Roman Missiles

Anti-(Yawn) Catholicism: Everything Old is Old Again

2012-03-04T20:40:00.000-08:00

The Huffington Post published in its Comedy Section a supposed “satire” of the Catholic Church by Larry Doyle. The main problem I have with the piece is not that it is anti-Catholic, though it obviously is, the actual problem which nobody is focusing on is that it is milquetoast at best. The tone and text is utterly boring. Jesus and the Pope would dismiss the tripe without any feeling of personal harm; it is Juvenal who would have Mr. Doyle raked over the coals. After he woke up and realized what had happened he would be utterly and resolutely out for that poor man’s blood!

If this is what passes for free thought unencumbered by the drag of dogmatic and structured philosophy then free thought should be brought up on charges of fraud. The thoughts espoused are so hackneyed that that they were ridden hard and put away wet in the early middle ages, somewhere in history there is a Donatist scratching his head and looking for his not yet invented copy-right lawyer.

Larry Doyle almost makes Jack Chick look like a theologian. “The Death Cookie” is almost a greater work than this sad “satire”.

The term satire must have been employed to highlight the lack of objective and documentable truth held within the feeble work of pseudo-intellect. Trey Stone and Matt Parker should demand its removal from the Huffington Post before the Pope raise half an eyebrow.

Arianna Huffington should be drawn and quartered, metaphorically of course, for this not because of the anti-Catholicism it so blatantly shows; but rather because it shows the “barbarism” does not occur in the Holy Mass but in the brutal way the culture is being dumbed down by “satires” such as the one she saw fit to print.

Meditation: Placing a Body in a Body Bag

2012-02-21T20:07:00.000-08:00

I was supposed to be going home to my family, but the nurses on our shift told the nurses coming on that we would place the patient’s body in the body bag before we left. So I grabbed the body bag and watched the nurses seated before their computer terminals they looked pretty settled and I wanted to go home; so I walked back to the patient’s room by myself.

The patient was a small light lady and I knew I could place her in the bag without difficulty and so that is what I did. She was stiff and the sort of pale color that is singular to death except where the now blue blood was accumulating, the interior of her elbow for instance.

I unfolded the bag and unzipped it. The bag spelled of formaldehyde and briefly reminded me of the dissection I had done in A&P class. I placed the bag, open, alongside the further side of the patient’s body. I gently lifted her head and moved the bag into position beneath her, muttering “God bless you” repeatedly under my breath. I then placed her head into the body bag, I lifted her hips up with one hand enough to slide the bag beneath her with the other, and finally I placed her legs inside the bag. During this process the thought that I focused upon was respect, it was totally apparent that her body completely void of any life, and yet it was apparent to me that I must faithfully serve the soul which once resided there in. Having done that to the best of my ability I zipped up the bag to her foot, which I left exposed as the nurses still needed to place the toe tag on her.

I then said a small prayer, left the room, told the nurses that the task which separated me from home had been completed, picked up my jacket and my Kindle, and left. I called my wife and reluctantly told her why I was late. “You had to do what?” she responded. I told her I had done it by myself so I could come home and then I saw a white passenger van, which had been going the other direction, sitting with its front smashed in; empty and dark save for the light of emergency vehicles and head lights. I asked my wife if we could pray as I was now having a hard time processing the world around me. We said an “Our Father”, a “Hail Mary”, and a “Glory Be” and I drove the rest of the way home and gave my family some love.

The following morning I woke up still thinking of the patient and the body bag. I realized that all I had allowed myself to think about and focus on was that I was treating the body with respect. As I thought about the situation more as a whole I wondered if I hadn’t been wrong to take it on by myself. The more I placed myself back into that situation, however, the more I felt certain that I was not by myself. I thought quickly about the other people on the unit and reassured myself that I was indeed by myself; I also grew more convinced that I had felt someone else in the room with me.

It occurred to me that I was somehow in the presence of the care of God for the soul and as that thought slipped into place I felt the peace of the Holy Spirit descend upon me and I have been at peace with the events of that evening since that moment.

I am not at all sophisticated enough to know who was with me at that moment. I am thankful to God for the sake of that woman that He was there. May God bless us in His love and mercy; now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Nicki Minaj and the Decent of Artistic Expression

2012-02-15T20:36:00.000-08:00

The 2012 Grammys was marked for the memorializing of the tragic passing of Whitney Houston; all expressions seemed turned to that one end, all save one. Nicki Minaj could not help herself. She had to be the ying to Adele’s yang and try to prove her relevance as she attempts vainly to be the other end of the spectrum. So she had dancers portraying Hassidic Jewish rabbis and Buddhist monks desecrate their faiths for the sake of self expression. No, she actually focused upon the Catholic Church which is far less original, but the expression of self is rarely very original.

In fact one seems to pursue this self expression at the cost of any real expression at all. The message is nondescript and muddled; it is only to say vaguely the Catholic Church is the object of my ire. One can fill in the blank with their own caricatured and misguided bigotry about the Church for they will find no real direction for it in the performance or piece of art. It is simply perpetuated for the sake of doing so as the piece is not responding to anything specifically. It is a sad devolution of art as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Arising from talent given by the Creator and from man’s own effort, art is a form of practical wisdom, uniting knowledge and skill, to give form to the truth of reality in a language accessible to sight or hearing.” (CCC, part 3, VI, 2501)

So as the messages turn into noise and beauty is replaced by rubbish we become incredibly nihilistic; the past seems to be passing judgment upon the modern moment in artistic expression and the resulting feelings are uncomfortable.

The laziness of modernity creates a lack of creative quality. People cut and paste and copy and repeat until the style is devoid of any of the initial meaning. The result is totally appropriate for the tenor of the culture however as no one appears to be willing to discuss matters past the superficial catchphrases and sound bites.

Here is an example of the nature of the argument, I found an argument which called a fetus a parasite a few blogs back, “Abortion is worse than Sharia Law”, I put forth that even if the biology involved mirrored exactly that of a parasite the fetus was still not a parasite especially one so willingly accepts the fetus via well documented means, via one’s own consent over 99% of the time, the biology in and of itself can only be neutral. The negative connotations come directly from the heart of the author. I believe this so completely that I almost edited the word devolution above as evolution in and of itself have not a positive or negative connotation it is necessarily neutral. The response from the commenter was simply “I win”. That is not a debate.

“The real objection to modernism is simply that it is a form of snobbishness. It is an attempt to crush a rational opponent not by reason, but by some mystery of superiority, by hinting that one is specially up to date or particularly “in the know.””(G.K. Chesterton, All Things Considered, 1908)

Without thought there is no wisdom. Without wisdom there is no real art. Everyone is very sensitive and carries their hearts on their sleeves; that actually does not create great art. Discipline is more the key to great art than a superficial appreciation of one’s own superficiality.

So as the Nicki Minajs of the world continue to contribute to the decline of the culture at large, to the dumbing down of the debate, and the debasement of expression it may actually be a huge blessing; for it is really easy to spot for those who have the ability to pay a small amount of attention.

The Smoke Blown is called Compromise

2012-02-15T07:09:00.000-08:00

It has been explained to me that an insurance policy is funded in three ways: the premium paid by the employer, the premium paid by the employee, and co-pays. These funds make up an insurance policy. These funds together make up an insurance policy; these funds separately make up a fantasy called compromise. Some all but say when the president blows smoke up your integrity all you can say politely is “thank you”.

First of all I would like to say that Catholic Organizations should be autonomous. Trouble is always tied to purse strings and institutions of faith must have their autonomy, although there are Christian Churches who are also a self funded, anti- contraception, insurance company as well and they are scratching their heads as to how this is compromise.

I envy their ability to ponder from such a position of strength. Their position highlights the actual lack of pluralism that is becoming status quo as the Christian Church insurance companies must be worried about being assessed fines for non-compliance. Religious institutions are voluntary even if their tenants are strict; the laws of a country are involuntary and so must be open to pluralism which is not unethical. The religious organizations actually and rationally can argue that contraception is unethical and even call them inherently evil.

This essay is not about the argument for or against contraception it is about the responsibility of power. When one looks at the psychological construct involving who must be seen as the agent of abuse it is about the power disparity between the abused and the abuser. Sexual harassment is about someone in a position of power asserting that power inappropriately to assault a person whom the power is exerted over. The person who is not in power can be disciplined by the superior so the superior is insulated from the threat of harassment.

The first charge I must parry is that the laity of the Church is under the oppression and harassment of the Bishops of the Church. The Catholic Church is not a club or a democracy it is the agent of God and is concerned with shepherding its flock into eternal beatific joy. Can one do this at the cost of the relationship with the source of the Grace which has carried the Church through over two-thousand years of history? In other words if contraception is a mortal sin then that is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of sanctity. One cannot both separate oneself from God and claim to be the Church of Christ. One must carry on and teach the truth of Christ regardless of persecution. The laity of the Church has the tools through the grace of the sacraments to pray about the position they desire to take in relation to the teachings of the Church. If there conscious leads them away from the Church that is extremely sad but they are perfectly free to function under their own ill-formed conscience. They just can’t be Catholic; which is not something anyone in the world would be critical of.

The Church has to function within the laws of the United States however, there is no carrying on within the borders of the county as a self excommunicated American. Being an expat while living in Colorado makes very little sense.

So the government is in the position of authority over the Church. To such an extent that it has the ability to try to cause the Church to mortally sin against God through the administration of its laws. If the government should do this it obstructs the ability of that religion to exist on a fundamental level. The laity too must have the right to follow the tenants of the Church. The laity of the Church must have the ability to exercise the tenants of their faith.

If the laity have no ability to obtain insurance that does not conflict with their conscience then they must have the option of being uninsured. This seems counter to the heart of the president’s proposal which is universal health care. It is logical to allow the Church to have an outlet which does not compromise its ability to reach the beatific vision and thus its very mission in existing.

The issue is not abstract but well defined, as I have written on in the past “the Church and the State, Sat. Aug. 6, 2011”.

“John Locke’s work laid the inspirational groundwork for Thomas Jefferson who agreed that religion should not and could not be impinged upon by the state as it was an exercise of the interior life of men and women. Government could not govern the individual’s conscience; that governance was between the individual and his or her God.
                In Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists of Danbury, who were concerned that their expression of religion was not an exercise of religious freedom but rather given at the discretion of the majority, he stated that they should not fear because there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” He affirmed that government should not attempt to interfere in the individual’s ability to express themselves to their God.
                Honestly though citing this letter is no slam dunk and should not be seen as extended to all expressions of an individual’s religion. If this were the case people would try to prove religious expression in court rather than disprove their sanity. The one obvious example of a religion which has tried to sight religious expression and tested the limitations thus far has been the Mormons.   In 1879 in Reynolds v. United States of America the Supreme Court upheld the Morrill Act, which outlawed Polygamy; the courts claim being that a government cannot interfere in religious beliefs but can interfere in its actions. In 1890 a decree by church president Willford Woodriff suggested that Mormons not enter into marriages which were illegal and that was that.
                I believe that this was prudent action by the government, and I also believe that it’s a stretch to compare polygamy to vouchers for private schools. I believe that “separation of church and state” has become a sound bite which implies so much more to a secular culture than it is willing to examine justly. They wish to portray the church and state as competitors vying for influence. The church has every right to be as suspicious now as the Baptists who wrote to Thomas Jefferson, as separation of church and state has been used to attack every expression of faith aired in the public sphere from nativities to the Pledge of Allegiance.

                The position which has emerged, not in small part to these litigations, is not a neutral position but depending on the school distinct or the state could be very anti-religion. I am looking at you California.   It seems the more pluralism is espoused the more the church’s position is washed out of consideration; creating not a true pluralism but a very distinct point of view.”

Contraception is not illegal and the Church has no special right given to it by the government to actually prevent the laity from obtaining contraception. Isn’t this one of the reasons the Federal Government of the United States funds Planned Parenthood? Contraception is more than readily available without the interference of government upon the conscience of the Church. The true existence of pluralism and religious freedom within our borders is very much at stake.

To conclude one must juxtaposition the rigidity of care in shepherding the flock between the Church and the State. The Church and the State, specifically this administration, may both believe they hold the truth in their belief system. The Church is however very, very slow to publicly excommunicate any of its members. Kathleen Sebelius has had a year long conversation with her bishop, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, who tried to shepherd her into good standing with the church and it seems she took the same opportunity to try to bring the Church into good standing with her. The conclusion, Archbishop Naumann asked her first privately and then publically not to present herself for Holy Communion. She is not officially ex-communicated, however, and is one good confession away from religious integrity.

The Obama Administration is set to issue fines that start at hundreds of thousands of dollars and jump up after that; pastoral care via sledge hammer.

The opportunity to practice our faith in a real way cannot be predicated upon surreal literary illusions of Government. The insurance industry does not work in the way the administration portrays and so nothing has actually changed. The idea that religious institutions have to live with a fatally flawed compromise is to show how little regard some in Washington and in our country have for the faith they confess out of convenience and self indulgence.

The point of view created by the government and specifically in this case the Obama Administration, is that when the actions of the state interfere with the ability of the laity to form and exercise their very conscience then they cannot participate in the fundamental expression of that religion; as the government would have found a way into the “holiest of holies” the interior where Jefferson and Locke stated the government could never go.

Never Save Your Breasts at the Cost of Your Integrity

2012-02-04T08:16:00.000-08:00

^“If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast intohell,”(Mark 9:47, New American Standard Bible)

“It is better for you to go into heaven a little maimed than to go hell in a push-up.” (Mark 9: 47, New Bodaciously Awesome Bible)

Do you need me to recount Henry V’s St. Crispin Day speech? As he in essence answers Hamlet’s query, “To be, or not to be, that is the question: whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them: to die, to sleep no more; and by a sleep, to say we end the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to?” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1603)

It is far nobler indeed! There is nothing more precious than our honor, our integrity. Popularity is not worth having when it is purchased with the currency of integrity. We live in a culture which can see no other way forward than to validate, as not to offend, what it should grieve as a tragedy.

Monetizing an institution which does evil monopolizes that capital away from saner alternatives and so potential good is choked on the vine in favor of the present evil. Let us not mince words Planned Parenthood is evil. One can no more say the Nazi party had an amazing infrastructure that put the population to work after the abject poverty of the First World War than one can say Planned Parenthood serves the impoverished woman.

For as each statement may have a thin veneer of some truth, the deeper truth is that no institution which does what is inherently evil has the right to claim any good. Nazi Germany must never be known for its successful social programs because it was built upon a eugenic utopian ideal which called for the destruction of the fashionably undesirable. This echoes the argument against holding up Planned Parenthood as the bastion of the poor woman with no other recourse to breast health. The poor woman may require her breasts but she certainly cannot require her children. She certainly cannot feel whole without her breasts as then she will not be able to care for her phantom children; phantom children who have brought countless women very real pain and regret. As is inherent among parents if it be my life (the parent) or the life of my child let me die in the preservation of that child’s life and so the parents of aborted children quite often have a self imposed survivor’s guilt.

“I could fill this book with examples of the universal, unconscious assumption that life and sex must live by the laws of "business" or industrialism, and not vice versa; examples from all the magazines, novels, and newspapers. In order to make it brief and typical, I take one case of a more or less Eugenist sort from a paper that lies open in front of me—a paper that still bears on its forehead the boast of being peculiarly an organ of democracy in revolt. To this a man writes to say that the spread of destitution will never be stopped until we have educated [138]the lower classes in the methods by which the upper classes prevent procreation. The man had the horrible playfulness to sign his letter "Hopeful." Well, there are certainly many methods by which people in the upper classes prevent procreation; one of them is what used to be called "platonic friendship," till they found another name for it at the Old Bailey. I do not suppose the hopeful gentleman hopes for this; but some of us find the abortion he does hope for almost as abominable. That, however, is not the curious point. The curious point is that the hopeful one concludes by saying, "When people have large families and small wages, not only is there a high infantile death-rate, but often those who do live to grow up are stunted and weakened by having had to share the family income for a time with those who died early. There would be less unhappiness if there were no unwanted children." You will observe that he tacitly takes it for granted that the small wages and the income, desperately shared, are the fixed points, like day and night, the conditions of human life. Compared with them marriage and maternity are luxuries, things to be modified to suit the wage-market. There are unwanted children; but unwanted by whom? This man does not really mean that the parents do not want to have them. He means that the employers do not want to pay them properly. Doubtless, if you said to him directly, "Are you in favour of low wages?" he would say, "No." But I am not, in this chapter, talking about the effect on such modern minds of a cross-examination to which they do not subject [139]themselves. I am talking about the way their minds work, the instinctive trick and turn of their thoughts, the things they assume before argument, and the way they faintly feel that the world is going. And, frankly, the turn of their mind is to tell the child he is not wanted, as the turn of my mind is to tell the profiteer he is not wanted. Motherhood, they feel, and a full childhood, and the beauty of brothers and sisters, are good things in their way, but not so good as a bad wage. About the mutilation of womanhood, and the massacre of men unborn, he signs himself "Hopeful." He is hopeful of female indignity, hopeful of human annihilation. But about improving the small bad wage he signs himself "Hopeless."” (G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils, 1922)

“Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, that he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart; his passport shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse; we would not die in that man’s company that fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is call’d the feast of Crispin.” (William Shakespeare, Henry V, 1599)

There is still cause for great hope as the truth was dared uttered for a moment, though delivered with great and obvious trepidation from the outset. The retreat is not a great surprise, though it is a great disappointment especially to those of us who felt they could finally contribute to this cause. The battle was not undertaken with diligence and clear-headedness as this outcome could not have been a surprise. What is lacking is not vision but resolve and that is something which is indispensable.

Feminism is Dead: Abortion Ratios Based upon Sex

2012-01-31T07:54:00.000-08:00

Saul wielded his sword in battle and that would ultimately be the cause of his death as he committed suicide with it, this is where the expression “falling on your sword” comes from as this is what Saul did. Abortion was supposed to be the tool of feminism but as abortion has systematically and ever increasingly been used to kill unborn girls feminism has fallen upon the sword of abortion.

Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region in Canada, said:

“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason. From a macro perspective, I don’t think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”

I am reminded of a saying about a forest and trees. It is easy to pick on China as they are the greatest offenders by far. The most distorted districts in China are over 150 male births to 100 female births, but I see this picking up throughout the world and the statistics are bearing it out, even in Europe.

The answer is easy we live in a culture that is guided by what’s trending now. Its soft power versus hard power and soft power will leave hard power in the dustbin. China’s hard power approach has destroyed a large number of girls, but the people know in their hearts that what they are doing is totally devastating. What is far more effective is the whisper at the dinner party, “Oh poor dear, maybe she couldn’t afford the test.” Thus a willful disregard in nurtured in the heart and one feels none of those nagging objections of a well formed conscience. One simply sees oneself and the desires of one’s heart. Ah, how romantically devastating!

One can see the disparity in countries very clearly not based upon religious piety or even party politics but economic growth and planned families. Nearly half the world falls into an unnaturally male biased ratio, which is greater than 105 male births to 100 female births. The world sex ratio for 2005 to 2010, as determined by the United Nations, was 107 boys to 100 girls. This has left a calculated disparity of 32 million females throughout the world.

