reading in Luke 10:38-42

Catholic Answers Live needs your help

I'm a member of their Radio Club, and I know how valuable their ministry is. Please consider this appeal on their behalf:

Today is the last day of the (US) fiscal year.
Please help [them] end it in the
BLACK!!

[They] only need a few more thou$and to make it happen . . . even small amounts make a big difference.

God bless you for considering this request.  If you can’t donate now, please continue to pray for Catholic Answers Live and for the people [they] reach each day!
                               
CLICK HERE TO DONATE NOW!

You may also call [their] toll free number at 888-291-8000 to donate, 9:15 AM to 4:45 PM, Pacific Time.

Are Catholics Supposed to be Evangelical?

In the podcast episode of Catholic Answers Live that I heard today, a man called up asking out of curiosity if it was Catholic practice to evangelize at all. He framed his question by talking about his experience growing up in a Catholic community where nobody ever invited him to consider Catholicism or (apparently) any Catholic event where he might hear about the Catholic faith.

That says it all, doesn't it? And yet we do know (perhaps vaguely) that Pope John Paul II does mention the "new evangelization" many times in his pontificate (start here). When you think about it, we are told after each Mass to "go to love and serve the Lord", and of course, we all know what the Lord said about evangelization.

Er.. that's awkward. That I have to say "when you think about it" means that it isn't quite so obvious. Jimmy Akin's reply to that question above was that evangelization has not been emphasized much in the Catholic Church in America, but it seems to be preached actively in parts of Africa. I don't remember many exhortations to evangelize during homilies when I was growing up in the Philippines. I don't hear them so much here in Melbourne either. Perhaps it's assumed to be a well-known exhortation to all Catholics anyway? Perhaps there is this expectation that Catholic schools will "take care of that sort of thing"? Hmm.. on second thought, schools will probably worry about political correctness, tolerance, plurality, inclusiveness, etc. What about parents? Hey! I'm a parent! What about me? When am I going to get off my bum and teach my children to evangelize?

Hmm.. I'll probably need to read this. And Redemptoris Missio. And this from Pope Benedict XVI. And Evangelii Nuntiandi. and .. Maybe there's a reason why this hasn't taken off so easy. BUT we have to start somewhere. Right. My kids!

First Communion

Today my heart burned during the homily given by our parish priest for the thirty-odd children receiving their First Communion. He pointed out the reality (not imagined or merely symbolic) of the Eucharist, and used the radical shift in the life of St. Paul as a backdrop. He also pointed out that this was only the beginning, and emphasized the continuity of the sacramental life in frequent Communion. I pray that the parents listened attentively, and took those words to heart, because that sacramental life needs a serious follow-through in family life. As if to illustrate the point, my eight-year old son, Patrick, asked me earlier why some Catholics don't even go to Sunday Mass regularly. (I don't know if it was wise, but I then explained what "cafeteria Catholicism" was, where Catholics pick and choose which parts of the faith they preferred to keep to the exclusion of those they didn't.)

Saving lives that at the edge of suicide

Here's a great story about a man in Sydney who saves lives by being there to offer a smile and encouragement to people who were at the brink (literally) of suicide. Compassion in action!

Madness in early childhood education?

Carolyn Moynihan reports about alarming studies in childhood innocence concerning sexuality. Apparently, from seeking to right the injustice of "heteronormativity" that children seem to born with, to the premise that childhood innocence is an "erotic fantasy".

Carlyn points to this inconsistency in society:

So here we have a really absurd situation. On the one hand, clerics and others being jailed for treating children as sexual agents and destroying their innocence. On the other, academics training childcare teachers to believe that childhood innocence is a myth and that they must actively shape the sexual awareness of their little charges.

A Challenge to the Catholic Laity

.. is being thrown by Thomas Colyandro at Catholic Exchange in this article, Time to Clean Up Lay Spirituality Too. Some interesting points:

Sadly, too many of the lay faithful doubt they have heard His whispers and tend to ignore His booming voice because they have been taught over a four decade or more span that their thoughts, feelings and day-to-day experiences are the valid conduit through which God will save them. In other words, the trend among spiritual bureaucratic types in the Church has been to train lay narcissists fully convinced that “where they are” is simply enough. The rationalization, of course, is that life of the layman is inherently noble with its struggles in and with spouses, children and work. The time has come to remind the lay faithful that “the perfection of man does not consist in that which assimilates him to the whole of creation, but that in which distinguishes him from the created order and assimilates him to his Creator” (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 114).

Quite a bit more food for thought in that article. My first reaction to the first paragraph I quote above was shock. I am, after all, married with kids, and I do believe, as St. Josemaria Escriva taught, that we are sanctified wherever we act with God's grace. Thus the Holy Spirit uses us to sanctify our work, as a witness to others and a call for them to examine the cause of our joy.

But another thought hit me as I read that paragraph: being a husband, father and worker is indeed what I am, and I think (guided by prayer) what I am called to be. However, that's not the end of it. I am also called to be priest, prophet and king: to offer a sacrifice of praise and mercy to God, to speak God's words as a witness, and to dispense the justice of God. Ah. Now it makes more sense. In whatever role I play, I must be, at the core, nothing more than a disciple of Christ.

A Concise Primer on Religious Relativism Today

from Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture: a must read for those still unfamiliar with relativism in religion today.

If you want history -- DO NOT watch a movie

The movie Agora is apparently about the pagan philosopher and mathematician of that name, supposedly killed by a Christian mob under the orders of St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, in the 5th century.

Sherry Weddell explains why this is rubbish:

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria .. occurred 40 years before Jesus was born and 418 years before Hypatia was born. The part of the Library's collection .. kept in a branch library in a pagan temple in Alexandria .. was destroyed in 391 AD, 24 years before Hypatia was killed and 21 years before Cyril became Bishop of Alexandria. .. the film is set conveniently in 391 AD ... The problem is that Hypatia was [in] her early 20's in 391 and wasn't murdered until a quarter of a century later in 415 AD. Cyril was a teenager of 15 in 391 AD and wouldn't become Bishop of Alexandra for another 21 years. .. Yet it was the most popular film of 2009 in traditionally Catholic Spain.

The last note about the film's popularity in Spain might be a reflection on the sad state of Christianity in Spain.

Moscow and Rome: on a joint mission to Europe?

Moscow and Rome, East and West -- joining hands to save Christendom in Europe?

May it be so!

A responsibility to remaining healthy

I held my daughter today, born before noon, and wished that I didn't have a cold so I could give her a kiss, and cuddle her closer to me. As it was I had to hold her and supposed she'd still be exposed to the cold we all had at home by the time I got her home later this week. But it got me thinking about this topic again: our health -- physical and spiritual -- impacts not only our own lives but those around us. And so we truly do have a responsibility to watch our health in all aspects.

I've come to realize that being in a family, especially involving children, confronts us with such a responsibility. Concerning our spiritual health, this means considering our state of grace (or mortal sin). We parents cannot claim that "it's okay for me to... " and then say "it's not okay for my kids to ..", when talking about sinful habits and compromises. These things can be directly catching, or at least the consequences will have an impact on the people around us.

Of course, the 20th century's sad thrust for individualism makes one less likely to consider such things, and so we carry the consequences of that right into the 21st. And look around us now. "Live and let live" almost has to have degenerated into "live and let die".