I imagine these females were quite relieved at being dispatched as being female is apparently equally meriting as incest and rape in abortion consideration. If they could speak they would thank us! Thank us for being saved the apparent indignity of being born a girl and thus Feminism is dead in that it makes it unthinkable to value girls equally as it is only a matter of taste to do so.

Abortion is worse than Sharia Law

2012-01-27T09:22:00.000-08:00

As I have been reading news reports about “The March for Life 2012” I notice things. Such as the Washington Post never has a long shot of the crowd. They have about ten pictures two of which are of the pro-abortion counter-protesters and four of which were protesters engaging with the pro-abortion activists. All of the pictures are tight on the face and two just of a hand holding rosary beads. So the impact is that an undeterminable amount of people were at the march, so multiple comments claim that there were only about 200, tens of thousands in fact, and there were an indeterminate amount of counter- marchers, probably also 200 or more, 11 in fact. When one sees pictures which normal people take of a march what one sees is an ocean of humanity. I also read the comments pages because it matters to me how people process information. A comment I read among the hundreds is that we are heading for Christian Sharia Law. In Sharia Law if one is caught stealing that person’s hand is cut off, it being the vehicle of the offence and thus its absence would also cause the community to be aware of the person as a past offender. In abortion law if two people have sex and a pregnancy results a baby is broken and sliced into pieces, a baby is a logical outcome of the sexual act and the couple wishing to hide themselves from the logical outcomes of their sexual act. Abortion is far worse than Sharia Law.

Only if a person were picked at random and made to answer for two person’s indiscretions could a practice be more unfair. This is simply allowing a member of your family to be killed for those very indiscretions. Abortion is more like the tyrant one would criticize in Iran, or the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, or the civil rights record of any tyrant really. The real difference is efficiency it would be hard to imagine 40 million or 50 million human beings destroyed by a despotic regime, it is estimated that 11 million people died in the Nazi concentration camps of those 6 million were Jews. Joseph Stalin starved 7 million people to death in the Ukraine. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia murdered 2 million people. 400,000 people were killed in the Darfur genocide. 200,000 people died in the Bosnian genocide.

The objection to these comparisons to our abortion epidemic of these United States is of course that babies in a mother’s womb are not babies. A comment which I read yesterday illustrates this point stating that a fetus was actually a parasite, chemically masking itself from being attacked by the mother’s immune system and compromising a woman’s bodily integrity.

The obvious problem with this argument is that having babies is natural. A baby is not a parasite; even the author of such calumny was once a “parasitic” fetus. If a baby is at the top of a woman’s bodily pecking order this is a totally natural occurrence. Thus nature has made it so and thank God it has as there could be no humanity sans such measures.

A woman’s body even colludes with these “parasites” as it monthly makes itself ready for just such an occupation; making the perfect environment for the invasion. The womb is a perpetual turncoat pining to host a “parasite”; making things just so. “Your body your choice” it guffaws waiting for its chance to aid the resistance. Every female member of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, of a certain age of course, has this internal disconnect between the head, the heart, and the body, and particularly their uterus and ovaries issuing their monthly propaganda.

What adds insult to injury is that do to microchimerism having babies is incredibly beneficial to a woman’s health. Microchimerism is a process by which mothers and babies share cells across the placenta in utero. What this provides a mother is cell therapy for many decades after she has given birth, even though the mother’s immune system should have cleared these cells out in a matter of hours.

Dr. Kirby Johnson of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, relayed a story to illustrate these phenomena to NPR’s Robert Krulwich. A woman had been admitted to a Boston hospital with symptoms of hepatitis. She was an intravenous drug user who had five recorded pregnancies: one live birth, two miscarriages, and two abortions. Johnson took a liver biopsy of her as a part of his examination and found after reviewing the lab results hundreds of fetal cells, “literally sheets of cells, whole areas which seemed to be normal.”

In conclusion, Christian Sharia law is not on the horizon, the abortion law in place now is far more illogical and backwards than Sharia law. A fetus is a baby in a particular stage of development and not a parasite. Pregnancy is not simply a woman’s burden but also a very real blessing and last, but certainly not least, one must read or watch the news with an eye for distortion and be willing to share the truth on comment boards. Now put your hands upon your keyboard we break on three; one, two, three, break!

Why Women and Children must go First

2012-01-24T19:03:00.000-08:00

Obviously the topic springs to my mind due to the tragedy of the Costa Concordia and the actions of the ship’s Captain Francesco Schettino. Regardless of what happened, whether he actually slipped and fell into a life boat, the tradition of boarding women and children first has come into the “public conscience” as a topic of debate. People site evolution and genetic ingraining to explain why the tradition exists, but it reads like hogwash as they simply make the statement and expect it to be self evident. I wish to present evidence that men are not hardwired to allow women to disembark from a sinking vessel first and as a result of this public debate may not in the future. The truth I wish to shine through however is that they must let women and children go first.

Women and children must not board lifeboats first because they are weak; they must board first because men are weak. Men who do not practice chivalry are not men at all, they are not even over grown boys, they are more like animals. They push and fight for an ever narrowing interest until it focuses squarely upon himself; this puts single men at even greater disadvantage.

The difference can be shown in the differences in survivors aboard the Lusitania and the Titanic. The Lusitania’s lifeboats, as the ship went down quickly, were filled exclusively with men and women who were young and fit. Whereas aboard the Titanic there were hours to “organize” according to age, gender, and class. When the knee jerks, actual Darwinian theory is tested, and the physically fittest survive.

Some decry the way the Titanic evacuations were handled, especially with regard to class as the third class was not even let on deck until it was too late. This illustrates what I am talking about. The life boats were limited and most had sailed and people want greater democratization touched with empathy. They have no right to expect this from nature; but they have every right to expect it.

Should the ingrained genetic argument be correct in and of itself the Lusitania’s lifeboats would have surely had almost exclusively women of fertile childbearing age and children. The hardwiring should have bucked harder in the shortened time frame not been left out altogether. The women who survived were of child bearing age but they were also fast and strong. That was the factor at play not the state of their uterus. They held their own, they merited their survival. This is the nature of nature.

If we are honest the real wonder is not that the lifeboats are not stacked with women like cordwood. The wonder is that there are any women at all in the lifeboats.

I believe my friend, Deacon Bob, would take the time to illustrate the point with this experience he had in Vietnam. He was sitting on the roadside with two Vietnamese who helped the Americans. When he saw a Vietnamese family walking by he wondered aloud why the husband walked ahead of the wife by a designated number of paces. One of the Vietnamese stated it had always been this way to which the other stated it had not always been this way; the wife walked ahead of the husband when the husband was afraid of landmines. I would like now to apologize to Deacon Bob for he tells the story with mastery and I just butchered it. The lesson can, I think, be gleaned even in my poor telling; chivalry is not natural.

One may get a grasp of what is natural by observing the documentary “Becoming Chaz”. In which Chaz Bono and others who are going through hormone therapy are interviewed and observed. The stated results are aggressive behavior, especially sexual appetite which is greatly increased. Chaz’s girlfriend, Jennifer Elia, stated the change was such that Bono went from being the nicest person she had ever met to someone she did not even like. Studies have shown that by exposing women to even small doses of testosterone they become less empathetic. I do not wish to insinuate that this state is permanent and without hope of adapting. I simply wish to explain that male hormones are often described as being nothing nice. A man’s testosterone levels naturally greatly decrease just before the birth of his child and never reach the same levels as when he was single as if readying him to become a father and nurturing husband; this further illustrates how the single man is at a disadvantage.

I believe this may explain a lot about men throughout history and through anthropologies. With this fabulous excuse of male hormones and the evidence of men in and through histories and in anthropologies why is it still my contention that men should be chivalrous to the point of death aboard an ocean liner?

“Hold it the greatest sin to prefer existence to honor and for the sake of life lose the reasons for living.” Juvenal, Satires.

Is that not what this is about? It is indeed, but to grasp the statement’s meaning one cannot lose touch with the reasons for living. Our society as it becomes perverse and degraded by materialism, our world views become sociopathic. Secular Humanism seems too kind for the bile produced as one needs to be human in order to be a secular humanist.

Because a man without honor is worse than an animal; he is a cancer. He is an aggressive cancer which only seeks to suck the life from as much of humanity as he is exposed to. He has an insatiable appetite and no matter the seeming focus of his attention what he actually destroys is life.

He will do it in the name of progress. He will say women should have set up their own boundaries. He will do as one woman who survived the Costa Concordia described and muscle their way to the life boats, “Men first and women and children are on their own.”

“I will not serve!” this is the sin of cancer and the quote of Satan moments before he fell from heaven. “I will not serve!” this is the antithesis to honor and the cause of a man’s ruin. “I will not serve!” is the only phrase the walking dead speak. The phrase is rearranged and elaborated upon until it is a language of death and the language of our culture.

^33” Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it: but whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” (Luke 17:33)
                Dying is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. We will all die. We can never force enough experience into these small years to overcome some experiences. Some experiences fill us and some hollow us out. To sacrifice one’s life so another can go on, especially when this action is joined to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, will fill those moments with an infinite meaning. The alternative is to fill an infinite number of minutes with an eternal deficit, to dig a hole that can always be dug deeper. One may act hollow and morbid, one may try to fill the hollowness with vice, and one will create more and more experiences which are harder and harder to overcome.   Survival, even of the fittest, is no guarantee of a fairy tale ending. The answer is to act with honor and respect life enough to defend it until the very end of your own.
                In the movie The Seventh Seal (1957, Ingmar Bergman) Antonius Block, played by Max von Sydow, is in the confessional confessing to Death, played by Bengt Ekerot.

“I want knowledge. Not faith or conjecture but knowledge. I want God to reach out His hand. Show His face, speak to me, but He is silent. I cry to Him in the darkness, but sometimes it feels as no one is there.”

“Perhaps no one is there.”

“Then life is just senseless horror. No man can live facing death knowing that everything is nothingness.”

“Most people give no thought to death or nothingness.”

“One day they will stand at the far edge of life peering into the darkness.”

“Ah, that day, I understand what you mean.”

“We carve an idol out of our fear and call it God.”

“You’re upset.”

“Death visited me this morning. We’re playing chess together. This reprieve will allow me to attend to an urgent matter.”

“What sort of matter?”

“My whole life has been nothing but futile wandering and pursuits, a great deal of talk without meaning. It’s all been in vain. I say this without bitterness or self-reproach, knowing that most men’s lives are the same. But I want to use my reprieve for one meaningful act.”

                Tomorrow, January the 25^th, is the feast day of the conversion of St. Paul. Let us mark a conversion in our hearts by allowing one meaningful act and by the time we should need to abandon ship our hearts will lead us to do what is right. I will see you at the bottom of the sea!

Is being Pro-Choice Sexy?

2012-01-18T22:04:00.000-08:00

Is being Pro-Choice sexy? Planned Parenthood thinks so as they have asked twitter users to pass on a message which states just that, “Pro-Choice is Sexy!” Is being pro-choice sexy? The answer is… Yes! Wait, what? No it really is sexy. In fact it not only really is sexy; it is really sexy.

Why would I make such a statement? Because it is true; both of these options limit a woman’s ability to actually be a woman. A woman may be the object of sexual desire and thus objectification but a woman may not be fully a human being. A woman may be the object of sexual interest but she has no right to sexual stability, men don’t care. If a woman teaches a man she wants to have sex like he does and society at large guarantees any repercussions of any of this sexual expression can be chopped up and thrown away. Women are teaching men not to care.

Men haven’t even had to ask for these indignities feminists have insisted upon them. Women have fought for their rights only to have the right to say I do not wish to be respected; I wish to be found sexually desirable. If women wish to race men to the bottom they will lose and lose big!

For the sexually assertive woman has the right to one expectation and that is that everything will go well because sex is good in and of itself. When the woman is crushed by losing the afore mentioned race to the bottom she has no recourse as the dogma she has followed allows only two basic rights: 1) to kill her innocence, 2) to kill her innocent.

Pro-Choice is very sexy indeed. God save us.

Zoo wins award for diversity after accepting a “Girl Scout” into its Bear Habitat

2012-01-17T21:45:00.000-08:00

A seven year old who self identifies as the new third gender designation “Girl Scout” was accepted into the bear habitat of the city zoo today. The child stated it simply, “liked doing bear stuff.” The new cub’s former parents stated, “It’s not our job to be judgmental. It’s our job to love and support our sexless ageless thing until its metamorphoses. It just chose what it wanted early in life and who am I to judge. I find this whole line of questioning to be judgmental and bigoted.” The zoo agreed, “If the “child” self identifies as a bear cub and presents itself as a bear cub we accept it as a bear cub.”

The “child” made vague references to “Winnie the Pooh” and its favorite “The Jungle Book” when asked about its road to self discovery. When asked if a “child” could be expected to fully understand what it actually means to be a bear cub the parents bristled, “That question invalidates its feelings. I don’t want it to grow up in a world like that, full of expectations and broken dreams. I want it to be free of bigots like you! Bears are many things but bears, especially zoo bears, are not bigots.”

The award was bestowed by the Born This Way Foundation. In a statement the foundation praised the zoo for “not listening to the haters.”

“We want the world to know seven year olds need to be supported in any life altering decision it chooses to make. They are brave in eschewing societal tyranny and embracing the true nature of “humanity” which is non-judgment especially if it leads the searcher to a bear habitat. Our support must match or even surpass their bravery and desire. Because what is the worst thing that could possibly happen? That seven year old “Girl Scout” maybe broken hearted for the rest of its life.”

We will continue to follow this story as a memorial fund has been graciously established in the “Girl Scouts” name on the Born This Way Foundation website.

Freedom and the Misconception of Freedom

2012-01-11T09:36:00.000-08:00

“Anarchy is that condition of mind or methods in which you cannot stop yourself. It is the loss of that self-control which can return to the normal. It is not anarchy because men are permitted to begin uproar, extravagance, experiment, peril. It is anarchy when people cannot end these things. It is not anarchy in the home if the whole family sits up all night on New Year's Eve. It is anarchy in the home if members of the family sit up later and later for months afterwards. It was not anarchy in the Roman villa when, during the Saturnalia, the slaves turned masters or the masters slaves. It was (from the slave-owners' point of view) anarchy if, after the Saturnalia, the slaves continued to behave in a Saturnalian manner; but it is historically evident that they did not. It is not anarchy to have a picnic; but it is anarchy to lose all memory of mealtimes. It would, I think, be anarchy if (as is the disgusting suggestion of some) we all took what we liked off the sideboard. That is the way swine would eat if swine had sideboards; they have no immovable feasts; they are uncommonly progressive, are swine. It is this inability to return within rational limits after a legitimate extravagance that is the really dangerous disorder.” (G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and other Evils, 1922)

I was an anarchist specifically because I believed freedom solved problems. Without freedom social and personal issues would not be synthesized fluidly into the most streamlined evolution of personal and social ethos. It is an incredibly appealing idea as one has not to work towards virtues but work to remove the word virtue from the lexicon and allow the fittest to survive.

What happens as this has happened is not actually the social flourishing I had believed in but rather the society has become as “uncommonly progressive” as swine.

Freedom it seems is not simply the ability to say yes to what one wishes; freedom is the ability to say no to what one desires. Without the ability to say no one is simply an addict, and what society seems to desire is only the freedom to be addicted to what one wishes. What this produces is what we have seen; society mixes as fluidly as oil in water. The reason for this is as one focuses exclusively upon the sole desire of one’s own heart, one becomes sociopathic and loses the ability to empathize with those who are only really standing in the way of one attaining one’s heart’s sole desire. This makes each individual quite grumpy and less likely to empathize with those utter bastards who hate us because they are only jealous of our happiness; the happiness we are denied because of them! We desire then only a theory of happiness and we are consumed by hate for those we presume to be a roadblock to the synthesis of this obvious reality which fails to be realized.

I offer you an example from yesterday’s paper, or the internet facsimile thereof. A young woman was not allowed to have the pictures she submitted to the yearbook printed in said yearbook as they were deemed too racy by its editors. Have her First Amendment Rights been violated?

No, she simply has her trotters on the sideboard! One argument put forth from her mother is that the girl aspires to be a model and this is no different than students posing with their guitars. I would agree with her assuming that the student was in a skinhead band and had a swastika prominently placed upon his pointy Charvel. There are degrees of what must be deemed acceptable. Not every model aspires to model for Maxim, read trash, some, though decided many too few, wish to maintain their dignity as they pursue their chosen profession.

The insistence that the student’s depiction of what constitutes modeling has to be accurate further degrades the profession in the social mind for all models. If the skinhead guitarist told you what he was doing was simply being a musician one would be remiss to simply accept that at face value.

We have a duty to protect what is decent for those who will have to live with the reality of a degraded definition of what is real. My daughter deserves to be respected; my nieces deserve to be respected, welcome to the world baby Greeley! If I fail to allow them to grow up in a world in which this can be attained then I am to be judged for their misery.

The only logical outcome of doing away with the pursuit of virtue would be greater virtue. The reality of doing away with the pursuit of virtue is misery. Misery is the logical outcome of anarchy. Misery is the logical outcome of addictions. Whether one is addicted to a superficial acceptance which leads to the degradation of our God given dignity or addicted to the idea of a Utopia which raises one’s pet addiction to the state of normalcy, but which is simply everyone else’s dystopia, freedom is not about our own selfish pursuits.

Carnivorous animals are not murderers. They have no ethos to uphold; they act instinctively. We cannot use our instinctive nature as a defense in a court of law. We have something more; thus the court of law, thus the court house, thus the uniforms and robes, thus also the metal detectors. These result as a byproduct of our faculty to use our freedom.

“1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."[28]
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:
Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"[29] He asked Cain the same question.[30] The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.[31]
An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.
1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother's exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.
1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.[32]” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3 Article 3 Section I, Freedom and Responsibility)

It is so important to the very fabric of society to be aware of what freedom is and what it is not. We have not the right to our perversion of reality we have not even the right to remain silent in these matters. We are obliged by our freedom to serve everyone in society and not some chosen few, meaning primarily ourselves. This is the responsibility of that freedom.

“One of those wise old fairy tales, that come from nowhere and flourish everywhere, tells how a man came to own a small magic machine like a coffee-mill, which would grind anything he wanted when he said one word and stop when he said another. After performing marvels (which I wish my conscience would let me put into this book for padding) the mill was merely asked to grind a few grains of salt at an officers' mess on board ship; for salt is the type everywhere of small luxury and exaggeration, and sailors' tales should be taken with a grain of it. The man remembered the word that started the salt mill, and then, touching the word that stopped it, suddenly remembered that he forgot. The tall ship sank, laden and sparkling to the topmasts with salt like Arctic snows; but the mad mill was still grinding at the ocean bottom, where all the men lay drowned. And that (so says this fairy tale) is why the great waters about our world have a bitter taste. For the fairy tales knew what the modern mystics don't --- that one should not let loose either the supernatural or the natural.”(Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Eugenics and other Evils, 1922)

Why still Catholicism?

2011-12-28T10:18:00.000-08:00

“If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you will be able to do it?” Cardinal Ercole Consalvi in response to Napoleon Bonaparte’s boasts that he would destroy the Church. Napoleon has had a lot of company over more than 2000 years now from inside and out; starting with Jews such as Saul and Roman Emperors into the raft of reformation era theologians and enlightenment thinkers, which have not ceased spawning to this very day! If one were to approach the question from the Hegelian model of history, as I had until my conversion, the Catholic Church is a total aberration. One would expect that the Church would have been synthesized into oblivion after the reformation aided rise of the nation-state. The initial persecutions alone probably should have been enough to crush the young faith; eleven of the twelve initial leaders and chief teachers were murdered or rather martyred for their faith. Christians were murdered at such a rate one would have surely had to have been suicidal to be baptized and share in that faith. It turns out that just the opposite is true somehow and that is the secret to answering the question, “Why still Catholicism?”

Cardinal Ercole Consalvi’s statement to Napoleon acknowledges what every critic of the Church has also understood and that is that the Church has been administered on Earth by very human beings. Martin Luther’s real ignition point is that the dukes and princes supported him in an attempt, which would prove successful, to pry power away from Rome. Respected theologians of the time found Luther’s arguments lacking, ironically Henry the Eighth wrote a book “Septum Sacramentorum” disemboweling Luther’s arguments thus earning him the title “defender of the faith”. God seems to love irony however as Henry then soon found his own very human reasons to start a church, every early Church father one reads holds the schismatic in the same regard as the murderer but Henry would soon go there too.

            Denis Diderot said, “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Diderot was an Enlightenment thinker and a materialist whose thought set the stage for the French Revolution, which began five years after his death. Diderot died of natural causes; the religious of France during the enlightenment’s French Revolution died by the guillotine, the sword, and the musket barrel. Whole monasteries of Sisters and Brothers, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals all violently slaughtered for the enlightenment of the world.
            This is how one can see and begin to understand the mystical nature of God and especially the life and death of His Son Jesus; we do not kill to live and spread the Gospel we die to live and spread the Gospel. Our priests were priests called by Pope Gregory to be celibate to increase their discipline and dedication to that Gospel. God does not do things as man would. It would seem counterintuitive to cut the best and brightest from the gene pool but there is something greater they must do than simply populate the world. It is there vocation to bridge that material world with the source and summit of life, God.
            Their fatherhood brings the faithful into life through the sacramental life of Christ’s Church and sustains us in this material and spiritual life by the material and spiritual nature of the sacraments; as Jesus Himself was both God and man so is life matter and spirit and God provides nourishment for both as He is The Father.
            Our Father has also provided the faithful in these seemingly impossible moments in Church history with amazing Saints and Miracles to directly answer the challenges set against it. Saint Francis of Assisi actually reformed the Church by calling it to Holiness through his own example. He refused to disparage the Church because he knew that though the world was having its way with many of the clergy of the time at the heart of the Church was the same one unchangeable truth, Jesus Christ. He served Christ and led the Church through that example. His order was endorsed by Pope Innocent III after He dreamt that Francis was holding up the Church. God has a way of influencing people.
            Saint Catherine of Sienna brought the Papacy of Gregory XI back to Rome. She did this in an unusual way as he dictated letters from her spiritually. She also asked him to reform the clergy and the Papal States. He was not the only one to have this experience as she worked for peace among the Papal States and worked against the Western Schism. She worked tirelessly to convince all of Pope Urban VI’s legitimacy and is considered a Doctor of the Church. Having the Pope dictate your personal correspondence kind of makes the nailing of the ninety-five theses look rather pedestrian doesn’t it?
            St. Anthony of Padua was nicknamed “Hammer of Heretics” as he won amazing numbers of converts by his preaching and numerous miracles. St. Dominic also had amazing success winning converts through his beatific virtue, impeccable knowledge, and charismatic preaching. St. John Vianney fought the aftermath of the French Revolution which resulted in a thorough secularization of the parish to which he was assigned, Ares. He won thousands back to the faith through pious devotion, patience, prayer, and hours in the confessional. As an illustration of how many conversions he caused and how he invigorated the faith of France after the Revolution I offer these facts, Ares had a population of 230 when he became its priest in 1818 and by 1855 the number of pilgrims who traveled to see him was 20,000 a year.
            Miracles and apparitions have also renewed, revitalized, and refocused the Church throughout her history. On December 12, 1531 Juan Diego presented Bishop Zumarraga with a sign from a woman, who identified herself to him as “the perfect ever-virgin Mary mother of the most true God,” he had met her on his way to catechism class, having been one of the very few native Aztec people to convert, that a church should be built upon a little hill known as Tepeyac. Juan Diego brought fully opened roses, provided by the lady; he had taken from that barren hill in the cold of December. He presented this sign to the Bishop who fell stunned in amazement at the image which was now present on Juan Diego’s tilma amid the cascading roses.
            “Our Lady of Guadalupe” caused the near total conversion of the Aztec people not only because she is a pictogram overflowing with meaning to the native Aztec people; who’s written language was actually pictograms, but due to the incredible miracles attributed to the image; one of the most striking examples being that of a dead man who regained life in the presence of the image on December 25, 1531.
            More than 7 million pilgrims a year visit the very image which seems to be preserved from time as it has not faded or decayed in the 480 years it has been venerated. Our Lady of Guadalupe has not only been preserved from natural wear but also from bomb blast.
            On November 14, 1921 Luciano Perez, a communist agent, placed an enormous vase of flowers and dynamite on the alter beneath the image; moments later after Luciano was safely away the Church was rocked by an explosion. The marble alter was reduced to a pile of marble stones, the windows of the church itself and of the building across the street were blown out, and a large iron crucifix was twisted and curled by the impact of the bomb blast and yet the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was totally unperturbed. The glass case which held it bore not a single crack. This proved to be the high water mark for the Socialist Revolution in Mexico which also was reduced to rubble.
            February 11, 1858 apparitions begin at Lourdes France. A young lady dressed in white, who would eventually reveal her name to Bernadette Soubirous as she spoke, “Que soy era Immaculada Counceptiou.”
            The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, in his Papal Bull “Ineffabilis Deus” (“Ineffable God”). On March 25, 1858, the feast of the Annunciation, Bernadette approached Father Dominique Peyramale repeating, “Que soy era Immaculada Counceptiou.” Father Peyramale seemed scandalized by the words, “No lady can bear that name!” He asked her if she knew what it meant and she shook her head. She did not understand; she only repeated it over and over again until she came to him and then she spoke it to him.
            Pope Pius IX was something of a polarizing figure in a polarized time. He had also presided over the institution of Papal Infallibility as a dogma of the Church. A lot of people were looking at that time, as they do in every time it seems, for a liberalization of the Church and Pope Pius IX was seen as a liberal when he was elected, but the Holy Spirit guided him in a different direction than the liberals would have taken him and there was dissent.
            By Mary coming to Lourdes under the title “Immaculate Conception” in amongst the swell of healing miracles from the miraculous spring which Bernadette dug with her own tiny hands God himself seemed to reaffirm His decision.   He chose Pope Pius IX the successor of Peter; listen to him.
            The Apparitions of Our Lady to three children near Fatima Portugal began on May 13^th, 1917. Lucia dos Santos, age 10, and her cousins Francisco, age 8, and Jacinta, age 7, Marto were tending their families sheep when they received the first visit from Our Lady.
            Portugal had instituted anti-clerical laws since the liberal Civil War of 1834 and beginning in that year the property and land of the Portuguese Catholic Church and that of every religious order was confiscated by the state and sold. This was apparently supposed to redistribute the property of the Church equitably, every bit of it attained through the donations of private citizens, the poor, however, had no capital and so the property ended up in the hands of speculators.
            From 1834 to 1910 Portugal was a grab bag of turmoil and rival political ideologies. Monarchists rose and fell beside more so named “democratic” parties. The resulting Coup de’ taut and Portuguese First Republic left the government in the hands of the Portuguese Republican Party and one party rule. A new set of anti-clerical laws and Alfonso Costa’s self described “hostile” separation of Church and State. Costa stated in “Declaration to the Congress of Free Thought”, March 26, 1911, pg 256, “Thanks to this law of separation, in two generations Catholicism will be completely eliminated in Portugal.”
            1917 was terrible for the entire world. World War I escalated; the United States was brought into the war in 1917.
            The Russian Revolution began in St. Petersburg/Petrograd in February; the name was changed from St. Petersburg to Petrograd in 1914. Though Lenin was still in Switzerland and so Germany enabled his travels to Russia via train, as they wanted Russia to withdraw from the war. The Bolsheviks begin the Communist Revolution in October and on August 4^th Pravda calls for the killing of all capitalists, priests, and officers.
            The Canadians also knew for a fact the world was going to hell as an American team, the Seattle Metropolitans, beat the Montreal Canadiens 3 games to 1; thus bringing the Stanley Cup to the United States for the first time.
            This is the world of Fatima 1917. Our Lady came to a world of militant atheism and militant nationalists and militant militants. She enlisted a crack team of commandos that had been sent to prison for a crime they didn’t commit; wait no she came to a 10, 8 , and 7 year old in a country that had been trying to destroy the Church for 73 years. Does that make any sense to you? Thank God I’m not god because I kind of liked the whole commando thing.
            To prove even further that God does not do things as we would God sends Mary to win converts with this message, “Do penance!” This is serious they are not handing out coffee mugs with the Church logo to induce people; God just tells you the truth. He is not placating the spoiled children of the world. We need to do penance we need to make reparations for the state of our world. God isn’t looking for us to join His club; He is the way, the truth, and the life. He doesn’t have anything to sell because everything is already His. Our worship adds no Glory to God, but it is vital for us. So He teaches through Mary at Fatima with authority.
            The final apparition attracts the faithful and the atheist alike for each hope to have their world view born out. The miracle of the Sun transformed those who experienced it. The devoutly pro-government and anti-clerical papers too had to relay the miraculous nature of what occurred. The sun spun, danced, changed color, and seemed to come crashing to Earth only to be set right at the last instant.
            There was also a physical symbol as the Earth and onlookers were thoroughly soaked by a downpour with had persisted until the time of the apparition. After the “dance of the sun” everything and everyone was completely dry.
            Our Lady warned that “the war to end all wars” was not going to live up to that billing and that a light in the sky would precede the next war. The aurora borealis could be seen all the way down in Europe and in Northern Africa January 25, 1938 before the outbreak of the Second World War it was the widest occurrence of the aurora borealis since 1709. The war began September 1^st 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, yet as early as March 13, 1938 Germany took over Austria, in an action termed the Anschluss.
            Our Lady spoke of consecrating communist Russia to her Immaculate Heart. The revolution started in February, though not a Communist or Bolshevik revolution at that time. It consisted of hungry people, which was most of the people, not ideology charged people. When Lenin finally came eyewitnesses described him as lacking in charisma having as much ability to fire up the crowd as a college lecturer; but he promised food, jobs, and end to Russia’s involvement in the war. This is what people wanted and so by October comes the Bolshevik revolution.
            The apparitions started in May and lasted six months. For the children of Fatima to comment on Russia without having seen and heard the live stream on their iPads is astounding. Remember that Lenin was in Switzerland as the peasants revolted in Petrograd. Lenin was chomping at the bit to get back to Russia, but it was up to the better judgment of the Germans to decide if he could. The last apparition was on October 13^th. The October Revolution began on the 25^th. Mary knew before Lenin the fate of Russia and warned all to fight against it, pray the rosary everyday she instructed and do penance.

Penance is such a key between the sacrifice of the Mass and the life of the Church outside the physical walls of the Church. The Protestant asks, “If you have Christ himself in your Church why would you ever leave?” The simple answer is we are asked to as the mass concludes, “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” The Catholic must understand that we are called to serve, just as every Saint did who has entered the Kingdom of Heaven before us.

As Jesus emptied Himself of His Divine nature and was born of Mary so this was also the pattern of His life becoming a slave as St. Paul notes. Jesus emptied Himself of pride to be filled by the Holy Spirit and in so doing remaining within the mystery of the Holy Trinity. As we see in His testing by Satan in the desert Jesus denies Himself the expedient solution of Satan and trusts in the truth of the Love of His Father. Today one would say, “He was in need who would judge if He had eaten of the bread transformed from stones?” God would because we stole from Him the opportunity to have His angel’s minister to us after the trial is concluded. We are not God; we are to trust in the goodness of God with our whole mind, all of our soul, and all of our heart.

We see denominations charmed by the world; you may ordain who the world prefers but to do so one must vilify who the lord prefers. They become not about the goodness of God but the expediency which Christ himself turned away from.

Penance is our chance to join in Christ’s love and to trust in it. We are not saved by our faith alone. We are saved by our embrace of Jesus and our continued struggle to open our hearts ever wider to God until we are as Jesus was perfectly human. We are separated from our very humanity as we deviate from the truth. Penance offers us a chance to open our hearts because we do penance not just for ourselves but others and not just others but sinners. We do penance for our enemies so that we all may be joined again to God.

When we focus on our faith alone the question is asked, “Why do good?” Works are not a part of our salvation. It is true that we are not saved by our works but by the sacrifice of Jesus in His life, death, and resurrection.

I have heard it said that the reason to be good is because we are to be an example to those who do not believe. This is true but it rings like tin on the ear. There is so much more. We have the opportunity and the invitation to join in the very life of the Holy Trinity.

As Jesus’ suffering was and is redemptive so too can our suffering be redemptive; His by His divine nature and ours through His grace. Paul describes us as the body of Christ and we are bound to each other through our baptism and the sacraments especially the Eucharist. The body of Christ on Earth is bound to suffer until He comes again and it is the Church’s opportunity to allow that suffering to make sense.

If we can learn to suffer for one another and especially sinners; we will not simply be bound together by our suffering but we will uphold one another in love. Our Lord’s Kingdom will come on Earth as it is in Heaven.

There is one God. There is one Son who took on the sins of the world, was crucified, died, was buried, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for the redemption of the world. There is one Spirit given to us at baptism and so one Spirit which unites us, and so there must be one Church.

Guided by Church Tradition, informed by Church history, and sustained by the Sacraments the Church remains alive and vital. It is not simply the institution and autocracy its detractors charge The Catholic Church is the depository of the fullness of faith. This is a concept most do not understand for men such as Napoleon actually believed they could destroy what God Himself has created on Earth.

“You are Cephas/Kepha/Petra/Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” Jesus says upon this rock “I” will build “My” Church; not Peter’s or Constantine’s but His, Jesus Christ. In the final analysis that is the only explanation which makes logical sense as to how this Church continues on and will continue until Christ comes again.

Victoria’s Secret is not just her Underwear

2011-11-29T09:16:00.000-08:00

Tonight the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is televised on a major network and that makes me so sad. I am sad for the women of the world and especially little girls. I am also sad for men nobody expects anything from you and you shrug and admit you are a proud stereotype with no desire for integrity or heroism. The race to the bottom picks up velocity because of shows such as the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.

The Girl Scout Research Institute (GSRI) put out finding of a study they had done in which 1141 girls’ age 11 through 17 were asked about reality television and their resulting perceptions. Girls who watched these shows rated the importance of appearance higher than those who did not. 78% who watched thought gossip was normal in female relationships as opposed to 54% who were not frequent watchers. 68% of those girls surveyed believed it was “in girls’ nature to be catty and competitive” compared with 50% of those who were not regular viewers. 63% of watchers found it difficult to trust other girls as opposed to 50% of non-viewers.

I bring this study up to highlight how impressionable our girls are. In a different study by GSRI entitled, “The New Normal? What Girls Say about Healthy Living, 2006, 1/3 of girls 8 to 17 have a disordered idea about their weight and “23% of girls say they do not participate in sports because they do not think their bodies look good.”

So those who believe that this show is a positive expression of encouragement to girls really have not dug into the figures to support their views; because the figures do not support those views. Just the opposite in fact the impression left on girls who need exercise is I am too fat to get involved and the message sent to girls who do not need to lose weight is this is an appropriate way to get attention.

The other side of the coin is the male side; men allow themselves to be further convinced that the objectification of women is an appropriate and wanted form of interaction. So we see a synergy of dysfunction emerge; women and girls seeking attention inappropriately and men giving them attention which is inappropriate.

The resulting depression and heartache is then placed at the feet of the “morality bigots” of the world, because we make things so repressive, instead of shows such as the Victoria Secret Fashion Show. I pray we see through the smokescreens and defend women and especially girls who deserve a healthy and loving future.

Penn. State vs. the Catholic Church

2011-11-16T11:01:00.000-08:00

I saw this headline on the television in the lobby as I was passing through, “Penn. State vs. the Catholic church”. CNN was asking someone how compatible the comparisons are and then they made a blanket statement like, “They both covered up abuse because they were afraid of the consequences if the abuse came out.” O.K. that’s one theory, I believe the story is a lot more nuanced than that.

In the Penn. State case you have an eye witness whose gut check failed him and that failure went all the way up the ladder to Joe Paterno; in the case of the Catholic Church the Bishops received advice from the world of psychology.

It is a different time than that of the Church’s scandal, which peaked in the mid-60s through mid-80s, there are not a lot of psychologists seriously advising that a pedophile could or should be rehabilitated. This was not the case as the Church looked for direction; the direction they received included isolating the pedophile from children and counseling for the offender. These techniques have since been discredited, largely because predators find victims regardless of attempts to isolate them.

The Catholic Church had 6 credible allegations of sexual abuse in 2009, this number was down 36% from 2008, keep in mind that these are 6 allegations against over 40,000 priests and tens of thousands of individuals working for the Catholic Church. You will not hear that reported in the media.

33% of girls and 16% of boys are sexually abused before the age of eighteen, not by priests but by the population at large. In the abuse of girls 29% were relatives and 60% were acquaintances and in boys 16% were family members and 44% were acquaintances. When one compares statistics the unfortunate reality is that the Catholic Church can not only take the “Pepsi Challenge” with any other institution but also against most extended families. Since the vast majority of perpetrators against children are men which highlights the fact that the Catholic Church has become more effective at choosing quality men than women have.

The difference is that the Church has become more insistent on the universal application of its teachings. The sexual abusers in the Church preyed on the willed confusion by some after the Second Vatican Council as they drew from secular and worldly influences and many times saw their victimization as an expression of their liberal Catholic politics. Women from the time of Eve, or Lilith if one buys into all that, have been wooed by secular and worldly influence. Ever wonder why housewives are so desperate? It has a lot to do with the promise made between the friends of “Sex in the City”, to “have sex like men”. The unintended consequences of this leaves their children unguarded against the men they parade through their children’s lives, which is a consequence of imploding families and easy divorce as marriage has as little consequence as sex.

To determine if the “Laissez fare” attitude toward sex and marriage is actually feminist or not one should note which sex is most viscerally hurt through its application over time. Women and children are far more, of course, the ones who bear the brunt of the impact of the policy of no fault sex and marriage. The arguments against a healthy respect of sex, marriage, and family are largely academic and so extremely intellectual, my apologies for the sarcasm, that it leads us back to the campus of Penn. State. The following was lifted from the comments section of the National Catholic Register online from an article entitled “Penn State and the Church”. I left it as is so as not to assume any credit as it does hit the nail on the head.