Impose nothing, yet propose ceaselessly

I like this admonishment, which comes from the Holy Father's address in Portugal:

We impose nothing, yet we propose ceaselessly, as Peter recommends in one of his Letters: “In your hearts, reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15)

When one has found the greatest of treasures, and not only is it sufficient to share with absolutely everyone, but it is completely logical to do so, we must do no less: propose ceaselessly, because what we have fills us with joy, and we want others to share this joy from the fount of all joy. It is a much better attitude than "live and let die", or even to "live and let live". Better to live and help live, for in Christ alone will our hearts find rest.

[Hat tip to Whispers in the Loggia, which posts the entire homily.

Why Truth Matters

We're living in interesting times. I do believe in the springtime that Pope John Paul II wrote about, and oddly agree precisely because atheism, apathy, agnosticism, relativism and all sorts of wrongheadedness are running rampant around us. But this cannot be stressed enough: TRUTH matters. Whether or not you believe that Jesus Christ is the truth (I do), you must understand that it is of paramount importance. Here's Mark Shea sharing some truths to debunk (falsehoods) that would leave you speechless (there's wrong and there's incredibly wrong). Here's Mike Adams with some more shocking truths. These two examples can be classified as falsehoods that people actually eat up and truths that people don't hear about. Either one constitutes grave danger to those who believe the first or are ignorant of the other. Living in this great age of Google as we are, there's little excuse to hide behind.

If you ask rhetorically "what is the truth?" I will answer: "have you even looked?"

Honor your father

The unfounded and unjust attacks on Papa Benedict XVI are irksome enough, but tonight I came to realize that something about this runs deeper, even when the target is not as high profile.

I'd found that some people would make it a point (and my sense that it is an explicitly made act) to drop "Father" in addressing my parish priest. I'm not scandalized so much as offended. Why? Because this priest is my spiritual father. Every priest is, and so is each bishop and pope. Long ago, I'd already made up my mind that it is ridiculous to agitate at the hierarchy of the Church and demand that it be made flat. Just as it is to experiment with familial structures and put parents and their children on the same level. We already know what a disaster such innovations are.

And so it is with the parish. Our parish priest is not only a pastor, he is a father. He feeds us with the sacraments, i.e., with the very life of God. This is especially true in the Eucharist, fed as we are with Christ's body and blood. He also feeds our minds by educating us in the wisdom and knowledge of God in Scriptures and Tradition. He holds authority over our moral upbringing, not only in teaching us right from wrong, but as minister of the sacrament of Reconciliation.

It isn't that the priest is being equated with our Father in Heaven, just as we wouldn't equate our actual dads with Him. But there it is, plain as plain, in God's commandments: Honor your father and mother. Not because they are perfect (they are not), but because, in the familial structure of God's household of faith, priests and bishops are ordained by Christ our king to be spiritual fathers over us. When we rebel against this ministerial fatherhood, we rebel against its author: our Father in Heaven.

Not for the first time

This "news" (from Richard Owens, The Times) leads with "The Pope has admitted for the first time that the Catholic Church must accept responsibility for the child sex abuse scandal". Truly remarkable, because this is not the first time he has done that, as anyone with a web browser and access to Google can easily verify. Nor is this is the first time that a so-called journalist has covered this topic without competence.

Until now, the Vatican and individual cardinals and bishops have sought to lay the blame for allegations of priestly abuse on the media, the Devil, the permissiveness of the 1960s, and on petty gossip and homosexuality.

Words fail me.

Aborted for a cleft lip and palate?

One has to wonder if postmodern society is truly so enlightened as to abort a baby due to a cleft lip and palate, a problem that can be corrected with surgery. To make things worse, how does one silence one's conscience enough so that the baby, born alive, having survived the abortion, was left in a bag to die alone and uncared for?

On the offensive against sin

Many years ago, my spiritual director at the Opus Dei center I used to attend (back in college) would tell me not to take a purely defensive posture when it came struggling with sin. One of the concrete suggestions he would suggest is to up the tempo in my apostolic life. For example, to engage in acts of mercy, both spiritual and corporal. This is absolutely good strategy. Sometimes, the thought that the Enemy puts stumbling blocks in my path would strike me. While he is certainly disposed to do so, my current spiritual director reminds me that there are more practical concerns in dealing with concupiscence. I think the following are worth noting:

• There's a reason why we mention "near occasions of sin" in the Act of Contrition (the longer version). That first step can be a doozy alright.
• The defensive posture is probably more applicable in combat where you're waiting it out until the opponent makes a mistake, giving you an opening to launch your attack. That doesn't apply here, I think. The opponent is concupiscence.
• Launching the offensive is probably more effective, especially if it is in acting that one gets stronger and gains ground.
• Focus on one habitual sin at a time. Be methodical. Use psychology or whatever approach will give an edge in order to "know thyself" and thus, to master thyself, one step at a time.
• Frequent the sacraments, God's means of dispensing grace. The more habitual this becomes, the greater one's capacity.
• As St. Josemaria Escriva recommends, "[w]ith your apostolic life wipe out the slimy and filthy mark left by the impure sowers of hatred." -- even those that are left in us. "And light up all the ways of the earth with the fire of Christ that you carry in your heart." You can light up the corners of your heart with that light, rooting out your attachment to sin, one crack, one corner at a time.
• As St. Paul wrote, "[p]ray without ceasing". I'd forgotten that, once upon a time, I would pray before every activity, making the activity itself part of my prayer. As Fr. Vincent Serpa said in one of his one-minute homilies, the extent to which we spend time with Christ, such as in prayer, is the extent to which we will rejoice when we see him. It is also to that extent that we will know him better, and unite with him more, and with our concupiscence less.

I'm actually writing the above more to myself than anyone else. I have not been living many of the strategies above, at least not so much in recent years.

Time to get cracking.

Unprincipled Laws?

A judgment against freedom of conscience is ironically set in logical tones while being illogical. It was in response to an appeal by a psychologist who was fired for refusing "to give advice on sexual intimacy to a homosexual couple." I would that this would be reasonable, and that the couple would be better served by another psychiatrist.

Laws made clear that the court did not view legislation protecting individual conscience as justifiable, calling it an irrational position that “is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary." "The conferment of any legal protection of preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however long its culture, is deeply unprincipled," said Laws in his ruling.

So there he is, a member of the judiciary, whose only authority comes from legislation, and he considers it unprincipled to apply the law when it is clearly applicable. Which case is more guilty of being unprincipled here? And the leap of logic sounds insane:

Laws said that if the law created special exemptions for adherents of one belief, then it would lead to a disenfranchisement of the rest of the members in society, and would lead to “theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

Did anyone miss that huge leap? Upholding one's right to exercise conscientious refusal to act -- which does not take away the possibility of the patient obtaining the same services from a more sympathetic psychologist -- leads to a theocracy? Doesn't theocracy require the adherence to and imposition of a specific religion? He seems to suggest, therefore, that no one is to be granted legal exemptions based on belief, i.e., all must comply with the secular principles of the state. Is that not autocratic?

Preparing for First Reconciliation

One of my kids is preparing for First Reconciliation, and I'm using a book from Catholic Answers, Today I Made my First Reconciliation. It is a good resource, using the story of two children who are preparing for that sacrament and finding themselves in a moral dilemma. There are Scriptural references at the back as well as other useful materials such as a guide to examine one's conscience. One of the things I was taught while attending an Opus Dei center in college was to examine my conscience every night at bedtime.

Some folks might actually be bringing up their kids to make decisions based entirely on amoral consequences. Well if one does not believe in God, then there is no basis for an objective moral code. No basis for a conscience either -- what on earth can that tiny voice say about anything if there is no objective moral code?