“In March 2002, when Jerry Sandusky was abusing and molesting young boys, Penn State sponsored and hosted a Conference on Women’s Health and Wellness. Like many virtuous sounding names, e.g., The Second Mile Foundation, the true nature is far more sinister. Patrick Califia-Rice was the keynote speaker at Penn State’s Conference on Women’s Health and Wellness. Califia-Rice is an outspoken advocate of pedophilia and sadomasochism. She (apparently used to be a “he”) wrote books such as “Macho Sluts” and “Public Sex: The Culture of Radical Sex”. Most relevant to the exposure of sex abuse at Penn State is Califia-Rice’s philosophy, which, according to World Net Daily, NAMBLA posts on its website. Here is what the Keynote speaker at Penn State’s Conference believes.
“Boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers are the
only people offering a hand to help young women and men
cross the difficult terrain between straight society and the
gay community. They are not child molesters. The child
abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents
who force their stale morality onto the young people in
their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles for their
involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be
supporting them.”
Califia-Rice was the keynote speaker at this Penn State Conference during the tenure of Penn State President Graham Spanier. Last week, of course, the Penn State Board of Trustees fired Spanier. Shockingly, this Conference was not an isolated event on President Spanier’s watch. To the contrary, it appears as if part of Penn State’s mission during President Spanier’s tenure was to promote and encourage all manner of depravity and immorality in the name of academic freedom and free speech. In Feb. 2001, Penn State’s Womyn’s Concerns hosted a “Sex Faire”. This taxpayer funded event included games such as “pin the clitoris on the vulva” and “orgasmo bingo”. It also included a “Tent of Consent” where students were allowed to engage in any behavior they desired. World Net Daily reports other events.
At this time, then Pennsylvania State Representative John Lawless tried to stop these sort of events at Penn State. Not surprisingly, Rep. Lawless objected to Pennsylvania taxpayers funding such events. The Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee held a hearing. At the hearing, Penn State President Graham Spanier said he would not stop such events because Penn State was committed to free speech. When asked if the programs were wrong or immoral, Spanier said “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.”
In the end, Rep. Lawless sadly reported that “You can’t touch Penn State. * * * Football is more important than education and morals.”
Put simply, Penn State supported and sponsored the exact activities that the university now says it finds objectionable and repulsive. President Spanier once testified that those activities were protected free speech. The university’s current about-face is not credible.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/penn-state-and-the-church?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2011-11-13#ixzz1drLZXouY

30% of molested children will molest their own children, 80% of 21 year olds who were molested as children meet criteria for some form of mental illness, 14% of men and 36% of women in prison were abused as children, and abused girls are 25% more likely to experience teen pregnancy so the “help” which the child molester offers is inconceivably misplaced and unwanted by the abused child and society at large. This is the humble opinion of this Catholic, who will not walk away from any situation of abuse but jump into the shower and right down the throat of the perpetrator, period.

North Carolina vs. Mississippi

2011-11-08T20:17:00.000-08:00

Today Mississippi votes on a “personhood” amendment. Yesterday victims of a sterilization program in North Carolina spoke out on “Rock Center with Brian Williams”. These two articles strike me as: one) they are both about reproductive rights, but two) they are also both about “personhood”.

“North Carolina was one of 31 states to have a government run eugenics program. By the 1960s, tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized as a result of these programs.

Eugenics was a scientific theory that grew in popularity during the 1920s. Eugenicists believed that poverty, promiscuity and alcoholism were traits that were inherited. To eliminate those society ills and improve society’s gene pool, proponents of the theory argued that those that exhibited the traits should be sterilized. Some of America’s wealthiest citizens of the time were eugenicists including Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble fortune and James Hanes of the hosiery company. Hanes helped found the Human Betterment League which promoted the cause of eugenicists.

It began as a way to control welfare spending on poor white women and men, but over time, North Carolina shifted focus, targeting more women and more blacks than whites. A third of the sterilizations performed in North Carolina were done on girls under the age of 18. Some were as young as nine years old."

For the past eight years, North Carolina lawmakers have been working to find a way to compensate those involuntarily sterilized in the state between 1929 and 1974. During that time period, 7,600 people were sterilized in North Carolina. Of those who were sterilized, 85 percent of the victims were female and 40 percent were non-white.” (Rock Center, 7/11/11)

So what we have here is classic victimization. Women and minorities bore the brunt of the forced sterilizations, although anyone deemed “undesirable” would have fallen under the “guidance” of the governmental program. Suffice it to say none of the victims would have been the daughters of industrial or governmental officials, they were the wheat which meads out the judgment to the chaff.

It reminds me of abortion. “How pray tell is that?” The answer is obvious; the baby will drain the parent’s resources, the baby is unwanted, the baby is a psychological hardship, the baby will cause the mother to suffer physically, the baby is just like a good for nothing so and so that drains our society of all its goodness, like someone who would qualify for the eugenics program in North Carolina in the 1960’s.

The baby is not a result of miraculous conception. The baby is a result of two people having sex, unless it was conceived using In Vitro Fertilization which is also a eugenic process. People who are pro-choice should be pro-choice and recognize that 99% of the pregnancies aborted are simply incredibly cruel forms of birth control. Abortion is not actually pro-choice at all but an attempt to invalidate a choice; just as the powers that be seek to invalidate the lives of the victims of forced sterilization.

To sterilize a person is to extinguish that person from the infinity of time. I believe it is in the Midrash of the Jewish faith in which it is explained that to kill a person is not only to kill that individual but also all the persons of his or her lineage and so it is an incredibly grave matter, in other words every murderer is a serial killer with an infinite number of victims over an infinite number of lost generations. The state has tried to erase that person who was sterilized from the fabric of time. A mother who terminates her otherwise viable pregnancy faces the same reality; do you see how sick abortion is? It erases a son or daughter out of time for all eternity.

If one does not believe in the personhood of the baby in the womb then forced sterilization is a victimless crime. For what is taken from the individual but their fertility and fertility only means one thing, a womb will never grow money. What has been taken, as Governor Perdue also states, is more valuable than money it is our children.

One man, one woman, one marriage, zero bigots?

2011-11-02T18:54:00.000-07:00

Oh, to have it all to do over! I was about a year into my Catholic adventure and I was in an Ethics class at Regis. I allowed myself to be silenced. I was too timid to speak out against the conventional wisdom “They are just in love! What’s wrong with that?” What indeed? Let’s take a sober look at truths so simple we take them for granted; that marriage must be between a man and a woman. I can say this without hatred and thus sans bigotry, just saying sheesh.

What is love? What is marriage and why? People assume so much of marriage; that it’s only a social matter involving visiting our loved ones in the hospital and receiving their benefits or their property. I say, “Stuff the benefits!” and I would still marry Melissa again tomorrow.

Marriage is a sacrament, only in the Catholic Church incidentally, but that only makes me more sure of the veracity of the Catholic faith. A sacrament is an outer sign of an inner reality. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife; that they shall be made one flesh.” Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24, as recorded in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7, as He spoke of marriage and our bodies bare out the expression of that spiritual reality. For just as man and women fit together “like puzzle pieces from the clay” (Iron and Wine, from the song “Such Great Heights”) so too do our souls, bonding us mystically together in a love like that of the Trinity. So too is that love fertile, like the Trinitarian model, children being the result through the will of God. If a man and a woman are infertile they must still be open to the possibility that children may one day arrive regardless of what anyone says to the contrary.

This openness to the possibility of life shields the couple from the temptation that one would simply use the other expressly for sex, thus depriving them of their human dignity and turning them into a vessel of self-serving pleasure. This is one example of what’s wrong with pornography, this is also an example of what’s wrong with contraception, and this is what’s wrong with homosexuality too. There I said it homosexuality is disordered, like contraception though so if you are gay and some Christian is giving you a hard time ask them if they use contraceptives. These two are morally similar, except contraceptives which are abortive are far worse, and most Christians are just like the rest of culture so most use contraception. Sex is given meaning and dignity in marriage rather than trying to find our meaning by a sexual act.

So many people try to define themselves as “sexual beings”; they beg to be used to attain some sort of self esteem. It creates a perversion of personality with sex, sexual attraction, superficial “sexy” fashion, and an overall compression of human existence into a Pandora’s Box of mischaracterized self-worth. When one runs up against the many limitations of this life style the answer must be, “I need to be sexier.” One comes to this conclusion easier it seems than a more rudimentary answer that, “I am not my sexuality!” there is no such thing as a “sexual being”. One is so much more than who one can possess in some infinitesimally small manner.

We are saved by our ability to give and not by what we are able to receive. We can never receive enough of what we think we need in order to be whole, for the more we seem to get the more we realize how much more there is which we lack, and so instead of filling a hole we dig one. We can only start to give of ourselves and that is where we find God. Marriages, and their resulting families, are made for this smelting furnace of human transformation.

These couples who live according to Church teaching are attempting to live in God’s will and learning to forsake their own. To choose to do God’s will is obviously basic Christianity; to do God’s will over our own is to love God and trust in His love of us. This is an expression of intimacy, to do the others will over your own because of love; anything else is simply playing at intimacy.

This intimacy, this opening of hearts, creates the seedbed in which the seed of children flourish. To create a family through this model is to create support and strength. This is the purpose of marriage to create human flourishing into future generations. The purpose of marriage is to draw us out of ourselves and into our most loving relationships. These are object lessons into the mystery of Trinitarian love and the very heart of the Christian faith.

Can a homosexual marriage cause human flourishing? Gay couples say yes, children of homosexual couples generally say yes. There is a fundamental issue with the homosexual experience however it is that sex, sexual orientation, and gender, are up in the air but also at the very center of the parental understanding of “self”.

So what we have are ideas basic to identity, though not exclusive to identity, which are both fluid and central. I have encountered parents of this parenting style who say “I am here to love and support my child in any of their decisions.” They say this though they are speaking of toddlers. The problem with this approach is that the hardest part of loving children is guiding them, this is called parenting.

Parenting effectively is the best way to minimize the skyrocketing trend of sociopathic behavior. Narcissism is no longer a psychologically applicable diagnosis due to its flourishing in the culture at large. Children need firm boundaries and self awareness in order to cultivate empathy. It’s good for children to be in touch with how they feel; but that is not the extent of their ability to feel, unless they are not parented.

This is not necessarily or exclusively a homosexual parenting problem, but in a household which would seem to cherish a child’s personal expression and introspection over and above providing definitive structure and traditional morays which sets that child up to be lost and ungrounded.

Many homosexual couples wish to create a child with as much of their own biological information as possible; this inevitably means IVF, In Vitro fertilization. This is going to offend some, but IVF is not a moral way to have children. The first issue is that people simply believe they are entitled to children simply because they desire them. This trend is indicative of the narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies of the culture at large. We are out of touch with nature but very much in touch with what is commercially expedient.

Our pride is not the most morally objectionable reason to be opposed to IVF; the big reason is that it is eugenics in action. The created embryos are separated into tiers of perceived genetic value and all but the top tier is flushed or washed down the drain. These are all not just genetic material we can do with what we will but outside the lab in a natural environment these are our sons and daughters. The cry will go up “not until they implant” but even before they implant these embryos are communicating chemically saying “I am here. I am on my way.” To which the body of the mother responds with activity which welcomes that new life. There is in nature a precursory chemical bond of communication well before a baby finds its home in its mother’s womb.

In an essay entitled “Gay Rights” by Martha Nussbaum she states that homosexual households have “a more equal division of labor”. This argument makes parity a virtue and totally discredits the importance that the sexes must adapt to in one’s spouse. Mothers and fathers have different strengths and weaknesses. This is not effectively countered by saying one partner is more masculine or feminine in their approach. This is ridiculous because they actually aren’t; what is advanced instead is simply the construct they have made to mask the short coming they perceive in their personality and the opposite sex should be offended by the caricature. There are actual differences between sexes. These should be seen as strengths in the relationship not an invitation to unequal division of labor.

Relationships between a man and a woman are intended to be places of giving and growth because we have such differences as sexes. Men believe they know what men need; men believe men need license to do what they want. Dan Savage has called for open sexual relationships; Mr. Savage asserts that the idea of men being faithful is not natural. He thinks marriage is a construct which keeps women submissive and directly under the thumb of their men and they would be much better off under the insecurity of an open sexual relationship in marriage.

What men truly need is not the license to have open sexual relationships! What men need is to learn to be devoted and dedicated husbands and fathers! Studies I’ve read have always confirmed that women and children are much more at risk outside of stable marriages. Men can be taught to be nobler beasts but not without a structure which makes them grow up. If men are given license in the most sacred area of the relationship license for the rest of it is just assumed. The resulting man-boy would have a free reign of terror over the household and the very man Dan Savage rails against would be created, a real misogynist.

Take Titanic for instance, women and children first except for the type of man no man should want to be, the man who places himself above everyone else and places himself pompously in the life raft amid the women and children and any other scoundrels. Real men die for their love and they die for what’s honorable and what’s noble; they will die for their families. They follow the example of Christ, but not out of their fallen human nature but because that Christ-like love has taught them discipline and respect and their love of the sacraments have given them the chances and grace needed on their journey to imitate Christ for the sake of their families.

Children are always blessings; parents however are not. The basis for what is good and true is not simply whatever is good for “me”. The basis for what is good brings us out of our own self-interest. This truth excludes some paths out of hand. Homosexual marriage falls under this category.

Waiting for the Flood: Noah in the Midrash and NYPS Sex Ed.

2011-10-18T21:51:00.000-07:00

The Midrash, literally “story” in Hebrew, explains the Hebrew Bible and is a vital part of the rabbinic tradition. I find as I look at the push, in the New York school system for example, for compulsory sexual education that the void of moral and practical context is in effect not a solution but actually will compound the problem. We are in effect waiting for the flood.

The midrashic teaching on the time of Noah presents a time of noise. People had lost the ability to communicate because nothing had any meaning. Sex was not a part of the marital conversation between a man and a woman; people just had sex with everything and anything and nothing was channeled or directed. Conversation is, or rather was, more than just shouting at one another our positions; it is an engagement and it is the process of relationship. The flood then is seen as a quieting of the noise and a return to a primordial silence.

Noah built a tebah, an ark, but actually translates as “box” and in later Hebrew as “word”. Noah is said to have himself not been described as heroic or noble; but God had a place in His heart for him. In fact Noah is described as being absent of the word; illustrated in that after God told him to build an ark and of the flood he said nothing in return, no prayers for humanity and no questions. Noah simply does what he was told and finds himself in the anti-flood world of the ark. A celibate life of service to God’s creation now encapsulated within a floating coffin. The Hebrew tradition explains the celibacy in that God called them to enter the arc separately by sex and they were called by God to exit as husband and wife. Noah is said to have worked to feed the animals on their time schedule twenty four hours a day everyday for forty days and nights, just as God does. So the arc is truly the antithesis to the pre-flood world. Life on the arc is ordered, if not naturally ordered, it is supernaturally ordered. It is like a seed or a word filled with meaning waiting to land as all things must to truly live.

The word falls flat upon the ear, Noah is not God, and he pines for the arc. He longs for the God-like stature he held on the arc. So he tastes another kind of apple, alcohol. He becomes drunk, self medicating his sorrows and ennui, letting everything loses order in a morass of self indulgence. His son also pines away for power and attempts to usurp his flagging father while he’s passed out. We return to the fallen world of pre-flood Earth. This is a cautionary tale.

Enter New York Schools in an attempt to mitigate the effects of sex on the youth of New York they have instituted a policy of mandatory sex education with complimentary condom usage demo.

I read an article in the Denver Post on Sunday Tina Griego, a Denver Post Columnist, wrote about the Florence Crittenton school for teen families. She wrote both of how a teen mother and her boyfriend used only condoms because she was afraid of her mother finding oral birth control pills. They used the prescribed method of birth control of the New York school system and yet she still got pregnant at fifteen. A second pregnant fifteen year old at the event got pregnant intentionally because she wanted the love and attention she felt a baby would provide. Condoms do not stop that sort of misguided longing. The communication is garbled to our youth there is too much noise and false promise.

Sex will not make you happy. Sex is for the creation of a totally dependent life. There is a correlation between teen pregnancy and abject poverty. Sex ed has been taught for 40 years and rates of STDs and unintended pregnancies continue to rise. Schools will not be responsible for what they teach about sex until students who are the pregnant fruit of these programs sue them. I hate to suggest litigation but the schools feel no consequence for their actions and it is the children who have to suffer.

No child can give consent to have sex; in fact neurological research suggests that we probably shouldn’t be able to give our consent until about twenty-five years of age. I am not suggesting that course of legislation; I bring it up to highlight how vulnerable children are. Children need our guidance. They need us to be clear and concise. They need us to be authoritative. When we fall short of this it is abusive and we are passively contributing to the sexual abuse of every child who has sex.

What we are creating is a society where sex is for everything but what sex is for; which is the noise the Midrash warns of in the pre-flood society of Noah’s age. Information is everywhere and communication is nowhere. The floodwaters were described as the ultimate crushing noise and following that crescendo was utter silence.

The Midrash tells a cautionary tale but the answers are intuitive. The Tebah floated over the water like the Spirit of God in first Genesis. The side of the Tebah was opened and life poured out of it. The Tebah was the word the word was made flesh in Jesus. The story of the flood ends in a sorrowful Noah for he longed for intimacy with God. Jesus brings us an invitation to intimacy through Him. Through His life, death, and resurrection Jesus has made the answers of the flood more than intuitive. He has made sex, marriage, and family accessible to communication by giving them definite meaning. We transgress those laws at our own peril, waiting for a flood if you will.

Greece’s suicide rate, occupy Wall Street, and you

2011-10-17T22:44:00.000-07:00

For the first half of this year Greece has seen a 40 percent increase in the suicide rate compared to the same time last year. The sharp increase may seem intuitive or inevitable to many people but to me it seems like the most absurd waste. Life it seems has a price as the Greek economy dissolves and individuals throughout their society are touched some, many by any standard, are choosing to kill themselves. Individuals are losing hope. Hope cannot be appropriately placed in something such as an economy or one’s hope for a bit of an economy; hope can only be securely placed in God.

The disordered lives of individuals are, perhaps inevitably, becoming lethal. If one places their relationship with God fully out of mind, even if one robotically attends mass once a week, and their relationship with material goods is perpetually at the fore life in Greece becomes unbearable. The fact that for many these suicidal tendencies do not suggest the need for a reevaluation of one’s priorities but a dirt nap is incredible. That is the intellectual thing to do though is it not? Socrates can’t complain can he? The Socratic precedent has simply become the way Greeks deal with hardship and the Greek government.

They feel hopeless in spite of their own “occupy Athens” protests. Why? What lessons can we draw in answer to our own “occupy fill in the blank” which sprouted from the “occupy Wall Street” protest?

Protesters see themselves as the ninety-nine percent who have not been bailed out by the nanny state. The nanny state was described by Noam Chomsky in his book “Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World” which postulates American capitalism being a sham propped up by the Federal government. The book is a transcription of a talk delivered at Harvard University, April 13, 1996. The talk obviously predates the Obama administration’s stimulus and bailouts this talk exposes a pattern of bailouts of all of the nation’s banks and elite corporations overtime. It seems virtually no industry or bank has felt real economic forces without the safety of the nanny state to bail them out. Our present situation is not a new problem but an exacerbation of the status quo.

What the protesters seem most generally to be asking for is their cut in what the “one percent” enjoy. Greece has actually experienced what this looks like having had such a bloated civil government that it found that level of government involvement; though job inducing, totally unsustainable. So the idea that the answer is to increase the umbrella of the nanny state to involve every citizen of the United States of America has proven misguided.

Some say that the nanny state umbrella should be removed entirely, seemingly embodied by “The Tea Party” at the other end of the spectrum. I recall seeing a bumper sticker which exclaimed, “More Freedom!” My thought about the bumper stickers sentiment was, “Boy that would take a lot more personal responsibility than America can muster at the moment.”

In order to eliminate external control internal control must make it redundant. Internal control is absent without a well formed conscience which we choose to follow. The following excerpt is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

ARTICLE 6 - MORAL CONSCIENCE

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment.... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.... His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."[47]

. Moral conscience makes the laws of government redundant; but without individual citizens with well formed consciences the call to dramatically increase or decrease the role of government simply becomes a call to fascism. We can see this illustrated by thinking of George Orwell’s “1984” on one end of the spectrum and Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” on the other. Neither ideology is free of a fascist trajectory. The key becomes internal control and conscience.

As the individual engages with the conscience and builds the discipline to act out of the conscience the actual end becomes clear; the end must be engaging with God. The search for truth will eventually lead us to the ultimate truth, the search for love leads us to the ultimate love, the search for hope leads us to the ultimate hope; hope in Jesus Christ.

So hope must not be placed in currencies and their zones or what these currencies promise to purchase for what they ultimately purchase is disappointment. This disappointment may lead to soaring suicide rates as is Greece but the remedy awaits our understanding in the person of Jesus Christ.

Capital Punishment

2011-09-25T21:11:00.000-07:00

On September 21^st 2011 two men were put to death by the state. Troy Davis was executed in Georgia and Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed in Texas. Davis’ steadfast declarations of his innocence and other circumstances around his case seemed to make him worthy of mercy in many people’s eyes while Brewer’s hate crime and definite guilt made his case almost an afterthought for many, his is not the obvious of the two to discuss while decrying the death penalty. I witnessed this while trying to find his name for this essay. I typed “executions September 21, 2011” and only Davis came up so I added “Texas” to the Google search and only one article rose to the top over the shadow of Davis. I believe it was wrong for the State to have executed either men, and I will not leave Lawrence Russell Brewer out of the discussion for convenience sake.

In his essay “What do Murderers Deserve?” David Gelernter wrote for Commentary in the Utne Reader, “Why execute murderers? To deter? To avenge? Supporters of the death penalty often give the first answer, opponents the second. But neither can be the whole truth.”

He continues, “In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher Robert Nisbet wrote: “Until a catharsis has been effected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and, above all, contaminated.”

When a murder takes place, the community is obliged to clear its throat and step up to the microphone. Every murder demands a communal response. Among possible responses, the death penalty is uniquely powerful because it is permanent. An execution forces the community to assume forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech that allows no waffling or equivocation.”

                Gelernter states in the same essay, “Opponents of capital punishment describe it as a surrender to emotions—to grief, rage, fear, blood lust. For most supporters of the death penalty, this is false. Even when we resolve in principle to go ahead, we have to steel ourselves. Many of us would find it hard to kill a dog, much less a man. Endorsing capital punishment means not that we yield to our emotions but that we overcome them. If we favor executing murderers, it is not because we want to but because, however much we do not want to, we consider ourselves obliged to.”
                The argument Gelernter makes falls right into the hands of the major criticisms of the utilitarianism his argument espouses: 1) it ignores the rights of the minority 2) it allows innocent people to suffer.
                Davis’ case highlights these two criticisms especially in that his guilt was in question and yet he was put to death. What Davis’ case thus also highlights is that there is greater utility for society in protecting it from an unjustly executed governmental institution which fosters the lowest qualities of humanity while suppressing and/or numbing the greatest qualities.
                Both sides desire telos (purpose) for society through their espoused views on the death penalty. The purpose we seek must be to elevate the value of life; Gelernter insists that to execute the murderer is to say life is so important it is worth killing for.   Capital punishment becomes the ultimate statement of the importance of life. This seems backwards because it is backwards.
                Lawrence Russell Brewer’s life had value in spite of the grotesque nature of his crime. His victim, James Bird Jr.’s life had an infinite and immeasurable value, but even if Brewer devalued his own life by committing an act as completely horrible as the way he murdered Mr. Bird, according to the universality of Kant’s categorical imperative a murderer condemns him or herself to death, Brewer’s life still had meaning and purpose. When the state refuses to kill it’s convicted felons it sends a real message about the importance of human life and the reality of the horror of murder.
                When the state murders a convict in its care, it blurs the universality and concreteness of the message, “Murder is wrong.” If the state can rationalize murder, so too can we, and anybody’s murder might be simply a couple rationalized thoughts away.
                Capital punishment teaches society not about justice, but shows through its own example about sociopathic behavior and implies a virtue therein. In our hearts there is always an exception to the rule and that exception is us. Justice must uphold that we are not so special or the categorical imperative falls apart. The closer we get to characters in the state of anomie, the further we are from justice.
                In order to have the rule of law, the state must be the chief proponent of the rule of law; otherwise the law becomes so many empty words.

Why I Hate "The Playboy Club"

2011-09-21T12:58:00.000-07:00

Playboy and I have a history. I don’t want us to have a future. I know what many will say, “If you don’t want to watch it nobody’s holding a gun to your head and making you watch.” That is such a naïve retort. First of all it’s called coercion look into it, the show is on a station which wants you to watch it so the advertising is pervasive. Second of all and more threatening is the fact that it’s in my house regardless of how I feel about it. “The Playboy Club” and shows of its ilk are simply a careless flick of the channel away and my boys like to carelessly flick the remote.

The problem is that the more ideas of this humanist and materialist nature are shoved down our throats the more opportunity our children have to be influenced. There are so many parents who just let their kids get washed away with the tide of culture. When girls march by in their bikini tops they opine, “Oh it’s just an Abercrombie thing.” Excuse me but if a kid strolled by in his white hood and robe would the same parent say, “Oh it’s just a Klan thing.” I think not.

The “Abercrombie thing” like the “Playboy thing” or the “Pink thing” dehumanizes, commoditizes, and sexualizes girls at younger and younger ages. They are the perfect commodities in that they consume product in order that they become commodities which are used as products. They are fed upon in a negatively symbiotic relationship. Thus becoming complicit in their own victimization and so it becomes impossible to uncover the source of one’s suicidal tendencies. It’s the perfect crime. O.K. so she may not die bodily, although it’s been known to happen, maybe her soul simply dies. Oh well a soul is hard to care for and not at all relevant to ones superficial gain.

These girls become images which will not be erased from the minds of our boys. I don’t mean that in a romantic or sentimental or nostalgic way; I mean they will be used as a personal attempt at self gratification.

In my experience it’s not as though one sits around and remembers exact moments from one’s past, though that will happen. The real danger is in one’s changed vision going forward. Once we begin to react to persons as commodities we seek out more commoditized visions and interactions, interactions we attempt to use and control; interactions which are less personal, less interactive, more superficial and more damaging.

We are very selective about the television we watch at our house and we are ever pruning shows away. I don’t want to watch “The Biggest Loser” this year or probably ever again. Even shows which purport to be for the good have to have an element of sex and sexism. Women are given the good fortune of being made sexy by people who are also trying to be made the icon of sexy. What a waste of time.

I just want to defend my family and my own soul too. So nobody has to have a relationship with Playboy anymore.

Oh Snap!

2011-09-16T22:19:00.000-07:00

SNAP EXPOSED:

Unmasking the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

President

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights 1

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) held a national conference in Washington, D.C., July 8-10. This report details what happened.

Over the past decade, Catholics have been rocked by revelations of priestly abuse. Bad judgments were made; cover-ups took place; and inexcusable conduct was tolerated. Much of the criticism has been constructive, and to that extent, welcomed. But some has been malicious. There is a profound difference between reasoned criticism and irrational assaults on the Catholic Church. What happened at the SNAP event clearly fell in the latter category.

Catholics understand the anger that many have about the way things were handled in some dioceses. When anger becomes a pattern, however, it can consume. Indeed, it can blur one's vision, leading to irrational and wholly indefensible accusations. This is precisely what has happened to SNAP, and to its allies. Logic, reason and evidence no longer matter: what matters is payback. Make no mistake about it; SNAP has decided to wage war on the Catholic Church.

There are many good reasons why the proceedings of the SNAP conference should concern Catholics, but none is more salient than the precarious state of due process rights for priests. A hostile climate is evident in many parts of the country, so much so that prosecutors, judges and juries are not inclined to see accused priests as innocent. This is due, in no small way, to the pressure being applied by professional victims' groups and their sister organizations, as well as their allies in law and the media. It does not exaggerate to say that there is a vested ideological and economic interest in putting the worst possible face on the Catholic Church these days. This conference being Exhibit A.

SNAP bills itself as "the largest, oldest and most active support group for women and men wounded by religious authority figures (priests, ministers, bishops, deacons, nuns and others)." In fact, it rarely deals with ministers, and there are few "others." Almost all of its work is directed at the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it has succeeded in getting others to believe its propaganda. To wit: the recent John Jay College report on the "Causes and Context" of priestly sexual abuse said that "SNAP has developed into a national movement of support for victims of sexual abuse by any church leader and, more recently, all victims of sexual abuse by any person in a position of authority." Not true. As if more evidence were needed, the entire SNAP conference was focused exclusively on priests and the Catholic Church.

The information about the SNAP conference contained in this report was provided by individuals who were there. They have impeccable credentials and are a trusted source. What they saw and heard is disturbing, and not just to those who are grateful for all the good work that Catholic priests have done, and continue to do: 2

any fair-minded person would be just as taken aback by what occurred. Imbued with rage, most of the presentations had all the markings of a people possessed by revenge. Their goal has less to do with helping victims than it does in punishing the Catholic Church.

What follows is an account of the SNAP conference as it was related to me by persons who attended the event. [In describing some of the speakers, biographical and other information was added.] Not all of the break-out sessions were monitored, and not all of those which were monitored are mentioned. The major presentations, of course, are covered, and direct quotes are occasionally offered. While some of the presentations were informational, others were more in the vein of an agit-prop workshop straight out of the 1960s. The latter proved to be quite revealing.

There were approximately 110-130 people in attendance at the conference. All were white and approximately 60% were female (one male wore a Voice of the Faithful T-shirt). The ages ranged from about 40-75; the majority were 55-65. Attendees were seated according to the state in which they reside; only a few were represented.

The recurring theme of the conference was the evil nature of the Catholic Church. The word "evil" was used repeatedly to describe "the institution." There was no presumption of innocence: accused priests were spoken of as if they were guilty, and this was true of all the speakers, including the attorneys.

Christine Courtois made a presentation, "Relational and Betrayal Trauma," that offered a "psychological analysis" of the impact of sexual abuse. The seminaries, the psychologist said, were a "breeding ground" of sexual activity and abuse. In keeping with the established narrative, she denied the role of homosexuality in the abuse scandal, opting to blame pedophilia. Without offering any evidence, she remarkably created a new class of victims: she contended that "therapists are vicariously traumatized" by their own patients.

An "Overview of the Philadelphia Grand Jury Reports" was offered by William Spade. He was an Assistant District Attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office from 1995-2004. His relationship with Catholicism is eclectic. "I don't like the institution," he allows, "but I like the faith."

Cardinal Justin Rigali, the outgoing Archbishop of Philadelphia, was described by Spade as a "cagey and wily" guy who made a "cagey move" to replace the Secretary of the Clergy position in the archdiocese with a review board comprised 3

of priests. But there is nothing "cagey" about adopting the same panel that almost all the other dioceses have adopted. No matter, to Spade, the review board was simply a "legal buffer" that allowed Cardinal Rigali to "shield himself from legal liability in priest abuse cases." Of course, had Rigali chosen not to establish such a board—breaking ranks with most of the other bishops—he would have been pilloried for doing so.

When Spade was in the D.A.'s office, the man he wanted to get more than anyone else was Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, the former Archbishop of Philadelphia (they always go after the top cleric). To Spade's chagrin, he noted that Bevilacqua was able to escape again and again. He did not say why he always failed. After striking pay dirt, Spade went into private practice. What he drew from his experience, he told the audience, was that the best way to prosecute the Catholic Church was at the federal level.

Despite what Spade said, Cardinal Bevilacqua would have been irresponsible had he not demanded evidence when allegations were made against his priests. Isn't that what all employers would do? Spade told the gathering that he didn't like it when Bevilacqua said he needed more in the way of proof before asking accused priests to step down. This just goes to show how thin the evidence has to be before lawyers like Spade jump to conclusions.

Spade also told the conference that Bevilacqua has moved from the "palatial quarters" of the seminary to his niece's "estate" in Bucks County. Indeed, he claimed that both the niece and her husband are physicians and have "concocted" a diagnosis of dementia in order to help him escape indictment. Naturally, not one of the attendees pressed him to offer evidence of this matter.

When it comes to attorneys who have made a career out of suing the Catholic Church, Jeffrey Anderson has no equal. The Minnesota lawyer was raised as a Lutheran. But that didn't work out so he became a Catholic. Then he became an atheist. Not just an ordinary one—he became a self-described "dedicated atheist." Then he had another conversion: last year he described himself as "deeply religious." His religious convictions, however, proved not to be too deep, which is why he is now touted as an "agnostic."

Anderson has had a checkered life in more ways than one. A hippie who dropped out of college, he sold shoes after finally graduating from the University of Minnesota. He didn't have an easy time at William Mitchell College of Law, but the diminutive 5'4" activist was emboldened when, in his last year in school, he won a highly questionable case: he successfully defended a homeless black man who urinated in a church, charging that the white and wealthy churchgoers were 4

racist. Then he went on to bigger things, such as defending accused murderers and gay activists fighting bathhouse raids.

A recovering alcoholic, he claims his daughter was molested by a therapist when she was eight. While he has no history of exhibiting a vendetta against therapists, he has a long, and profitable, record of suing the Catholic Church. In one settlement alone, he netted half a billion dollars; he regularly collects upwards of 40 percent from each settlement. Not surprisingly, the lion's share of his work is directed at the Catholic Church.

Anderson led a legal panel at the conference that included Church-suing attorneys Jeffrey Herman and Mitchell Garabedian. Virtually the entire session was devoted to discussing the legal impediments to suing the Church. The biggest problem, they said, was the way the statute of limitations differed from state to state. Never once was it even hinted at that these statutes were written to protect the constitutional rights of the accused. Without due process, civil liberties are a sham. Yet to these trial lawyers, they are nothing but an unfair intrusion on their work. For Anderson, in particular, eliminating the statute of limitations is a vital weapon. In fact, he wants to see this happen globally, making it easier to sue the Catholic Church around the world.

This mindset is not above entertaining cabals. "The USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] is aligned with the Republican party and insurance companies," and together they are "actively lobbying against changing the statute of limitations around the country." Of course, no evidence was presented to support this absurd claim. More hyperventilation surfaced when it was observed that settlements with the Church are still taking place, and confidentiality clauses are still being used. This raises the question: why would those who purport to be interested in justice have a problem with alleged victims who settle out of court? Thus do they give their real hand away. Then came the roar, "DO NOT GET GAGGED!"

When Anderson said that the lawsuits are not about the money, he was speaking honestly. To be sure, money is a major motivator for his clients. But greed is not what fires him. No, what inspires him, and those of his ilk, is something deeper, something money can't buy. Hatred. That's the only way to understand why Anderson continues to file suit after suit against the Vatican—nothing would make him happier than to bring down the pope. Even though Anderson continues to lose, the outside chance that he might get the pope is enough to get his juices going.

Garabedian, a Boston attorney, isn't interested in balancing the scales of justice: he wants to go for the kill. "This immoral entity, the Catholic Church, should be 5

defeated. We must stand up and defeat this evil." That's exactly what he told the true believers. Candid statements like this give the lie to the argument that those who routinely bring suits against the Church are doing so out of fidelity to the law. Nonsense. What drives them is not outreach to alleged victims—what ignites them is the satisfaction of going after the Catholic Church. I learned this first-hand when I recently called Garabedian asking if he had any remorse after a spurious lawsuit he filed against a fine priest was tossed by the judge. What prompted my call was the revelation that the priest, though never found guilty of anything, died a broken man—this was the attorney's second lawsuit against him! Garabedian not only showed no remorse, he went ballistic when questioned.

A breakout session, "The Culture of Narcissism and the Spirituality of Reform," featuring Richard Sipe, Marianne Benkert and Tom Doyle, was the most incendiary of them all. Indeed, it was so bad that the anger was described as "off-the-charts." Here is another description of what transpired: "Each presenter in this session exhibited a very high level of hatred and anger towards the Church. They exhibited a visceral, deep-seated hatred of the Church." The persons who offered this commentary, it should be noted, are not given to hyperbole, making their report all the more disturbing.

Sipe is a former Benedictine monk who has been ripping the Church for years. He bluntly told the crowd, "The Church is corrupt." Worse, he opined, "Abuse is only the tip of the iceberg." He did not allude to what was next. Without evidence, he claimed that "six to nine percent of priests are involved in the sexual abuse of minors." The cause of molestation, he alleged, is narcissism. "Narcissism is embedded in the clerical culture that produces sexual abuse." No attempt was made to explain why self-absorbed people are more likely to be molesters, as opposed to, say, thieves. Random assertions like this went uncontested throughout the conference.

Benkert, a psychiatrist, is also a proponent of the narcissism thesis. She maintained there are many ways in which the Church manifests this trait, among them being the following: the Church refuses to acknowledge sin; it engages in scapegoating; it sacrifices others; it is a master of disguise and pretense; it fosters intellectual deviousness; it lies; it forces the faithful to submit their will to the Church; it is controlling; it causes "religious duress"; etc. She stressed that the narcissist is the personification of evil. "It can be evil in a person or in an institution," suggesting we are dealing either with evil priests or the evil Catholic Church. Finally, she told the gathering, "Sue the Church because they understand money; they are not empathetic."

It was sad to learn that the worst anti-Catholic rant of the day was delivered by Thomas Doyle, an ordained Dominican priest. The recovering alcoholic has butted 6

heads with bishops before, and after one such confrontation he was removed from a military chaplain post. He also likes to blame Pope John Paul II for the abuse scandal. At the conference, Doyle spewed out every anti-Catholic canard possible. Here are a few examples:

The Church was established by Constantine—not Jesus Christ.

The Church = fear, power, and guilt.

The Church is inauthentic and there is a "toxic religiosity" in this institution. The toxicity keeps people subjugated.

There needs to be a radical restructuring of the priesthood.

The Mass = magic words. People are compelled to sprinkle water on the forehead of babies or they will go to Hell when they die.

He referred to priestly vestments as "dresses."

"State of the Survivor Movement: Amazing Successes and Challenges Ahead" was the subject of Barbara Blaine's talk; she also provided an update on SNAP. Blaine, who is the founder and president of SNAP, is known for justifying a raid by Belgian police on churches looking for damaging evidence. She has also said that while aggrieved priests who countersue have "a LEGAL right to sue others, [they] don't have a MORAL right to do so." [Her emphasis.] So much for equal rights. Her "state of the survivor movement" presentation was simply a photo montage of various events, demonstrations and press conferences held by SNAP.