One's conscience can either be honed with reasonable attention or dulled with disuse. It can be informed with education or atrophy with neglect (life's too busy, no shortage of engaging pursuits). I'd prefer the former. The latter sounds more like what happened to those folks recently captured on video walking on by while a man lay dying on the sidewalk. Some might say that it was no big deal, it wasn't illegal to mind your own business. What, you actually need someone explaining this, and do you need legislation to tell you that you ought to call 911?

Much ado about nothing indeed

James Valentine in The Australian muses how one goes [B]ack and forth in the quest for diddly-squat The same thing has been on my mind, too. One of the things I distinctly remember from Og Mandino's books is this line from his "God Memorandum": to be everywhere is to be nowhere. I've always been a dreamer, a planner, but my doing needs an upgrade. In fact I've probably missed 20 years of upgrades by now. While my life is far from flat and lifeless -- my kids remind me everyday that they are like plants that will grow in spite of me -- I do feel this frenzied activity around my two jobs and a quarter (no, really, I virtually have three employments right now), and the accomplishments are lacking.

This has been on my mind since the start of the year. Yes, God must be trying to tell me something when I read articles as above, and my kids just happen to have watched Mary Poppins tonight, and their school is preparing for a production of that great movie and its great lesson. And I'm Mr. Banks, make no mistake.

How bad can it get? I haven't had a seven hour sleep since my last bout with a bad cold. Otherwise, I'd be lucky if I get away with six hours. The worst part is it's all my doing. My pride, arrogance, lack of reliance on God and too much on me.

Right. Off to bed, it is 1 am.

Sin and its effects

One of the most daunting things I've discovered about parenthood is how much influence my actions have on my children. Whether it is a matter of bad example, which they might emulate. Or depriving myself of sleep and making myself vulnerable to illness (which I can pass on) or unsafe driving. Or me on the keyboard at 2 in the morning, disturbing their rest. Let's face it -- I can certainly cause my children harm.

Something else that resonates for this topic: take even a cursory look at the news concerning the pope and the sex abuse scandals here and there. What trouble visited upon the Church, the faith of her members, disturbing their peace, and that of majority of her priests and deacons who are not sexual abusers. What horrors unleashed upon the victims! The Church is a household, and the sins of one can gravely affect a multitude, from the victims to their victims (for those who end up emulating the abuse) to the average Catholic whose faith is shaken.

But then that influence can work the other way too. What can we do to make amends? We can pray. We can encourage. We can clarify and expose the truth.

I'm off to bed. My kids need me awake enough to drive.

Did the Pope give the Milwaukee sex abuser a free pass?

There is much in the news these days about the alleged culpability of the Church leadership, all the way to the pope, concerning an American priest-abuser of about 200 victims. We would not be human if we remained indifferent to such charges, given the gravely evil nature of the abuses perpetrated. But we would not be rational if we fail to investigate the evidence prior to making up our minds. In Scoundrel Times, journalist George Weigel helps us get started. Jimmy Akin provides a more detailed investigation based on letters and accounts concerning the matter. Two other posts by Jimmy add further details: accounts from the tribunal judge involved in the case and analyzing the 1998 memo concerning this case. The evidence is there for all to consider. The only logical conclusion is that, while there is culpability in cooperating with grave evil to dole out, they cannot be assigned to Pope Benedict XVI.

Dr. Jeff Mirus on Infallibility

An informative read. I heard a helpful comment about this recently by Catholic Answers podcast: when dad tells his kids to do something, he does not have to issue a threat each time. That doesn't mean that the kids don't need to obey him during those times, however.
Update: here's an interesting discussion of ancient beginnings of papal infallibility, although not yet defined in detail, in the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th Century. The statements from leaders of Eastern Orthodox are quite striking.

And more are coming home: Traditional Anglicans in Canada

.. are asking to be let in as well. Ut unum sint!

Anglicans Come Home

Early Christmas present from twenty Anglican parishes in the UK and early for Easter celebration thanks to one hundred in the US. Alleluia! Welcome home!

Sshh.. the body of Christ is fasting...

It's the second week of Lent. Why do we fast at Lent? Why do we observe Lent at all? Perhaps because it is a season of grace, given to us (who observe the season) for our own edification. It isn't about what Protestants might fear -- works-righteousness. It's not that the Catholic Church presumes to think that its Lenten observances add to the finished work of Christ on the cross. No, I think it is that Christ takes us unto himself, riding along his own Lenten on earth 2000 years ago, in order to complete in our bodies what is lacking. What is lacking? For ourselves, I think we lack the experience of profound sorrow at the horror of sin and concupiscence. For others, especially those for whom the cross is alien, they lack the witness of the cross and how great the love of God is. I heard Patrick Coffin at Catholic Answers recently say that sacrifice is the measure of love. This is Lent. It's a season of sacrifice: Christ's sacrifice, and we're here for the ride -- desert and all. Thank God.

Promises we hope can be kept

A vatican cardinal vowed to rid the Church of clerics who are sexual abusers. God willing -- but a tall order.

To be aware, and to dare

A few things came to mind last Sunday, after hearing the readings. In the first reading, Isaiah is called, and he answers "Here I am, send me!" In the second, St. Paul talks about his commissioning to evangelize. The Gospel talks about some of the first of Jesus' disciples, and how they were called to become fishers of men. Hearing the readings and the excellent sermon of our parish priest, the following seemed noteworthy to me. First, all the commissioned men were aware of their sinfulness. St. Peter sums it up best: "Leave me Lord, I am a sinner!" But of course, the Lord loves him more than that. Second, they were called anyway. To Isaiah, these words were said:

‘See now, this has touched your lips, your sin is taken away, your iniquity is purged.’

Jesus says simply, "Do not be afraid."

It seems to me that here there are two aspects in this conversation between myself and God: to be aware of who God is, and of my sinfulness, and to dare to take His hand and follow after Him. I think that the former is necessary in order to get to the latter. Not because the Lord disdains the proud -- I think He calls everyone, great and small, good and bad. I think it is more the case that the proud may not be willing to take God's hand. They might instead say "I have it sorted." They might not be timid enough to dare cast their nets.

I have my own version of St. Peter's confession of guilt, and I can't say if it is good or bad, but it is how I find myself saying it. "Don't ever leave me Lord, I am a sinner! Where else can I go?" But I do pray that I will one day attain a level of faith and confidence in God so that I can stop saying that in nervous apprehension. Lord, I do believe, but please help my unbelief! But the answer is probably there already. I should put out into deep water and lower my net.

A Talk and a Discussion

I attended Mark Shea's talk earlier at the Cardinal Knox Centre, a compact presentation (pardon the pun) of just the salient bits from his new book, "Mary, Mother of the Son"

There's also this interesting thread of discussion on predestination. Worth having a look

Honesty is the best policy

So I have no problems with Tony Abbott as others seem to when he gave straight answers to straightforward questions -- in an interview. Instead, I have a problem with politicians who duck for cover under the I-don't-tell-you-what's-right-and-wrong, or that's-really-old-fashioned. I also have a problem with politicians attacking another politician for imposing his views when answering questions in an interview, but that's an obvious point anyway. My point is that I like my leaders forthcoming about what they think. Guts and integrity beats patronizing and chickening out in my book, and I actually expect my leaders to be capable of original thought.

And I must confess being amused at the naysayers who take issue with Abbott's opinion that virginity is a precious -- sacred -- gift. They end up saying more than they might intend to, I think. In in objecting to that opinion .. well, they reveal a disturbing attitude towards virginity, and by implication, sex.

Now if they could just imagine themselves verbalizing that attitude in front of their mothers, sisters and daughters, they might actually come around and realize that Abbott is right.

To Witness or Not?