What was most noteworthy about Blaine's session was the role played by Anderson. Now it is well known that Church-suing attorneys have been generously greasing SNAP for years. But if this incestuous relationship needed further proof, it was provided in spades by Anderson. As part of an emotional financial appeal to the attendees, he stated that "this is a titanic worldwide struggle to protect children. We are 'the chosen ones' to expose the abuse and we need to organize, share, and mobilize." Then came the shakedown.

Anderson shamelessly conducted a fundraising appeal on the spot, matching dollar for dollar any donation made by an attendee. But even the multimillionaire has limits: he made it clear that he wouldn't match a $10,000 donation made by fellow attorney, Jeffrey Herman. One woman encouraged the gathering to "put SNAP in your will," and an appeal was also made to become "a sustaining member of SNAP for $25 per month"; everyone was encouraged to sign up with a credit card right then and there.

[Note: A few weeks after the conference ended, attendees were provided with a summary of its highlights. The fundraising appeal was described as an "amazing event," so much so that it was touted as "an emotionally charged moment." The 7

final tally: "The people in the room set a record for fundraising at the conference by contributing over $30,000."

Let's do the math. If Herman gave $10,000, and Anderson pledged to match all donations save for Herman's contribution, that means the attendees dished out $10,000. In other words, two steeple-chasing attorneys accounted for two-thirds of all the money raised. Absent their input, SNAP folds. Not exactly the face of a grass roots movement.]

Author Jason Berry discussed "Human Rights Movements in the Church." He also spoke about his new book, Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church, and his documentary, "Vows of Silence." According to Berry, the "face of corruption in the Catholic Church is Cardinal Angelo Sodano." It was Sodano's handling of the Father Marcial Maciel Degollado case that prompted the accusation. Berry also charged that the Church uses "property and money to blunt the force of justice."

As it turns out, Berry is the one who has little interest in justice. Here's a personal example. In Render Unto Rome he says that Father Maciel "cultivated powerful conservatives." He lists me as one of them. But I never met, corresponded with, or in any way had anything to do with the disgraced priest. Nor did I ever defend him. Berry knows all of this because I've corrected him before, putting forth the evidence. Yet he persists in lying.

In 1997, in a letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant, I took issue with a news story that reported, "Several [of the accusers] said Maciel told them he had permission from Pope Pius XII to seek them out sexually for relief of physical pain." To which I replied, "To think any priest would tell some other priest that the pope gave him the thumbs up to have sex with another priest—all for the purpose of relieving the poor fellow of some malady—is the kind of balderdash that wouldn't convince the most unscrupulous editor at any of the weekly tabloids. It is a wonder why The Courant found merit enough to print it." I will leave it to the reader to decide whether this is proof that Maciel "cultivated" a relationship with me.

"The Unmasking of the Dallas Charter and Other Recent Game-Changers" was the subject of a discussion by Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, and Terence McKiernan, founder and president of the group. Many pundits and media outlets see BishopAccountability as nothing more than an organization that tallies accusations against priests. In actual fact, its agenda, which was made positively clear at the conference, has more to do with stabbing the Catholic Church. 8

Doyle is a founder, or co-founder, of several Catholic dissident groups, including Voice of the Faithful. She told the audience that "the conspiracy begins at the Vatican" and the "zero tolerance policy is a sham." That's right—she believes that Rome is at the heart of a world-wide conspiracy to protect molesting priests (it is precisely this kind of mindset that is shared by Anderson; otherwise, he wouldn't constantly be suing the Vatican). She made it plain that she wants the names of all priests accused between 1930-1960 to be released, notwithstanding the fact that many are long dead and cannot defend themselves. She also stated that the "review boards have become a new pressure point," and that "the Gavin Group [which gathers diocesan data for the bishops] is getting worried" that their audits may be found to be flawed or false.

McKiernan informed the audience that the "Causes and Context" report by John Jay College was a "dangerous document." The report, he charged, makes the "pernicious claim that most priests had a single victim." Does he have evidence to the contrary? He presented none. According to Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, an expert on this subject, the original 2004 John Jay report found that "of the 4,392 accused priests, almost 56 percent faced only one misconduct allegation, and at least some of these would certainly vanish under detailed scrutiny." Moreover, Jenkins wrote that "Out of 100,000 priests active in the U.S. in this half-century, a cadre of just 149 individuals—one priest out of every 750—accounted for over a quarter of all allegations of clergy abuse." That's not the kind of statistic that the alleged archival group, BishopAccountability, will ever report.

McKiernan showed what he is made of when he boasted, "I hope we can find ways of sticking it to this man." The man he wants to "stick it to" is none other than the head of the New York Archdiocese, and the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Timothy Dolan. This is not the voice of someone engaged in a fact-finding mission.

McKiernan went on a rant against the New York Archbishop. Dolan was accused of being a "doctrinal enforcer" who "only cares about climbing the ladder." [That Dolan is already at the top of the ladder seems not to be understood by McKiernan.] Without a shred of evidence, he said that Dolan is "keeping the lid on 55 names" of predator priests in his archdiocese. It must be a pretty tight lid: not a single person in the entire country has ever made such a scurrilous accusation. It’s time to either put up or shut up.

David Clohessy, the executive director of SNAP, was joined by one of his colleagues, Joelle Casteix, to present a breakout session, "Working With Media to Reach Survivors and Expose Wrongdoers." There was much in the way of advice, some of which was pedestrian. But there were some eye-popping moments. 9

Clohessy took the time to share some of the ways he manipulates the media. For example, attendees were instructed that to get media attention, it is best to hold press conferences outside a chancery or a police station. If it's held outside the chancery, it makes it easy for the media because they only have to go to one location. After you are interviewed as a SNAP representative (they evidently have lots of deputies), he said, reporters will go inside to interview the diocesan PR person.

Talk, however, is not sufficient. Here are more of their schemes:

"Display holy childhood photos!" Attorneys should conduct an interview in front of the parish where the priest was assigned (on public property). Why? Because then you will get clients and you'll also have whistleblowers call you after they see the interview on TV.

Use "feeling words" in interviews: "I was scared. I was suicidal." Be sad and not mad. The goal is to make an emotional connection with the audience. If you don't have compelling holy childhood photos, we can provide you with photos of other kids that can be held up for the cameras.

Use the word "kids" as often as possible when being interviewed.

It is not certain whether the media, which generally give a sympathetic hearing to SNAP, care how orchestrated these events are. But Catholics should care. After all, what is at stake is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, rallying Americans against the Catholic Church. Staging sadness is not only phony, it is unethical.

SNAP's mission statement says its goal is to "support one another in personal healing," and to pursue "justice and institutional change by holding individual perpetrators responsible and the church accountable." But its alleged interest in "personal healing" and "justice" was not on the minds of the presenters at the conference. What was clearly evident was their expressed interest in sundering the Catholic Church.

Those who have been truly victimized by priests, or anyone else, deserve our sympathy and charity. Those who posture as a victims' support organization, as well as those who work in tandem with them, do not. SNAP and its allies have long pulled the wool over the eyes of many in the media—it's time we all looked under the mask.

Down’s Syndrome and the Eugenic Holocaust

2011-09-14T19:03:00.000-07:00

Nine of every ten fetuses diagnosed with Down’s syndrome are murdered in his or her mother’s womb. Some might wonder aloud if the test given has been proven to be 100% accurate because of the very small margin for error. That is not what I wonder because those children deserve to live regardless of their genetic makeup.

We are living in a society of decreasing tolerance and of decreasing empathy. What we desire are not so much children as perfect children. We certainly could not be burdened with the care of a child over his or her lifetime! We are too shallow for that calling; give me children that can provide some utility.

Total care requires someone with the propensity to be totally loving and devoted and we are just not those people. We deny the potential that we might grow as human beings through this blessing of human life God has placed within his or her mother’s womb and we pluck it and throw it away, unless its cells could be useful to somebody who rates care. Nine out of ten times the world loses an opportunity to love deeper and nine out of ten times an actual child loses his or her actual life.

The OB/GYN will provide the prenatal testing and the advice we need to take advantage of services which can take care of this little genetic mishap but we are the ones who will have to meet them after our own life ends. We will have to explain to them why their lives do not matter and God will also be listening from His judgment seat to see if our explanation may also damn our soul too; to see if we can escape our own judgment. I do hope you are comforted in the assurance that whatever our pithy explanation of why the individual soul in front of you could not live, it will be that soul that will intercede for us, that heroic soul will beg God for mercy on our souls. So perhaps if the irony strikes us hard enough in the face we will ourselves be saved from the sort of disposable love we lobbied for during our lives.

Some would propose that souls such as these are an evolutionary burden, but this eugenics argument misses the fact that we must not only evolve our bodies and our genetics we must evolve our sense of compassion and empathy. In order to build a strong species we must have strong interconnections in our society. The eugenics trend which seems to seek to build a stronger species fails because it undercuts the empathetic tendencies which bring humans together on a meaningful level.

No one has ever cured a disease by simply killing everybody who contracts it and Down’s syndrome is no different. Simply killing every child which pops up with Down’s is a solution only individuals with the ethos of Hitler could approve of. The “final solution” for genetic disease cannot be murder.

So as we go through our day if we should happen upon a parent of a Down’s child be especially kind for they are actually preparing for their eternal reward and we may need their good word one day.

Father Mychal Judge pray for us!

2011-09-12T21:52:00.000-07:00

Today is September 11, 2011. I write this blog today with a lot of trepidation and unease but I feel called to write it so what can I do?

Over the past week I have read about, thought about, prayed to and for Father Mychal Judge. He was a Roman Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order of the Friars Minor, Chaplain of the New York City Fire Dept., the first recorded victim of the Sept. 11 attacks at the World Trade Center, and by his own account gay.

The reason I bring this up is not to make points for or against him as an individual but to actually think about what it means; as there is a clear divide in the story telling of what his life meant. Gay bloggers have stated that he was not more out because he was afraid of his Bishop and Cardinal. Cardinal Egan stated lightheartedly, “He loved to take donations from conservative donors and give them to gay organizations.” He was the only priest to march with gay men in the first St. Patrick’s day Parade to allow their entry. He was as open as he wanted to be and was totally unafraid to make known his sexual orientation as he saw fit.

Thomas Von Essen, who was New York City’s Fire Commissioner, said he knew but kept the secret because they both knew other firefighters would not be as accepting. So it seems plain that Father Judge was more concerned about his ministry than his sexual orientation. He wanted to serve firefighters and their families and he knew he could not do that to the extent he longed to if he were as out as gay America would have him be.

Father Mychal encouraged his fellow friars who shared his orientation not to be ashamed of whom they are. How could he do that if he himself where terrified of being defrocked? “Fear not we can all be defrocked together!” Absolutely not! This was never a threat.

I read the Catechism and have noticed the word used most to express our movement toward or away from holiness is charity. Mortal sin, for instance, separates us from our ability to be charitable. This does not mean that if you are able to give someone a dollar you cannot possibly be in the state of mortal sin. There are many reasons a person would want to appear to be charitable while not letting that action penetrate into one’s heart. So the only one who knows true charity is God Himself, it is between you and our maker first and foremost.

Father Mychal certainly seemed to be charitable and to the extent one would deduce he were in the state of grace. Once again there may be no totally accurate way to deduce this but he exhibited this behavior beyond convincingly, as witnessed by his dedication to his ministry to the firefighters of NYC. Anyway, Father Mychal was a celibate priest and had also taken vows as a Franciscan of poverty, chastity, and obedience these realities lived dutifully gave Father Mychal a distinct advantage over anyone of us no matter what he called himself. Because we are not what we have the potential to be, we are what we are. We are not the sins we may commit. We can never be convicted of our potential to sin. St. Augustine had his cross to bear too. Sexual sin is not exclusive to a lesser few; we are all sinners. Maybe not of the same sin but in the light of justice everyone should be praying for mercy from God.

In the confessional once, a long time ago, Father told me, as Father Mychal told his brother friar, that if I feel shame or guilt it’s not from God. It seems God doesn’t want us to feel these negative emotions we beat ourselves up with. He said, “God just wants us back.”

I am sure on September 11, 2001 God got too many good people back and they were lead to his loving arms by victim 0001, Father Mychal Judge.

Does Jesus Love Chaz Bono?

2011-09-07T20:40:00.000-07:00

The short answer, “Yes, of course.” The actual short answer is, “Duh.” They say, “God is love.” That statement actually describes love not God. You see God is love. There is no love outside of God; this is true regardless of how we feel about it. So if we have felt any pangs or flutters we should thank God and so the closer we get to God the closer we get to love.

“Does God love us?” This is the only question we ever ask; but the actual question we should ask is, “Do we love God?” God gives and we receive; it’s like the Jordan River unless we too pass that love on, that grace, we become The Dead Sea. The Dead Sea is the end of the line for the Jordan; it tries to keep all the good stuff coming to it from the Jordan all for itself and that is why it is “Dead”. Compare that to the Sea of Galilee, another sea on the Jordan; it passes on what it is given and it teams with a diversity of life.

So love is like life and death on the Jordan. Unless we give what is given, those little fishies of love which happen upon the Sea of You will not be swimming very long.

So what does this have to do with Chaz Bono? Chaz seems to have only asked the first question. “Does Jesus love me?” and the answer is, “Yes, of course.” The next step was then not to ask the second question and start the process of being in love, but to use that answer as a battering ram to any concern placed in the way.

“Only God can judge.” This is a true and accurate statement. It is also a taunt, not to mere judgmental humans, to God. The issuer of this statement is calling God to judgment. God wants to be merciful but we bind His hands in our desire for vengeance and must drink that cup also. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us.” Jesus taught us to pray this in His prayer, it’s referred to as The Our Father or the Lord’s Prayer it can be found in Matthew 6: 9-13 and Luke 11: 2-4. It strikes at the heart of the foundation of love.

Chaz Bono desires dignity and respect from the public at large, but what is dignity? Dignity is defined as an innate right to respect and ethical treatment, the earliest theory of dignity and the truest was derived by the Church. Human beings have dignity because God created us in His image and conferred upon us the ability to reason so we have a free will like His own. “God created man a rational being, conferring upon him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.” (1730, Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Chaz Bono chose to create herself in the image of man and part with herself as the image of God, echoing the desire of the original sin to be our own gods and becoming a very dead sea. So in a sense Chaz mortally wounded Chastity Bono’s dignity. This statement is misleading though because the human will rests in the human soul and Chaz could not change Chastity’s soul anymore than he could change her DNA. So it would be closer to say that Chastity Bono’s dignity is continually being offended until she repents.

Our dignity desires us to pursue not happiness in ourselves but happiness through the beatific vision. The beatific vision is our heavenly reward; it is direct vision of and full communion with God. There have been some saints, St. Thomas Aquinas pops to mind, who have been allowed a foretaste of this vision and have reported that it should in fact be the all consuming desire of our lives. Jesus directs us towards the beatific vision as He gave us the beatitudes.

The Beatitudes

He said:

   ³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
   for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴ Blessed are those who mourn,
   for they will be comforted.
⁵ Blessed are the meek,
   for they will inherit the earth.
⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
   for they will be filled.
⁷ Blessed are the merciful,
   for they will be shown mercy.
⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart,
   for they will see God.
⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers,
   for they will be called children of God.
¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
   for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
   ¹¹ “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹² Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (The New International Bible Matthew 5: 3-12)

It may seem to some, or all, that I am transgressing the beatitudes by picking on Chaz Bono, that I am a “hater” as Chaz puts it and a pretty dead sea myself. If no one cares enough to tell the truth then we will simply fall deeper into our self absorbed miseries and no one will suggest a way out. Loving people can be scary but I have to tell you the truth regardless of how I feel.

The truth being the only way out of our self absorbed miseries is Jesus Christ. Chaz and everyone else for that matter will simply try to manipulate themselves superficially until we get to that last heartbreak; the one before we die or accept Christ. There are so many of us who would rather die bodily than die to our pride and our sin.

Considering the lack of parenting and parental self absorption Chaz has professed of Sonny and Cher. There are ample grounds for Chaz to begin understanding the mess which created the seedbed of emotional turmoil which would lead her down this road. Cher for her part has stuck up for Chaz by Tweet as of late, which is a good and positive thing for her to do. Mothers must defend their children and if she seems to be coming late to the game at least she’s there.

God’s love has amazing potential; the only problem with God’s love is us. Jesus loves you and Chaz Bono; do be good enough to return the favor.

Humanae Vitae

2011-09-05T07:01:00.000-07:00

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS
THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE,
TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL,
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

I.
PROBLEM AND COMPETENCY
OF THE MAGISTERIUM

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.
Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

New Questions

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?
Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

Interpreting the Moral Law

4. This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.
No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)
In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4)

Special Studies

5. The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for. (5)
When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.

The Magisterium's Reply

6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.
Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.

II.
DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES

7. The question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography or sociology. It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects. And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed. This is what We mean to do, with special reference to what the Second Vatican Council taught with the highest authority in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today.

God's Loving Design

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)
Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.
The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.

Married Love

9. In the light of these facts the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly.
This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (8)

Responsible Parenthood

10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.
With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

Observing the Natural Law

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Union and Procreation

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Faithfulness to God's Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Limits to Man's Power

Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the "principle of totality" enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (21)

Concern of the Church

18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.
Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.
In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage "to share God's life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men." (23)

III.
PASTORAL DIRECTIVES

19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, they did not also support mankind in the honest regulation of birth amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than did the Redeemer. She knows their weaknesses, she has compassion on the multitude, she welcomes sinners. But at the same time she cannot do otherwise than teach the law. For it is in fact the law of human life restored to its native truth and guided by the Spirit of God. (24) Observing the Divine Law.
20. The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself. And yet there is no doubt that to many it will appear not merely difficult but even impossible to observe. Now it is true that like all good things which are outstanding for their nobility and for the benefits which they confer on men, so this law demands from individual men and women, from families and from human society, a resolute purpose and great endurance. Indeed it cannot be observed unless God comes to their help with the grace by which the goodwill of men is sustained and strengthened. But to those who consider this matter diligently it will indeed be evident that this endurance enhances man's dignity and confers benefits on human society.

Value of Self-Discipline

21. The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.

Promotion of Chastity

22. We take this opportunity to address those who are engaged in education and all those whose right and duty it is to provide for the common good of human society. We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license and the norms of the moral law may be fully safeguarded.
Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture (25) or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities.

Appeal to Public Authorities

23. And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God. For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded.

Seeking True Solutions

We are fully aware of the difficulties confronting the public authorities in this matter, especially in the developing countries. In fact, We had in mind the justifiable anxieties which weigh upon them when We published Our encyclical letter Populorum Progressio. But now We join Our voice to that of Our predecessor John XXIII of venerable memory, and We make Our own his words: "No statement of the problem and no solution to it is acceptable which does violence to man's essential dignity; those who propose such solutions base them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life. The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values." (26) No one can, without being grossly unfair, make divine Providence responsible for what clearly seems to be the result of misguided governmental policies, of an insufficient sense of social justice, of a selfish accumulation of material goods, and finally of a culpable failure to undertake those initiatives and responsibilities which would raise the standard of living of peoples and their children. (27) If only all governments which were able would do what some are already doing so nobly, and bestir themselves to renew their efforts and their undertakings! There must be no relaxation in the programs of mutual aid between all the branches of the great human family. Here We believe an almost limitless field lies open for the activities of the great international institutions.

To Scientists

24. Our next appeal is to men of science. These can "considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family and also peace of conscience, if by pooling their efforts they strive to elucidate more thoroughly the conditions favorable to a proper regulation of births." (28) It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by the study of natural rhythms succeed in determining a sufficiently secure basis for the chaste limitation of offspring. (29) In this way scientists, especially those who are Catholics, will by their research establish the truth of the Church's claim that "there can be no contradiction between two divine laws—that which governs the transmitting of life and that which governs the fostering of married love." (30)

To Christian Couples

25. And now We turn in a special way to Our own sons and daughters, to those most of all whom God calls to serve Him in the state of marriage. While the Church does indeed hand on to her children the inviolable conditions laid down by God's law, she is also the herald of salvation and through the sacraments she flings wide open the channels of grace through which man is made a new creature responding in charity and true freedom to the design of his Creator and Savior, experiencing too the sweetness of the yoke of Christ. (31)
In humble obedience then to her voice, let Christian husbands and wives be mindful of their vocation to the Christian life, a vocation which, deriving from their Baptism, has been confirmed anew and made more explicit by the Sacrament of Matrimony. For by this sacrament they are strengthened and, one might almost say, consecrated to the faithful fulfillment of their duties. Thus will they realize to the full their calling and bear witness as becomes them, to Christ before the world. (32) For the Lord has entrusted to them the task of making visible to men and women the holiness and joy of the law which united inseparably their love for one another and the cooperation they give to God's love, God who is the Author of human life.
We have no wish at all to pass over in silence the difficulties, at times very great, which beset the lives of Christian married couples. For them, as indeed for every one of us, "the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life." (33) Nevertheless it is precisely the hope of that life which, like a brightly burning torch, lights up their journey, as, strong in spirit, they strive to live "sober, upright and godly lives in this world," (34) knowing for sure that "the form of this world is passing away." (35)

Recourse to God

For this reason husbands and wives should take up the burden appointed to them, willingly, in the strength of faith and of that hope which "does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us ~}36 Then let them implore the help of God with unremitting prayer and, most of all, let them draw grace and charity from that unfailing fount which is the Eucharist. If, however, sin still exercises its hold over them, they are not to lose heart. Rather must they, humble and persevering, have recourse to the mercy of God, abundantly bestowed in the Sacrament of Penance. In this way, for sure, they will be able to reach that perfection of married life which the Apostle sets out in these words: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church. . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband." (37)

Family Apostolate

26. Among the fruits that ripen if the law of God be resolutely obeyed, the most precious is certainly this, that married couples themselves will often desire to communicate their own experience to others. Thus it comes about that in the fullness of the lay vocation will be included a novel and outstanding form of the apostolate by which, like ministering to like, married couples themselves by the leadership they offer will become apostles to other married couples. And surely among all the forms of the Christian apostolate it is hard to think of one more opportune for the present time. (38)

To Doctors and Nurses

27. Likewise we hold in the highest esteem those doctors and members of the nursing profession who, in the exercise of their calling, endeavor to fulfill the demands of their Christian vocation before any merely human interest. Let them therefore continue constant in their resolution always to support those lines of action which accord with faith and with right reason. And let them strive to win agreement and support for these policies among their professional colleagues. Moreover, they should regard it as an essential part of their skill to make themselves fully proficient in this difficult field of medical knowledge. For then, when married couples ask for their advice, they may be in a position to give them right counsel and to point them in the proper direction. Married couples have a right to expect this much from them.

To Priests

28. And now, beloved sons, you who are priests, you who in virtue of your sacred office act as counselors and spiritual leaders both of individual men and women and of families—We turn to you filled with great confidence. For it is your principal duty—We are speaking especially to you who teach moral theology—to spell out clearly and completely the Church's teaching on marriage. In the performance of your ministry you must be the first to give an example of that sincere obedience, inward as well as outward, which is due to the magisterium of the Church. For, as you know, the pastors of the Church enjoy a special light of the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth. (39) And this, rather than the arguments they put forward, is why you are bound to such obedience. Nor will it escape you that if men's peace of soul and the unity of the Christian people are to be preserved, then it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice. Therefore We make Our own the anxious words of the great Apostle Paul and with all Our heart We renew Our appeal to you: "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (40)

Christian Compassion

29. Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ; but this must always be joined with tolerance and charity, as Christ Himself showed in His conversations and dealings with men. For when He came, not to judge, but to save the world, (41) was He not bitterly severe toward sin, but patient and abounding in mercy toward sinners?
Husbands and wives, therefore, when deeply distressed by reason of the difficulties of their life, must find stamped in the heart and voice of their priest the likeness of the voice and the love of our Redeemer.
So speak with full confidence, beloved sons, convinced that while the Holy Spirit of God is present to the magisterium proclaiming sound doctrine, He also illumines from within the hearts of the faithful and invites their assent. Teach married couples the necessary way of prayer and prepare them to approach more often with great faith the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance. Let them never lose heart because of their weakness.

To Bishops

30. And now as We come to the end of this encyclical letter, We turn Our mind to you, reverently and lovingly, beloved and venerable brothers in the episcopate, with whom We share more closely the care of the spiritual good of the People of God. For We invite all of you, We implore you, to give a lead to your priests who assist you in the sacred ministry, and to the faithful of your dioceses, and to devote yourselves with all zeal and without delay to safeguarding the holiness of marriage, in order to guide married life to its full human and Christian perfection. Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time. As you well know, it calls for concerted pastoral action in every field of human diligence, economic, cultural and social. If simultaneous progress is made in these various fields, then the intimate life of parents and children in the family will be rendered not only more tolerable, but easier and more joyful. And life together in human society will be enriched with fraternal charity and made more stable with true peace when God's design which He conceived for the world is faithfully followed.

A Great Work

31. Venerable brothers, beloved sons, all men of good will, great indeed is the work of education, of progress and of charity to which We now summon all of you. And this We do relying on the unshakable teaching of the Church, which teaching Peter's successor together with his brothers in the Catholic episcopate faithfully guards and interprets. And We are convinced that this truly great work will bring blessings both on the world and on the Church. For man cannot attain that true happiness for which he yearns with all the strength of his spirit, unless he keeps the laws which the Most High God has engraved in his very nature. These laws must be wisely and lovingly observed. On this great work, on all of you and especially on married couples, We implore from the God of all holiness and pity an abundance of heavenly grace as a pledge of which We gladly bestow Our apostolic blessing.

Given at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 25th day of July, the feast of St. James the Apostle, in the year 1968, the sixth of Our pontificate.

PAUL VI

NOTES

LATIN TEXT: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 60 (1968), 481-503.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The Pope Speaks, 13 (Fall. 1969), 329-46.

REFERENCES:

(1) See Pius IX, encyc. letter Oui pluribus: Pii IX P.M. Acta, 1, pp. 9-10; St. Pius X encyc. letter Singulari quadam: AAS 4 (1912), 658; Pius XI, encyc.letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 579-581; Pius XII, address Magnificate Dominum to the episcopate of the Catholic World: AAS 46 (1954), 671-672; John XXIII, encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 457.

(2) See Mt 28. 18-19.

(3) See Mt 7. 21.

(4) See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Leo XIII, encyc.letter Arcanum: Acta Leonis XIII, 2 (1880), 26-29; Pius XI, encyc.letter Divini illius Magistri: AAS 22 (1930), 58-61; encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 545-546; Pius XII, Address to Italian Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi di Pio XII, VI, 191-192; to Italian Association of Catholic Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 835-854; to the association known as the Family Campaign, and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; to 7th congress of International Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 446-447 [TPS VII, 330-331]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 47-52: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1074 [TPS XI, 289-295]; Code of Canon Law, canons 1067, 1068 §1, canon 1076, §§1-2.

(5) See Paul VI, Address to Sacred College of Cardinals: AAS 56 (1964), 588 [TPS IX, 355-356]; to Commission for the Study of Problems of Population, Family and Birth: AAS 57 (1965), 388 [TPS X, 225]; to National Congress of the Italian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology: AAS 58 (1966), 1168 [TPS XI, 401-403].

(6) See 1 Jn 4. 8.

(7) Eph 3. 15.

(8) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 50: AAS 58 (1966), 1070-1072 [TPS XI, 292-293].

(9) See St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, art. 2.

(10) See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos . 50- 5 1: AAS 58 ( 1 966) 1070-1073 [TPS XI, 292-293].

(11) See ibid., no. 49: AAS 58 (1966), 1070 [TPS XI, 291-292].

(12) See Pius XI. encyc. letter Casti connubi: AAS 22 (1930), 560; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843.

(13) See encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].

(14) See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 562-564; Pius XII, Address to Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi, VI, 191-192; Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 842-843; Address to Family Campaign and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; John XXIII, encyc. letter Pacem in terris: AAS 55 (1963), 259-260 [TPS IX, 15-16]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 51: AAS 58 (1966), 1072 [TPS XI, 293].

(15) See Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 565; Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 22, 1940: AAS 32 (1940), 73; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43

(1951), 843-844; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].

(16) See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 559-561; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].

(17) See Pius XII, Address to National Congress of Italian Society of the Union of Catholic Jurists: AAS 45 (1953), 798-799 [TPS I, 67-69].

(18) See Rom 3. 8.

(19) See Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].

(20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.

(21) See Pius XII, Address to Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to leaders and members of Italian Association of Cornea Donors and Italian Association for the Blind: AAS 48 (1956), 461-462 [TPS III, 200-201].

(22) Lk 2. 34.

(23) See Paul Vl, encyc. letter Populorum progressio: AAS 59 (1967), 268 [TPS XII, 151].

(24) See Rom 8.

(25) See Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Media of Social Communication, nos. 6-7: AAS 56 (1964), 147 [TPS IX, 340-341].

(26) Encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].

(27) See encyc. letter Populorum progressio, nos. 48-55: AAS 59 (1967), 281-284 [TPS XII, 160-162].

(28) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 52: AAS 58 (1966), 1074 [TPS XI, 294].

(29) Address to Family Campaign and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 859.

(30) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 51: AAS 58 (1966), 1072 [TPS XI, 293].

(31) See Mt 11. 30.

(32) See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 48: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1069 [TPS XI,290-291]; Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 35: AAS 57 (1965), 40-41 [TPS X, 382-383].

(33) Mt 7. 14; see Heb 12. 11.

(34) See Ti 2. 12.

(35) See 1 Cor 7. 31.

(36) Rom 5. 5.

(37) Eph 5. 25, 28-29, 32-33.

(38) See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, nos. 35, 41: AAS 57 (1965), 40-45 [TPS X, 382-383, 386-387; Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 48-49: AAS 58 (1966),1067-1070 [TPS XI, 290-292]; Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, no. 11: AAS 58 (1966), 847-849 [TPS XI, 128-129].

(39) See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 25: AAS 57 (1965), 29-31 [TPS X, 375-376].

(40) 1 Cor 1. 10.

(41) See Jn 3. 17.

Honored Brothers and Dear Sons,
Health and Apostolic Benediction.
The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.
The fulfillment of this duty has always posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions. The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.

Why am I such an insufferable prude?

2011-08-31T20:51:00.000-07:00

First of all a prude is a contraction referring to someone who is prudent. I truly aspire to be a prude, much more than I am.

PRUDENCE: The virtue which disposes a person to discern the good and choose the correct means to accomplish it. One of the cardinal moral virtues that dispose the Christian to live according to the law of Christ, prudence provides the proximate guidance for the judgment of conscience (1806). Catechism of the Catholic Church

Prudence has become a contraction, prude, which refers specifically to one’s disposition towards sex. Prudes are individuals who are uptight and unwilling to see sex as simply a way to have a good time. It’s as if prudes see sex as inseparable from the consequences which are becoming more and more inevitable; these include but are by no means limited to: STDs, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, fatal blood clots due to oral contraceptives, and depression as the oxytocin intended to bond persons together has to be ignored, as if one could truly ignore a neuromodulating hormone, not to mention all the other disordered personality development individuals sink into the development of a “sexual self”.

Society at large has become more and more affected by persons pushing their disordered sexual perceptions. One who has a disordered relationship with sex tends to blame a lack of social tolerance for the high suicide rate associated with their behavior. As I have stated before one cannot effectively manipulate one’s neromodulating hormones or neurotransmitters for that matter; they react regardless of a nebulous desire but according to our solid actions. We get stuck in a rut of firing neurons whose plasticity becomes more concrete as the behaviors which are intended to save become more and more a tightening noose.

They keep on pushing until the television is unwatchable and fashion is more completely exploitative than ever. Fashion which creates Jours Après Lunes’ lingerie for four year olds and Abercrombie Kids push up bikini bras for seven year olds; an industry which pushes disordered views of female sexuality and body consciousness which the young girls marketed to could not understand consciously, for they cannot understand sex and sexuality, but only as an issue which will obstruct them from happiness, for they simply want to be socialized individuals. They only feel the effects of that objectification from their earliest moments and throughout their lives as they bring those raw feelings into adulthood and into unhappy relationships with the unstable and destabilizing men which appreciate the artifice the now women had consumed since they were girls. They may in turn blame prudes for their unhappiness.

Boys of course suffer from the introduction of sexual stimulus in different ways; I haven’t seen boys in short shorts for instance. Boys have to be taught to defend and protect because that same energy is capable of destruction. If boys aren’t taught to treat women with respect they will use them. Many will use their drive to compete in inappropriate ways; it is no wonder to me that one in four teenage girls has an STD.

Boys’ story, just like girls’, is individual and varied but all are touched in a negative way. Since this essay is entitled “Why am I such an insufferable prude?” I feel I should tell you a little about myself. I was a very, very shy boy who was both infatuated with and with only very few exceptions scared to death of girls. In fact I wasn’t totally comfortable with the few exceptions. I have always been one who will withdraw into myself and try not to deal with the world around me. Finding pornography to me only further insolated my world and caused me to be more antisocial. Whereas this may not impact women as much in the broad world it has impacted my wife every day. She has been the light of Christ drawing me out of myself, my beacon of hope, that I can be fully healed. I pray I am and each day I have to get ready; because that’s what is prudent in this climate. It would be like wearing shorts in a blizzard to think one can simply leave the house without having prayed for the grace to focus not on the world but on servicing others today, a service which must reach from my eyes to my heart.

I read a good article by a retired Marine which said if you are taking fire what one wishes to do is the very thing which will get you killed; which is duck and hide and try to hug the earth until it’s over. What we must do is mount a counter attack as quickly as one can and throw everything we have into it. We may be wounded we may be almost dead but to stop and coward is to accept that death. As Catholics we can literally start lobbing “Hail Mary’s”! Our mother wears combat boots and she would never leave you alone to perish, after all she fights with the tenacity of a mother for her children.

So what is prudent? We must fight until there are no words on the bottom of our girl’s sweatpants! We must fight until all underwear is worn under some other wear. We must fight like the souls of countless children depend upon what we do! We must pray my friends, we must pray, because as we pray we fight selfishness with love. May God bless you in your fight. Please pray for me.

Kickin' the Old Can

2011-08-24T09:04:00.000-07:00

I like science. One of the great lessons I have been taught since my conversion is how to have a relationship with science. There are many Evangelicals that have an enmity towards science. Anglicans used the 150^th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” to hand science a blank check, expressing an embarrassment for having too Biblical of an interpretation of the origins of our species and thus acquiescing in all things species origin oriented.

Blessed Pope John Paul the Great describes faith and reason as two wings of a single bird which climbs towards the truth in his encyclical “Fides et Ratio”, September 14, 1998. Without reason God is deprived of His dignity as the source and summit of all that is reasonable, faith creates order and meaning, and answers questions science cannot answer alone.

“With the rise of rationalism, faith and reason became separated with disastrous consequences. The end result is the nihilism that we are now experiencing. Nihilism contains no hope of meaning and admits of no objective truth. It recognizes only the utilitarian ends of power and pleasure. Men and women are treated as objects to be manipulated rather than persons to be honored.” (47, The Teachings of Pope John Paul II)

The rational science camp looks at the creationist camp with disgust, but refuses to see its own short comings. I call it “kickin’ the can”. I saw an example of this last night, on a channel rife with examples, “The Science Channel” had a show on which posited that an asteroid seeded the bacterial life which started every other life form on our planet.

Ok fine, I find it fascinating that microbial life could adapt so incredibly that it would be fine in the freezing temperatures of space and then survive first the crucible heat of entry into our atmosphere and then the destructive energy of impacting with our planet. Those are examples off the top of my head they may be totally practically explained so I concede them. What I find incredible and “can kickable” is that the life on the asteroid then should become the new target of inquiry. It does not however it is simply the starting point of life on Earth.

The attempt is to slide a hypothesis in as fact because it is introduced as such for the sake of the story which the producers are trying to tell. The sleight of hand is ironic because it is the charge leveled against Evangelicals by militant science. The sleight of hand I speak of is the ability to try to kick the can so far down the road that no one can see it, but the can is still there.

The “can” is the point of life’s origin, not just on Earth but the actual origin of life and it would not be an acceptable answer to say another asteroid seeded life on the asteroid which then seeded life on Earth.

A similar Science Channel statement I remember stated, “Religion says, ‘ashes to ashes and dust to dust’, but physicists say supernova dust to supernova dust.” See again the source of all life rendering materials is the supernova and a supernova will eventually remove or at least redistribute the particles of that life, but the origin of the star going supernova is not discussed. The can can only be kicked so far. The questions are shuffled not answered.

Why is it important to have the initial question answered? Why does it matter if God created us or if any number of theories could be correct? The answer is the conclusions drawn from the initial assumption. In Christianity human beings have and deserve dignity, but in any other postulated theory humans are a matter of the most improbable chances, but so is everything else so we are not at all special but just something else. Since we know we exist we can draw any number of wild hypotheses and say we are the final proof of that hypothesis. We say the probability for the ratio is not ten to the 500th power but one to one.

We may be annihilated by an asteroid, which may seed new life on our planet at the same time! We may be annihilated by a supernova reclaiming what it has given like Shiva! We will definitely be bodily annihilated by time. My sincere suggestion is that we not let the nihilism of materialist rationality destroy our knowledge that human beings must do the most good for one another in our time on this amazing planet. Otherwise it doesn’t matter where we came from anyway.

"Women in Cages"

2011-08-19T21:44:00.000-07:00

When one thinks of the title “Women in Cages,” which is not recommended in the first place, does one’s mind immediately comprehend that this is obviously a protest/photo exhibit to illustrate the treatment of animals? Should it? According to The Polaris Project, there are hundreds of thousands of women and children in bondage to the sex trade each year in the US alone, who are repeatedly raped, beaten, and otherwise coerced in the most dehumanizing ways. How sensitive is it to have women, like Brooke Hogan, strip down and pose inside of a cage? It’s a disgusting idea anyway because by placing a woman nude in the offending situation it affords her less dignity than those animals, but especially considering the real lives of so many women and children in human bondage who actually need our help.