Of course, and this, I think is the point that should not be eclipsed in discussions like this one, which questions the language in paragraph 841 of the Catechism concerning other monotheist religions, i.e., the Muslims. I have some comments in that discussion, which I might rewrite into a separate blog post here .. when time allows. This year is proving to be a busy one for me! Anyway, the original topic in that above link should pique some interest: "Roman Catholicism: The True Church or a Terrible Cult?" The cheeky answer is "both!", using the traditional and benign meanings of the words "cult" and "terrible", of course.

Jason Evert on Why Women Can't be Ordained Priests

His explanations are well worth reading. My own take is based on an observation: today's push to ordain women comes from arguments which, to me, sound contrary to the spirit of mission that Christ imparted. The arguments tend to be rather demanding, many times aggressive, speaking of rights and privileges, and their personal desire to be ordained. Ordination is.. ordination. It comes from God's initiative to anoint. It may well be the case that God does not oppose the idea of women as priests, but that he hasn't actually done so while he was here in the flesh.. is significant.

I also believe that we are all called and gifted in different ways. One of the differences may lie along the lines of our gender. Whatever it may be, our individual missions will be affected by our circumstances. I think our Heavenly Father would be much more interested in our willingness and diligence to serve and to love than the particular vocation we are in. We must never forget this truism in our relationship with God: He takes the initiative. Everything comes from Him and hopefully orients towards Him -- not primarily towards our own self-fulfillment.

Procreation

Having three children (and soon, God willing, four), I'm not a fan of population control. I prefer "family planning", which is what I have learned about Natural Family Planning. It sounds more sane to me that couples would jointly (pray and) decide how many children they are invited by God to have, based on their circumstances as a whole. This means of course one, two or more children depending on those circumstances.

Compare that to the notion of population control, negative in connotation and, in practice, negative, period. That a Chinese city is now acknowledging problems with it is very telling. The one-child policy, which actually goes against Chinese custom (I can speak from experience), was not entered into scientifically. That's clear enough since the science of demographics/economics says that the ideal population replacement level is at about 2 children per family. But there's more to it than those numbers. The contraceptive mentality seems to be the first step, where the value of human life is no longer grounded in objective terms, i.e., precious because it is precious to the Creator. In subjective terms, human life is expendable, and its value is relative. The negative connotations of motherhood and children have been sold too effectively, and it will not be easy to now tell women to compromise their careers and comfortable lives and lifestyles for motherhood. So this news about Shanghai, which is not unique (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, some European countries are doing the same thing), is problematic. Baby bonuses will only go so far, I think, whereas the battle will really be in the hearts and minds of women. From a Christian perspective, one can only hope and pray, because it will take the Holy Spirit to renew the face of the postmodern world.

Update: Found this piece and, I have to say, the comments from primary school students therein are eye openers.

Mark Shea heading down under!

I wonder if I could have him over for dinner? So the kids can meet the guy who made those blue scribbles on the books of his that I ordered a few years back. The sad thing about ordering e-books of his on CD (which were ordered more recently) is that it doesn't look as impressive on the CD with a marker. Nothing like human penmanship on paper. :-)

Anyway, he's on his way to Sydney and maybe Melbourne for a day or two. His calendar will hopefully be updated if his Melbourne visited firms up.

Christmas Miracle: Mother dies just before delivery, baby appears to be dying, then both revive

Amazing.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, January 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Colorado family's brush with tragedy Christmas Eve transformed into a dramatic celebration of the gift of life when a father says he witnessed his wife and newborn child revive after both appeared to die in the midst of delivery.

A Christmas break

Merry Christmas to any who might venture into this blog! I myself am taking a bit of a break to spend time with my family. I need to compete well against the dazzle of toys, commercials and shopping malls, so my kids might retain a clearer picture of what Christmas is about. :-)

Fathers jailed for opting children out of sex education

This is just so wrong

At least eight Russo-German families in Salzkotten, Germany, have suffered heavy fines and now their fathers have been sentenced to prison, because they have refused to send their elementary school-age children to mandatory sexual education classes.
...
In one case, the Jugendamt, accompanied by 15 heavily armed police, forcibly seized 15 year-old Melissa Busekros in the dead of night from her family in 2007 against her will. However, legal intervention ensured that Busekros was legally permitted to return to her family upon turning 16.

Marriage: What is Marriage?

Couldn't resist that quotable from "The Princess Bride" -- although it was actually pronounced 'mawidge' in the movie, but.. never mind. For to the answer, comedian Chuch Nice had something interesting to say about it, particularly the aspect of fidelity in marriage. He refers to infidelity as a lack of character. On the other hand, Jenny Block from Newsweek wrote something else in "The Case Against Monogamy". Perhaps without realizing it, what she writes contradicts what she was actually writing about. The lesson she seems to derive from experience and the Tiger Woods affair is that one should simply have open marriages, i.e., no fidelity required:

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone's surprised. Woods's entire life is based on winning; on having, doing, and being more. So why on earth would anyone think "settling down" was even in his vocabulary?

But marriage is about settling down -- committed faithfully to one's spouse. So perhaps one should not marry unless committed to what it entails, including fidelity. Not that one cannot fall, but there should be an absolute intention not to.

Celebrity or not, cheating is human nature.

This is what makes marriage special: it goes beyond human nature. Don't we still celebrate heroism today, of those who go beyond what is typical and expected, beyond the mundane, for love, honor, or justice? What's more, fidelity in marriage calls for the supernatural, something that calls for our natural instinct towards romantic ideals of faithfulness, but pushing it through to heroic and supernatural fruition.
Of course, people can fail these ideals -- who doesn't? But here is more evidence of the supernatural: have human beings not also exhibited, from time to time, conversion and forgiveness?

Getting to the soul of the matter

The story of South Korea attempting to reverse the culture of abortion and contraception is not unique. The same problem exists in Japan, China (particularly Shanghai), Germany, France, and other countries. Note that it isn't only that this generation is refusing to propagate life to the next generation. In many countries today, despite the wealth and relatively higher levels of comfort and safety, people are also giving up on their own lives. Not only is depression and suicide more common, there's the push for euthanasia, and many voices for the termination of the ill, the handicapped, etc.

It isn't something that incentives can help with. The soul, in this case, has been corrupted. The solution lies in cleansing the soul. But what is a government to do when they no longer believe in that?

Fascinating questions from my sons

have included these:

• Would we have been born if Adam and Eve had not sinned and been removed from Eden?
• Did it really take six days?
• Is what my teacher said true, that it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, or what you believe?
• Why did God give me the gifts I got?

And the discussions we have had to have surrounding my answers were also quite interesting. I think it is these discussions that I enjoy the most in parenting.

Did Darwin kill God?

Sentire Cum Ecclesia blogger David writes about the so entitled interestingly balanced and informative (I though) tele-investigation documentary from (gasp) ABC. The video was still on the ABC website over the past hour or so. It's not bad at all.

An interesting musical project

Fighting the culture of death attacking the Philippines

The eggs were probably laid long before the 60s, and here comes the onslaught against life. The Philippines is yet another country whose life values are being attacked not only in the shadows through pop culture, but for a few years now, through legislation. The "Reproductive Health" lobby is being heavily funded by groups such as Planned Parenthood, whose agenda is probably both financial and ideological. This blog is dedicated to thwarting those efforts in the Philippines. Manny Amador's blog is also in the fight. Please pray for the Philippines and for Filipinos: may God send more workers in the vineyard to sow and harvest life, not death.

More threats to religious freedom in Australia?

Just when you thought it was over, well.. it isn't.

Catholics and Halloween

This is as much a note to myself as it is for others on the true history behind Halloween, by Mike Flynn.

Twenty Anglican Parishes Coming Home? Wow!

Alleluia!

ROME, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a move that is a surprise to no one, the UK branch of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), the largest of the groups that broke away from the mainstream Anglican Church over the ordination of woman and the latter's support for active homosexuality, has been the first to formally accept the offer of Pope Benedict to enter into communion with the Catholic Church en masse. Although the TAC is not large, being made up of only 20 or so parishes, the vote by the group to accept the invitation is expected to be a strong symbolic blow to the mainstream Anglican Church in its motherland of Britain, where it has been a leader in the acceptance of woman clergy and homosexuality. It is widely acknowledged that the Vatican's decision to extend its hand to traditionalist Anglicans comes in response to repeated requests, made public last year, by the TAC.

Of course, now comes the hard part. But God bless them for this first and most difficult step. May they all find in the Catholic Church the Christ who calls them onward.

Two Lungs of the Church

This is an interesting site: 2Lungs.com, dedicated to all things concerning the hoped for unity between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. With recent developments between the Catholic Church and the Anglicans, we can pray for similar developments with the Orthodox Church. God willing!

The Widow's Mite

The story of the widow who dropped two coins from all she had into the Temple treasury was made more interesting today in the light of what I heard from my son today. When asked how children show gratitude to their parents (don't ask why this was a topic), he said it was by enjoying what the parents give the kids. Which sounds nice but also sounded wrong. I have no idea where he got that from. It sounds like a very noble, self-sacrificing line that a parent might say, but something's wrong. One might go and say that he can show gratitude to the Australian government by simply enjoying what the government has to give. Something's wrong. I remember something about upholding the law and other civic duties in my citizenship oath. Gratitude is the stuff of breathing in and out, of receiving and giving back. I can imagine that one might suffocate from forgetting to breathe out from time to time.

What does this have to do with the widow that Jesus praised for her generosity? I think generosity comes from gratitude. I can't imagine how Jesus would have praised the widow if she had in her heart a notion of buying off God's favor. It's not for sale. He gives it as a gift -- and He takes the initiative. He gives so much to such undeserving creatures as us, and for us to realize that (not easy) makes it easier to respond with gratitude. It turns the relationship into a proper one: not a trader and a buyer, but a Father and His child. And if all goes well, day by day the child will come into his own and become as generous as his father, and pass that on to his children as well.

It's a tough act to follow -- but it becomes possible because there is help from the Father: the Helper, the Advocate. Perhaps it can all be generalized as a continuation of the obedience learned as a child so that the child becomes a father in the image of his father before him, in the same Holy Spirit, so in gratitude, he might also be generous and give from what he has, not from his excess.

Anglicans Come Home

LifeSiteNews reports that some consider this to be divisiveness. They conveniently forget that it was the Church of Rome that the Church of England decided to abandon all those centuries ago, which makes this an invitation to come home. How can that possibly sound like divisiveness? That's particularly funny coming from dissident Catholics.
I found this rather amusing:

The Guardian, the voice of liberalism in the UK, wrote that the decision means the Pope has "launched a small craft to ferry the disaffected back across the Tiber, a move to asset-strip the Anglican communion of those bits the Vatican might find useful." The move, the editorial said, "ride[s] roughshod over 40 years of ecumenical work."

Dear Guardian: it's worse than you think. The Catholic Church isn't after bits of this or that Church: we want them all. That's what the head of the Church wanted, praying fervently as reported in St. John's gospel (Jn 17), uttered repeatedly a few times in that prayer, and emphasized by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint: that they may be one. Trust the mainstream media to miss the big picture when they don't do their homework diligently enough. This is really much bigger than they think, even against the backdrop of the Reformation. This mission of oneness in the people of God goes beyond just a couple of papacies. The Lord expressed his will on it, St. Paul emphasized it in his letters, as did St. John. Various Church Fathers from Clement onwards wrote about it. I mean, what does being consecrated mean anyway?

God is Inviting Us to be Parents Again

And what can we say about our fourth one due in May? Fiat voluntas tua. My sons asked me if I preferred another boy or a girl this time, and I fall back to the fiat again. A daughter sounds great, but who am I to haggle?

Atheists might see this as a clear example of blind faith. I just call it being pragmatic: it isn't as if I can do anything about it anyway. :-)

Baffling secularist comments

In one article in The Australian today, someone from the Sex Party (I kid thee not, that's what they call themselves) seem to have said the following:

• radical religious groups -- not quoted, this appears to be in reference to a pastor-led Christian group, perhaps because the pastor had used the words like "witchcraft", "spells" and "black mass" someplace
• "9% of the Australian public who claim to be committed weekly worshippers" -- I wonder where this statistic comes from?
• "We are a secular society increasingly being run by religious agendas." -- an amusing statement because it is false, although many today probably think that the chronology is true

New site on prayer

A friend of mine has just launched a website that is all about prayer: God Answers Prayers. Please sample what it has to offer. I've only scanned it quickly thus far, and it looks very good.

Blogging around

Pretty much within a week, Ketsana devastates the Philippines and Vietnam, then a tsunami crashes into Samoa, then earthquakes shatter several Indonesian regions. So much destruction, with prayers and real aid in much need.

What an interesting study reported by The Australian: Climate change pinned chiefly on rich world. Here's a quote: “The study concludes that spending billions of dollars of aid on contraception in the developing world will not benefit the climate because poor countries have such low emissions. It says Britain and other Western countries should instead focus on reducing consumption of goods, services and energy among their own populations.”

From MercatorNet, Parents wonder if cancer jabs are worth the risk. While there are reports that the recent death shows no conclusive evidence of being caused by the jab, I find the reaction from the vaccine advocates quite revealing: “Even if the girl’s death proves to be a consequence of the vaccination, and it is still a big ‘if’, only one death would be prevented for every 500,000 girls who decided not to be vaccinated – albeit at the cost of 700 deaths to cervical cancer.” After all, there is an alternative to this vaccine that is 100% effective while risking zero chemical side effects, i.e., abstinence or faithful relations as against promiscuity. That it doesn't seem to be an option in the minds of these people is also revealing. Such contempt for the human intellect, will and self-control!

The Hierarchical Body of Christ

Someone I esteem highly told me tonight of her departure from the Church after a solid attempt to be Catholic for I think a year, and the part that the hierarchical nature of the Church played in her decision to leave. I believe this pertains to the perception of and lapses into officiousness in the Church via the parochial system of Catholic schools. It is a saddening revelation. It isn't the hierarchical structure that causes problems, as the structure itself is mandated by Christ and supported by the Biblical accounts of Israel's and the Church's organization. Officiousness would come from domineering, and an abuse of authority. Some of it may well be perception only, whereas lapses into it comes from human nature.

I've seen some of these lapses, and they are tragic, but should not put one off from the Church that Christ founded on Peter. This Church continues to minister the sacraments, through which life in the Holy Spirit is given to us. This Church continues to teach definitively, with the Magisterium coming from Christ's authority, and his insistence upon it.

Where else can one go? As the Son chose to be incarnated in flesh and blood, and to act upon the world in his body, the Church, why should it surprise us that the body, while yet being perfected on earth, is as presently human as we are?

Christians and Politics

Interesting report from WorldNetDaily. Very interesting quote from C.S. Lewis cited:

Most of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what Christianity says; we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party ..

And while such an attitude exists among Christians, we are not presenting a very coherent witness to a world that is drifting more and more away from God. Much of what we got right in the past are still there in the formerly more Christian West, but without Christ at the true center, they will all have sand in their foundations.

Rosary Reflections: Remembering Baptism

Meditating earlier on the Baptism of the Lord, the first Luminous Mystery, and I realized just how important it was to be reminded of our baptism frequently. Perhaps it's human nature, given that we are time-bound beings, that we fail to appreciate past events enough. Baptism is something that probably most Catholics do not remember, as they were very young then. Yet this sacrament that was not only instituted by the Son (whose disciples went baptizing soon after his own talking to Nicodemus about baptism), but participated in by him at his own baptism. I think I heard Mark Shea describe on one of his past podcasts how this baptism had the wondrous affect on the water: whereas Jesus did not need to be washed, justified and sanctified, the element of water was thereby itself blessed by him as an instrument of grace. And each baptism is of such significance that.. our lack of appreciation for it is tragic. By baptism, we were washed, justified and sanctified. Original sin was forgiven, we were made right with God and made his sons and daughters, and we receive in ourselves the Holy Spirit. Thus, called and gifted, we should then proceed like Christ on our mission. This mission is one of those things lost or underestimated as a consequence of neglecting the wonder of baptism. Hence we might proceed in life, marked and consecrated, ignorant of our calling, gifts unused, lives unfulfilled.

Which is why the inclusion of this Luminous Mystery in the Rosary is such a blessing. We should remember baptism often, and hear in our minds the wondrous words uttered from above to the Son: "This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased." To think that the Father also said these words at our baptism is to remember who we are, and to confirm us in a life of mission.

Fr. Bob: a question of will

There is, of course, the will of God as our ultimate guide. Ours is to conform to His, simply because, even by careful and painstaking analysis, especially with hindsight, His will trumps ours in all respects: efficiency, gains, timing, and so on.

There is the will of the Church, and likewise, the will of the (arch)bishop, speaking as the overseer of his diocese on behalf of the whole Church. This will is not of its own sovereign authority, but in lieu of the anointing by the Holy Spirit, it is taken to be conforming to the will of God. We can decide either way in Fr. Bob's case if the archbishop is himself conforming to and passing on God's will or not.

And then there is the will of Fr. Bob. That he would pit the will of the parish "elders" against that of the archbishop reveals a sadly rebellious spirit.

As for whether or not the archbishop (or canon law) is speaking the will of God or not, I suspect that the archbishop is being more prudent and discrete by not speaking of other reasons for Fr. Bob to retire. If only that he is beginning to confuse the Gospel and setting himself up as an idol, there is a very good reason for Fr. Bob to seek, not the will of his "elders" in the parish, but the will of God, the same God who instituted the office of bishops with his own authority and Holy Spirit.

Love demands honesty

Retired Bishop Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, shares the thoughts of Phil Lawler from Catholic World News, concerning the recently deceased Senator Edward Kennedy. It may seem disrespectful to call out the sought after conversion (back to the faith of his youth) from the late senator, but that sentiment comes from the same place where we dread to call out a living person to repentance and truth. It is a deceptive place. What might be thought to be love, preventing us from speaking truth to spare ruffled feathers, even genuine pain, is not love when it does not seek to save one who hurtles towards destruction.

Population, Environment, and Thinking Things Through

Or perhaps I should say "and the Sky Isn't Falling." I was at the cafe of the Science Centre at the university earlier, and it just so happened that there was this huge, framed page from The Age about population being a menace to the environment. There was a big picture, the silhouette of a pregnant woman, that had the caption "A growing problem", I think. What a difference a few years can make. Time was when The Age worried over the economic viability of Australia having a small population. The pendulum has swung the other way for some, I guess. My impression is that some folks in the more affluent countries are too pessimistic. Instead of valuing both the environment and human beings, and putting them together, they seem to see a conflict where there isn't necessarily one. I mean, rather than focusing on culling the human race, why not focus on educating the human race? They might think that shrinking the gene pool is good for the earth, but I wonder if they realize how many future champions of science, the arts and other fields they'll be eliminating from our future. If we now have a few leaders in the sciences have emerged to sound the alarm and do something about the environment, what can be achieved if we invest in more of them?

Oh and I just noticed that we see a lot of prominent people sounding the alarm with.. not exactly the right credentials. Here is a professor of reproductive biology sounding off on terrorism and climate disaster. Here's a poet, and here's a population expert in there talking about CO2 emissions. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a climatologist myself, which is why I can't go gung-ho on my own opinion and limited reading. But I can say that it is wrong to blame it on numbers (of people on the planet) and seek to resolve it by population control in any which way.

Reflections on the Sorrowful Mysteries

Earlier today, I visualized a certain transformation that should happen to us as we journey in faith. We begin our journey as sinners whose guilt rightly includes wrongdoing that the Lord atones for in his passion and death. So in meditating on the Sorrowful Mysteries, it is our sins that unfold before Jesus, bringing him to tremble at the thought of his impending sacrifice. It is our sins that scourge him, and our hands that hold the scourge that flays and humiliates him in excruciating pain. Our idolatry of power, comfort, wealth and things of the world above right worship of God add to the thorns that adorn his crown, and add to the shameful verbal abuse of crying Ave! Ave Rex Iudaeum! with our hearts somewhere else. It is our sins that weighs down the cross that he resolves to carry through to Calvary anyway. It is our sins that nail him to the cross in a holocaust for our ransom.

But there is a transformation that should take place as we journey. The more we cooperate with grace and allow the Holy Spirit to sanctify us, the more we participate in the passion and death of Christ. Since we are in the Body, that same body that suffered and died for us, then as we are willing, we unite our own sufferings with Christ. We participate in agonizing for souls, making their pain and suffering (due to sin) our own -- a work of compassion. We join our tribulations and persecutions with his, as he foretold we would encounter as his disciples, bearing the scars of scourging on our backs, and humbling thorns on our heads. We carry our daily cross, and bear the burdens of others too, as best we can. Finally, we mortify ourselves, dying to sin, dying to ourselves and concupiscence. And we experience the tremendous grace that the Father sends through the Spirit, because of love. The Sorrowful Mysteries come alive in our lives more and more as we allow them to, and by God's grace and mercy, we slowly switch sides. Rather than the perpetrators whose sins wound Christ, we become participants of Christ's sacrifice, sharing some of the pain and redemptive work of love in our lives, with the hope of thereby sharing in the glorious resurrection one day.

One small step for euthanasia in Western Australia..

.. can be the start of a long trek downhill or off a cliff. A quadraplegic who laments "a living hell" of a life was allowed by the Supreme Court to starve himself to death. I have many objections about this, not least of which is that a judicial or legislative ruling can be easily seen -- or actively promoted -- as a moral statement. It also turns life on its head, with death per se becoming preferred over life, even an extremely difficult one. But this is not a case of a dying man refusing extraordinary care. Not that I have any idea how difficult his life is, but I can imagine how other quadraplegics might see themselves, or may be seen by others, in the light of this ruling. The cynical view of physical disability can be very catching, or can be actively promoted. After all, if there is nothing inherently wrong with suicide for a man who sees life as "a living hell", then there is nothing inherently wrong with terminating the life of anyone in that situation. It becomes, purely, a matter of choice. But the question of who makes such choices is very hard to pin down. How often are one's choices made for them by someone else? The state may take children away from their parents. The state may incarcerate those it considers too dangerous to society. Banks may repossess someone's assets. Family members may choose to pull the plug. Parents may choose to terminate their own child anytime during the pregnancy. If deliberately ending a life is no longer inherently wrong, then the safeguards against unjustly doing so are on wobbly foundations indeed.

For Deveny: Love, not Tolerance

Amazing that a woman would write this:

.. let us use our powers for good and brainwash our children with tolerance, acceptance, rational thought and unconditional love ..

and months later, write this:

Time for Communion, when bread and wine is turned into the actual flesh and blood of Christ by the priest. Because he's special. They call it transubstantiation; I call it bullshit." .. When it was my turn the priest picked up a wafer and said: "The body of Christ." The expected response is "Amen". Instead, I said: "I have three children and have never been married. I've used contraception, had an abortion, use the Lord's name in vain, think transubstantiation is a crock and I'm an atheist. And I'm not sorry." Actually, I didn't say that. I wanted to, but I felt sorry for the priest.

Her notion of tolerance, acceptance and unconditional love apparently does not extend to religious people, especially Catholics. Yes, she just insulted every believing Catholic for believing transubstantiation. Not to mention the ones who've believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for the last 2000 years. She also took Communion in contempt for it. Amazing what pride can do, such as convincing Ms. Deveny that she and some other "brights" alone can exercise rational thought, unlike the billions of Christians from 2000 years (and still going), numbering numerous theologians, philosophers, scientists, medical doctors, mathematicians, engineers and fairly intelligent people from all walks of life. Pride has also lulled her into thinking that she has a right to hurl insults at others with impunity. Ironically, instead of rational discourse, her writing resembles more the reckless, malicious bravado of a stage heckler. That and the fact that she gets so much wrong about the Catholic faith that she obviously did not bother to do the homework about her subject.

I invite all Christians to take the best course of action possible: pray for Ms. Deveny and her children, that she may yet be converted back to God, that she may learn what love truly is, and live it.

The Archbishop is indeed human

But the latest news splattered around about uncharitable words allegedly uttered are incredible sad. I consider them "alleged" until I see the actual court documents, but that he apologized would mean that something uncharitable was uttered. Not that it was unthinkable; bishops are no more immune to sin than any of us. No one claims perfection in this life: the sacrament of Confession is a recourse to all Catholics, bishops included. At the beginning of every Mass, we all (priest included) admit to our sinfulness and appeal to God's mercy. The worst thing that could be happening now is that all the heat is fanned against the words of the archbishop, whereas they should keep their eyes on the ball: preventing future abuse, healing victims, and justice for all. If the current model is flawed, then something better is called for.

I wouldn't know what that is, though.

Did Government Intervention Do More Harm than Good?

Read this and, truly, weep. How can well-meaning government actions now be blamed for waywardness among our youth? When those actions contradict common sense, perhaps. Not to say that the alleged would-be terrorist is without guilt, but that giving a 17-year-old the free pass to override his family's authority was probably not a good idea.

Religious freedom versus equal opportinity

There shouldn't be a conflict, but people seem to be whipping it up. Hugh de Kretser states his case for equal opportunity at the expense of religious freedom to some degree, stating good intentions but missing the point, I think. There is a misunderstanding of what religion is, with secular mindsets looking at it as a private matter. Being spiritual or faith matters, they may well contend that they should not affect the real world. But that is not what religions is to Catholics. Faith is not faith if action does not match it. Religion is more than good words: it is about good deeds. When we send our kids to Catholic schools, not only should they hear about the Catholic faith, they should also see it in the community they are in. If we will hire as members of the community people whose lives contradict the faith we are imparting, how shall we explain that to our children? Will we stigmatize the employee and declare to our kids "oh he's living in sin" in order to remain honest while affirming our convictions? Or shall we bury our heads in the sand and let our kids interpret that as ambivalence about what is right and what is wrong? Removing the exemptions for hiring in religious communities puts us in an impossible situation. We shall either end up stigmatizing other- or non-believing employees or compromising the religious education of our children. Secularists will not understand, but religious education is at the core of the education we want for our kids.

It is reasonable to allow discriminatory hiring on religious grounds, just as it would be in a for-profit organization to do the same in order to protect its interests. In a recent scandal, a TV network took out a popular media personality because a stunt he pulled on-air would compromise the family-friendly perception of one of their most popular shows. How is this reasonable and that of religious groups unreasonable? The only difference is that their interests are distinct: one is sbout profit while the other is about eternal happiness. Perhaps it isn't discriminatory hiring that bugs the secular-minded, but religion itself.

The amazing Nick Vujicic

Curtailing the Freedom to Religion

Peter Costello makes excellent and sobering points in this opinion piece on The Age today:

.. a parliamentary committee has recommended options to extend the power of the state over the province of religion. One proposed change is to restrict the freedom of religious schools to choose their employees on the basis of their religious faith. ... The Federation of Community Legal Services told the parliamentary review .. "To allow religious organisations a broad exemption for conscience encourages prejudice..." Just think about the moral vanity of that statement. According to these lawyers, a religious conscience leads to prejudice. How did the church arouse public conscience over slavery? How did Florence become a haven for the arts and letters? How did civilisation develop in the past couple of millennia without the Community Legal Services to guide it? .. The question is whether the law of the land should require them to employ people who are indifferent or hostile to their religion in their schools. Parents who choose to send their children to a Christian school have a reasonable expectation that the child will get a Christian education. How could the school fulfill its obligation to the parents if it is required by law to employ non-Christian or anti-Christian teachers to provide it? .. We are led to believe that the purpose of these charters is to stop arbitrary arrests, guarantee a free press and guard against dictatorship. .. In practice, it complicates the life of religious schools and opens lawsuits against the churches. .. Once the churches and religious conscience are out of the way, lawyers will have a clear run. Lawsuits will be used to decide the great moral questions of the age. You can see what’s in it for the lawyers. But don’t think it is a step forward for liberty.

It's a very serious threat. More information can be found in this pastoral letter from the Victorian Catholic bishops.

Rosary Reflections

but written below in rambling fashion..

• In the Annunciation, what does a 14-year-old understand about what she is being called to? Not the specifics, not the nuanced implications, but she says "yes". What about us? Aren't we always called?
• In the Nativity, neither Joseph nor Mary do anything spectacular to bring it about. They make no arrangements for Bethlehem, where the astute Jew knew the messiah would be born. God took care of that, with the emperor's census.
• In the Finding at the Temple, how often do we think that Jesus is missing? A dryness, a feeling of desolation, and we get anxious. Where is the Lord? As the Father continues to work, so does the Son, though we may not see where or how. He is in his Temple on earth, both our bodies and in the Church.
• In Gethsemane, in agony, the Lord's anxiety is real. And it had to be written about because anxiety strikes us at times, and it is real. And we may not be allowed to escape the bitter cup, but God sends an angel, his aid to strengthen us.
• In the Scourging, we might picture ourselves holding the whip. But it may be the people around us whom we scourge unjustly with hurtful words or deeds. And what of us in the place of the victim, being members of the body that suffered scourging? Lashes for us, deserved due to our sin, but perhaps we can generously accept the scourging for others. As the body of Christ received corporal punishment for sin, we who are in the body.. can we not sacrifice our pain in union with his?
• In the crucifixion, Christ is nailed into a position of total surrender, total embrace..
• In the Descent of the Holy Spirit, there is a completely radical transformation from terror (from persecution) to bold evangelical zeal. And by this zeal, the Holy Spirit transforms..

We are in complete control

.. or not. Carolyn Moynihan writes about the grief at the end of delayed motherhood and the promises of IVF. She is reasonably incredulous at "delaying adulthood". One might as well attempt to delay gravity -- which can meet with some success, but only up to a certain point. Motherhood at 45? IVF as a catch all? Time to rethink that.

Nature is resistant to many attempts at tampering. Time. Space. Mass. Energy. Particles. Things follow set laws that aren't easy, nor always safe, to mess with (report by Louise Hall, The Age):

The chairman of the IVF Directors Group and member of the Fertility Society of Australia, Michael Chapman, said pleas to the Federal Government to fund a public health campaign about the increased risks of miscarriage and pregnancy complications for older mothers and defects in their babies had fallen on deaf ears. This week the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Britain published a statement on reproductive ageing, reaffirming that biologically, the optimum period for childbearing is between ages 20 and 35. .. the example of celebrity older mothers .. gave women the wrong impression .. .. one thing that is not revealed in magazine articles is many of these celebrities are not using their own eggs, but a donor egg Figures show that the live birth rate for women under 35 undergoing IVF is 31 per cent. This falls below 5 per cent for women over 42.

Andrew Chinn visits our parish

And a fun time was had by all! Please visit his website. His music (and performance overall) made me feel very much like a child again (not such a feat, my wife would say). The concert was a lot of fun, not least was the participation of the children. The man was clearly a gifted master of music and entertainment. His faith came alive in his music, and was rather inspiring. God bless the man and his ministry!

In Ireland: a legal matter on blasphemous libel?

Over at Slashdot, I found this link to Jason Walsh's criticism of Ireland's amended Defamation Bill. The slashdot post naturally elicited some criticism of Ireland's alleged return to the dark ages and so on, as well as quite a flurry about agnosticism, atheism and so on.

I posted a response because what Jason Walsh writes is incorrect. The bill's amendment wasn't about "shield[ing] religious belief from criticism". It defines what the Irish constitution does not, about what blasphemous matter is. Such vaguness caused a few problems in the past, apparently. The amended bill promises penalties for infractions, but significantly gives a definition of blasphemous matter (according to the Irish Times) as

.. matter "that is *grossly abusive* or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; *and he or she intends*, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage." (emphasis mine)

I repeat what I wrote in my Slashdot post:

Freedom of speech should not include grossly abusive speech that would take away from other people their own freedom to hold beliefs without anxiety about arbitrary gross insults. Engaging in healthy criticism and the debate that ensues is one thing, and is welcome. There is a meeting of minds and a clash of ideas. It is an entirely different thing to grossly abuse the beliefs of a group of people concerning what they hold to be sacred matter simply for the sake of insulting them.

It would be nice if governments didn't need to legislate such things, and for the citizenry to exercise common decency and engage instead in honest criticism whose objective is to right wrongs in the context of dialogue. Unfortunately, we have many published celebrities today who instead exercise their ego and vile contempt for those whom they disagree with, and copycats aplenty with blogs, YouTube accounts and art degrees at their disposal.

I truly do not think it ideal to have to enact such laws, but it's hard to blame lawmakers who look at things from a different perspective. Anti-religious bigotry are on the rise, in levels not seen in quite a while, and the world both watches and, sadly, emulates at times. I'm thinking about those museum exhibits involving Catholic personages and symbols in fecal matter, or urine. I also recall a fairly drawn out YouTube matter involving the consecrated host, abuse by bullet, blade, fire and what-not, and a college professor cheering and apparently paying for more. Who would welcome such vile contempt amplified in print?

Things parents don't tell kids anymore

.. will probably make up an interesting list. Catherine Deveny writes about one: vanity is unbecoming. She doesn't use those words, of course; her opinion piece is much better written.

What about the importance of modesty? Chastity? Humility? Ambition? Obedience? Right vs. wrong? Why drinking yourself silly every week at 16 years of age is dangerous? Watch your language? Respect the elderly? Moderation? Love thy neighbor? Thou shall not commit adultery (or fornication)?

It's a long list, and these topics have fallen into disuse more in some countries than in others. But that things have gone this way should be a concern, but I suspect it is being largely ignored by parents who are in a perpetual state of adolescent/teenage rebellion (despite being in their 30s or 40s perhaps. Poor kids (the children, not the parents).

Movie Review: Juno

It's a good movie, surprisingly positive and refreshingly honest. Juno is 16 and gets pregnant without being promiscuous. Yes, it happens. She initially sought abortion, which is probably a typical first consideration in first world countries today, but she gets a good dose of doubts about the rightness of this option. She decides to have the baby and put him up for adoption. Much of the movie is also about the couple that she chooses to adopt the baby. But it isn't that simple either, the couple not being perfect after all. I also liked the way her father and stepmother react to her news. They are supportive, which I think is always good. It bothered me that the stepmother seemed ambivalent concerning abortion, but I'm glad that neither she nor Juno's father pushed for abortion. The movie is realistic in one sense: teenagers in high school can't handle the responsibility just yet. The implications of this will hopefully penetrate most viewers. I found one scene to be rather profound: the first time when Juno wept, and perhaps was at her lowest point about her dilemma, was when she found out about problems between the couple who were adopting the baby later. This reveals the heart of the issue: what happens to the baby? The tears were not about Juno's predicament; they were about the baby's future.

DecentFilms has got a must-read review, but my two cents is that it is a good movie with good insights. I accept the reality that many young girls find themselves in this situation, much of which is avoidable if they had the time and training to think about the consequences of jumping into situations that they are not prepared for. But when a Juno finds herself in such a pickle, there can only be one response from the people around her: support. Should abortion be considered? Of course. And with calm and deliberate reasoning be summarily discarded as the wrong and worst possible option.

Infidelity

Derrick Jackson (smh.com) talks about something that today's cynical and oversexed culture may tend to disregard in cases of marital infidelity: what about the children? I wonder if this question gets asked enough? It's probably not the most important consideration for people (not necessarily the affected parents) who read about infidelity. We are, after all, steeped in many modernist fallacies. Does it not often seem, according to 21st century western culture, that romance is the end-all? Marriage and exclusive, lifelong commitment seem almost to be taboo subjects. Well.. what does one expect in that situation anyway? If it all hinges upon steamy romance then.. there's nothing for it but to walk away when the steam dissipates. Not that we can belittle the enormity of the commitment, and the magnitude of suffering when we fail to live up to the commitment. But.. that's exactly what sets marriage apart. It is indeed a huge deal. It isn't just a contract, nor is it about satisfaction or your investment back. Call me old-fashioned but that view of marriage is too calculating, too cold, and also too flimsy. What's so romantic about a situation where the door is open for walking away when romance wanes?

My kids often pray that they would love God or love their parents forever. I hope this does not hinge on sentiments, or we're in big trouble.

Battles

Interesting line from Starget SG-1, Season 2, "The Tok'ra": I think it goes like this: "The last thing he'd want is to have his daughter watch him in a losing battle." Dr. Carter is referring here to her father, who is dying of cancer. I'm not comfortable lecturing the terminally ill about feelings of humiliation at the thought of their loved ones witnessing their weakest moments before death. But I wonder what is responsible for making them feel that way. Why is dying seen as a humiliating defeat, rather than the bittersweet farewell that it is?

Judgment Day: One Person vs Another

A discussion I had years ago with a Lutheran (former Evangelical former Catholic) friend of mine came to mind the other day. It stuck in my head because it struck a discordant chord then, and it still would now. In his depiction of judgment day, being that we are all unworthy of salvation, Jesus would sort of interpose himself between us and the Father and say something like this: "This man is saved because I cover him over with my own righteousness." Yes, it's probably a depiction of forensic justification, which is probably popularly depicted by the mental picture of a snow-covered dunghill. It seems illogical to me because it almost makes the Father and the Son adversarial. It also suggests that the Father would declare what is not true, i.e., we are clean outside but unclean inside. It doesn't make much sense to me.