The fact that the models are nude sexualizes the pictures, thus adding fuel to a kind of social situation in which a sex trade flourishes. So there really can be no socially redeeming value for the pictures. They are crass and demeaning of a particularly vulnerable segment of society, women. One would hope that this were not so in our American society, but news we hear leak out of the sex trade as a handful of women escape it tell of how women are lured into situations in which they are abducted, beaten, and continually raped to make money for their captors.

Women in other countries are made vulnerable as they attempt to move out of economic calamity. Women in America, especially young women are also vulnerable, girls run away from home to meet a man who’s been wooing them on the internet, only to have her rush to freedom turned into a “women in cages” situation.

It’s heartbreaking what our society is teaching girls. It’s putting a growing percentage of them at greater risk and it must stop with us. We can make our country safer for girls, but will we? Is the only foreseeable reality for my little girl either to be exploited in a picture or in a world of sexual bondage?

I will die first, but the sad thing is every little girl has a father who needs them to die before exploiting anyone’s daughter. I call all men to stop the exploitation of women, even if it is for the sake of animals.

It’s like living with a gun to your head! Oh wait, well I guess you are.

2011-08-19T10:19:00.000-07:00

I was on my way to work last Thursday and was listening to “Morning Edition” on NPR. Terry Pratchett, an author, was being interviewed about his desire to kill himself as his Alzheimer’s disease became too much to bear and the investigation he had done on the practice in the Netherlands.

What struck me as I listened to him was he explained he did not want to kill himself too early, yet he knew that if he waited too long, he might lose the mental capability to accomplish his desired outcome, his own death.

He concluded the interview stating he was not going to kill himself soon as he had many “productive” years in him, and he wanted the story of his life to have a proper ending.

Forgive me for saying, but this is nowhere near a defensible position.

Talk about taking the joy out of mornings as one debates between sticking a toothbrush in your mouth or a nine mm. Ok, I’ll choose the toothbrush, but I’m watching you brain!

On the other hand, if one was able to make it to breakfast, I bet the bacon tastes even more amazing having cheated death one more day. Which is how we should live every day anyway as no day is a given. Each day is a gift, except of course when we are under pressure to produce.

After how many days of idleness can one continue to choose the toothbrush? You want to trust your gut, but your gut’s crazy!

Do you want to taste the bacon? Well, the bacon was almost burnt yesterday.

Do you want to feel the sun on your skin? Well, it’s raining.

Do you pull the trigger?

Are you producing great works of devastating beauty? Well, the last novel was received coolly which you thought was so mean because these critics should know that they could kill you!

They thought they were just being helpful. It’s time to go, they all but write in their pithy critiques, “This could be the last novel, but what an off note to end on. Too bad because it’s not like they’re going to get better. He has a degenerative disease after all.”

He stated in the interview that “world weariness” was not an acceptable reason to want to commit suicide, but he’d be lying if he said he felt good now! He wanted to go out on top, but it’s like they say, “People make plans and God laughs.”

It is so unfair to treat the end of our life as though it is the very same as the middle. Maybe instead of plotting our own deaths, we should spend that mental and emotional energy adapting to our lives. Taking it as it comes and finding the joy in the life we have.

“If this is what you want, Jesus, so do I.” Blessed Ciara Luce Badano said this as she lay dying of bone cancer and in intense pain. She rejected morphine, wanting no pain relief, but only to join her pain to the redemptive suffering of our Lord and thus do incredible and miraculous good with it. Blessed Ciara was only 18 years old and yet her grasp of the eternal was ageless. It gave her a heroic capacity to love deeply in spite of her pain and in fact turn her extreme pain into a tool to love infinitely deeper than most are willing to.

Reflecting on her pending death, Chiara said: “Previously I felt … the most I could do was to let go. Instead, now I feel enfolded in a marvelous plan of God, which is slowly being unveiled to me.” The story of our lives with all its riveting twists and painful turns is written by an author who loves us very much, and for him, even death is only a comma, not a period. The greatest protagonists in life’s story are the saints. They shared the eternal perspective of the Author. That’s why not even the most profound pain could take away their hope. By Christopher Stefanick for the Denver Catholic Register

Blessed Chiara Luce Badano, pray for us!

Amen.

Bert and Ernie Shall Never Marry

2011-08-13T11:27:00.000-07:00

When the Children’s Television Workshop tells you to step off, that should cause a left of center person to stop and take inventory. Just such a teachable moment has occurred in regards to a facebook petition which insists that Bert & Ernie should get married. Sesame Street has responded that Bert and Ernie are puppets and thus void of sexual orientation.

Thank God the innocence of youth may be preserved for a time, if only during a couple hours in the morning on one or two PBS stations.

Bert and Ernie share what is known as Storge in Greek; it is an affection or fondness through familiarity. Storge would exist between family members or people who are sort of thrust together due to circumstances of fate. I believe they express this type of love more than a Philial love, which is a friendship based upon common interests. Storge can be seen as a more impressive and enduring love than Philia due to Philia’s reliance on likeness.

Bert and Ernie’s great teaching ability comes in an expression of Storge, because they are friends in spite of their differences. This is a valuable lesson to children especially as they interact with other children who are thrown together in play areas, preschools, and every other societal interaction they inevitably encounter in a healthy upbringing.

To turn the expression of their friendship into Eros, or romantic love, is totally dependent upon the caricatured innuendo which the pro Bert and Ernie marriage side would decry from persons such as me. It’s ironic no? Some feel that everything can and should be sexualized beginning at the time of birth. This thrust would liberate children from the mental anguish and shame of a fully realized sexuality.

The antithesis of that POV would be that a disinhibited sexuality is in fact the source of the mental anguish, and the more one focuses on sexuality as a defining personality trait, one inevitably runs into its limitations as the source of self. To save children and adults from the many worrying aspects of sex, these include but are not limited to: fear of unwanted children, fear of being discarded after being used like a box of Kleenex, fear of STDs, fear of becoming undesirable to your mate, and so on, it should be couched within the protection of Agape. Agape is a charitable love, a love of self-sacrifice, the love inherent to a healthy marriage.

Some see Eros eventually evolving into Agape as it is seasoned and see no benefit in being careful with their approach to Eros. Agape is something which becomes deep through charitable action towards the target of our affection. Agape is what takes marriage and relationship through the many storms of human coupling. It’s because humans need to grow into an adequate partner that Agape is so important. Couples tend to highlight each other’s weaknesses and those differences become exacerbated through proximity and over time. Agape calls us to ask ourselves not what is in this for me, but how can I assist my spouse. This assistance is always at the cost of our perceived and superficial self interests. Agape readies a relationship for the onslaught of children.

Children cannot be discarded and so neither can be the expression of love which creates them. This is the function of marriage. Not health insurance and hospital visitation, which one may find a legal way of bequeathing outside of marriage; but the creation of devotion to a family which is the correct place to teach children the nuances of love and relationship, not by making propaganda out of a children’s program. So I applaud Sesame Street on their willingness to stand up again a perverse tide and tendency to sexualize our children.

Does Hell Exist?

2011-08-10T22:21:00.000-07:00

Does Hell exist? It’s fascinating we have to keep having the same discussions over such heresies, but this is the nature of the human heart; so be it. To begin with we can make some generally held assumptions about Christianity: one, God created human beings from nothing; two, God created human beings with a body and a soul; three, the soul of a human being cannot be destroyed unless it’s creator allows it to slip back into its original state of nothingness; four, love exists and is perfectly exemplified by the Holy Trinity; five, Heaven exists.

Heaven and Hell can be visualized as molecules in various states of entropy. Heaven is a place of infinitely low entropy and Hell is a place of infinitely high entropy organizationally speaking. What causes the souls to be in the various entropic states is not gravity or heat but rather love.

Love is an action; love is a verb, not just a buzz in the frontal lobe of the brain but something which restructures our neurological make up. It does this as one moves from being self absorbed and childish to being self sacrificing for others; as we mature emotionally we do so because of an increased capacity to love.

Because we have free will we can stunt this growth. Should we choose not to shift the focus of our life away from ourselves, we become more incapable of loving others. We may first experience vanity, then make more sociopathic choices, and finally one might reach the extreme of psychopathic tendencies. The other divergent path of being emotional self absorbed would be depression which progressed in severity until it culminates in suicide. Not that a psychopath wouldn’t kill his or her self, especially at the conclusion of a bloody rampage, but the reasoning for doing so is different.

Love on the other hand requires a human being not to become their own focus, their own God, but to cultivate a life and mind of service. To serve others is to serve God and this service echoes the nature of the Holy Trinity making the individual more like the creator creating lower entropy towards that true universal center and bringing it closer to that center. In Heaven there will be no distance between the soul and God.

The more a soul refuses to join voluntarily into this union of souls the further that soul flees, increasing its state of entropy until it is infinitely singular and totally alone. This is Hell. We know this place exists and most of us have an idea of what it’s like as we have more than likely experienced such emotional distress that we felt as though we were on fire inside or we were being torn apart piece by piece. Such emotional stress is almost always caused by being totally self absorbed. We tend not to feel such great empathy that we feel as though our soul is being dismembered over many hours. We can tire of empathy and we can withdraw; but that bad teenage break up will have one in the fetal position for years. It felt like Hell for a reason.

It has been stated that Hell has been conjured up to scare us straight. Hell is a boogieman to hold over our naïve heads to keep us in our beds at night. To paraphrase St Augustine, Hell has an open door souls can leave if they wish, they just don’t wish to.

God’s love can do anything but it can’t make you respond to it. Humans cannot be saved by making them automatons in the nth hour. Humans cannot be loved by catering to them though they may hate you, God can never be a doormat. Heaven will not be populated with these souls because they will not serve a God they hate. Self love won’t let them. They will be invited for all eternity for God will not allow their souls to slip back into that nothingness from which they were made. True love waits.

Do Not Let Birds Nest In Your Hair

2011-08-09T22:13:00.000-07:00

Do not let birds nest in your hair.

This is the major piece of advice I took out of the 2011 Rocky Mountain Catholic Men’s Conference. Father Larry Richards mentioned it in passing during his talk. It’s not a new idea. Thomas A. Kempis wrote of it in “The Imitation of Christ.” Did you miss that part of the book? It’s in regard to allowing thoughts, “birds”, unfettered access to enter and stay, “nest”, in our minds, “our hair”. Learning this discipline is the key to fighting temptations, learning behavior modifications, and allowing yourself the interior space to grow in your relationship with God.

Call this Spiritual Growth 101; the key to mastering oneself is being aware of one’s thoughts. The seed of all mortally sinful action is a thought one accepts and which is allowed the time and space to ruminate and grow.

I go for walks during my lunch break at work. While on these walks, I used to get ravens dive bombing me. At first I just thought, “I wish this would stop.” Then I had a bit of an epiphany. I am a supposedly intelligent human being allowing a bunch of birds to harass me. So I picked up a handful of pebbles on the path and chucked them up at the birds. They dispersed and haven’t bothered me since.

These are the birds I visualize as I wave away unwanted thoughts. Often I have replayed the memory of dispersing those birds in order to chase thoughts away. Sometimes I actually shake my head and on occasion I have waived my hands over my head. It may look silly, but I don’t mind looking silly for God. It has worked.

Once it has worked, something else needs to happen. You need to fill the void with God. If you choose not to do this, you are asking for a flock of trouble, so do it please. The pressure of conjuring Holy thoughts could be enough to cause you to say “Forget it!” So what I have found is you should just say a prayer you know really well. Say an “Our Father”, a “Hail Mary”, or a “Glory Be”, but as you say them, concentrate for a change. You have to go slow and engage your mind. Think about what every line means and soon your own stream of consciousness will kick in and that’s it. You have shifted your thought from something dangerous to your soul to the creator of your soul and your only help.

Discipline takes time, so stay close to the sacraments and pray. If you let a bird dig in, you dig in too, and tell yourself, “This will not kill me!” Remember that you may be crawling in your skin, but it’s only mental or physical discomfort. You will not die if you bear down and just tell yourself it’s not going to happen. It will pass, unless you give in, then you are in real trouble. So do yourself a favor. Trust God and dig in. Tie yourself to the mast. Do you see how important it is to simply follow that initial advice, “Do not let the birds nest in your hair!” and do check out Father Larry Richards.

The Church and the State

2011-08-06T21:52:00.000-07:00

I live in Douglas County in the great state of Colorado. Quite recently the ACLU and others have sued my county in regards to the Choice Scholarship Program. This program would provide parents a voucher which would allow them to pay for private schooling if they so desired. One of the major issues which has caused the influx of interest in my county is the separation of church and state debate and that too will be my focus here.

John Locke’s work laid the inspirational groundwork for Thomas Jefferson who agreed that religion should not and could not be impinged upon by the state as it was an exercise of the interior life of men and women. Government could not govern the individual’s conscience; that governance was between the individual and his or her God.

In Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists of Danbury, who were concerned that their expression of religion was not an exercise of religious freedom but rather given at the discretion of the majority, he stated that they should not fear because there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” He affirmed that government should not attempt to interfere in the individual’s ability to express themselves to their God.

Honestly though citing this letter is no slam dunk and should not be seen as extended to all expressions of an individual’s religion. If this were the case people would try to prove religious expression in court rather than disprove their sanity. The one obvious example of a religion which has tried to sight religious expression and tested the limitations thus far has been the Mormons. In 1879 in Reynolds v. United States of America the Supreme Court upheld the Morrill Act, which outlawed Polygamy; the courts claim being that a government cannot interfere in religious beliefs but can interfere in its actions. In 1890 a decree by church president Willford Woodriff suggested that Mormons not enter into marriages which were illegal and that was that.

I believe that this was prudent action by the government, and I also believe that it’s a stretch to compare polygamy to vouchers for private schools. I believe that “separation of church and state” has become a sound bite which implies so much more to a secular culture than it is willing to examine justly. They wish to portray the church and state as competitors vying for influence. The church has every right to be as suspicious now as the Baptists who wrote to Thomas Jefferson, as separation of church and state has been used to attack every expression of faith aired in the public sphere from nativities to the Pledge of Allegiance.

The position which has emerged, not in small part to these litigations, is not a neutral position but depending on the school distinct or the state could be very anti-religion. I am looking at you California. It seems the more pluralism is espoused the more the church’s position is washed out of consideration; creating not a true pluralism but a very distinct point of view.

The point of view pushed is not only secular, meaning void of God, but void of positive moral direction or “worldly.” An obvious example one could point to is teaching only the mechanics of sex to grade school students and then providing condoms to further their education which is not a good idea in the eyes of many parents. Teaching contraception may seem like a good idea if one does not teach that the logical expectation of sexual intercourse is child bearing and that the only emotionally safe place to have sex is in the most secure of relationships, a healthy marriage. Sex with idiots will make you feel used and anyone who pursues sex outside of marriage is that idiot and he is an idiot because he is using you; these are not in the lesson plans of teachers but they must be to properly teach sex. What’s taught in school is not neutral, not complete, and harmful to the souls of the impressionable. It undermines the practice of faith in the family by promoting mortal sin as the prescribed rational action in today’s world.

The schooling of a young mind helps form them. If the secular school becomes more than secular but worldly, if not overtly but practically, then the environment is not conducive to the perpetuation of religious freedom in the individual.

Because Public Schools are funded through taxes, anyone who wishes to send their child to a private school gets to pay twice for a single education. This places an undue burden on those who are least able to pay for a private education for religious reasons or any other reason since the vouchers are not limited to religious schools. These parents may also be the least able to get elected to school boards, due to time and monetary considerations.

Though the school may feel sorry for the children of the crazy religious parents; what they really are going to miss is the money the voucher spent elsewhere would entail. Though they would have to teach the body attached to the check, overhead is such that if you are paying for one, it pays to do ten. Nobody wants to run a half-batch, even if it’s more like a batch and a half. So test scores may slip, it’s all about the Benjamins.

It’s not all about the Benjamins for the many families who have good reasons not to send their children to public schools but will be forced to. It’s about their children.

It's like forget you and forget you too

2011-08-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

I have issues with anger. Recently God has given me the grace to deal with things differently and it seems to me I should pass on what I am finding. Anger isn’t usually its own entity; it coats sadness, disappointment, fear, and other vulnerabilities in an attempt to never have to deal with them.

Anger is our intended answer to vulnerability. We will make people pay for trying to take us to places in ourselves we do not want to go. Places we ourselves are afraid of. We are the guard dogs of our worst fears and anxieties. So anger is a disordered way to signal others of our need for healing and help. We need to look at the core inside the ball of anger.

The answer then becomes having the courage to be vulnerable emotionally. To realize that what my anger turns me into is far, far worse than anything that could happen to me by being vulnerable. When we lower our guard we can see that the person we are being defensive with may need us too. We are both in the same boat and it is easy to capsize. To keep it right side up one must become interested in the other person.

Vulnerability leads to empathy. We realize that instead of trying to assault our vulnerabilities the other person is concerned with their own. We are able to respond to their fears, sadness, and disappointments. We help ourselves by getting out of ourselves. We help ourselves by focusing on others.

Empathy becomes the rescue line for those trapped behind the walls of anger. A rescue line we accept in our vulnerability. So look inside that ball of anger. See what it’s protecting and address it, don’t protect it inside anger.

A Prayer for Marriage

2011-08-03T09:39:00.001-07:00

The other day as we left Mass my wife Melissa said, “I’ve been thinking about something lately, your parents loved you when you were a newborn just like we love our newborn. They wanted love for you in your life just like we want love to fill our little girl’s life. I’ve been thinking about newborn baby Aaron and I want to love you with the love they wanted for you.”

I that this task would be difficult for anyone, but Melissa’s husband may have a tendency towards self righteous and overly analytical indignation, hard to believe with a blog titled Roman Missiles. So I humbly offer this prayer,

Heavenly Father, your paternal love has authored all love. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in that love especially in the sacramental love of marriage and the fruit of that sacramental love, the love of our children. As we look with love on our newborn children and pray for love in their lives may we be the fulfillment of those parental prayers for our spouses. We ask this in the name of your son, Jesus Christ, whose perfect love allows us to speak to you as your children.

Amen.

Born this way?

2011-08-02T08:55:00.000-07:00

I was watching Charlie Rose and he had a panel of guests on to talk about the brain. This subject is fascinating to me as I have given lots of thought to neurology and personality development over the years, especially when I worked on a Neurobehavioral unit. Kerry Ressler, Joseph Ledoux, Antonio Damasio, David Anderson, and Eric Kandel were the panelists on Charlie Rose: The Brain Series, which originally aired on May 26, 2010. They made mention of something which caught my attention, people who had a genetic predisposition towards addictive behavior were only “about 10%” more likely to develop that addictive behavior. Genetics is only a small piece in the larger puzzle of personality; it is never the whole story on its own. Therefore, my friend, for anyone to claim they were simply “born this way” is not at all useful as an explanation of any lifestyle.

Environmental factors mold predisposition and both strengthen and reinforce the behaviors in question. One can see an example of changing environmental factors illustrated by the difference between providing ashtrays on every table and having “Lucky Strike” ads in “Life” magazine and putting intentionally grotesque warning labels on 25% of the front of a pack of smokes and making smokers stand 100 yards from any shelter. If I were born to smoke then no amount of deterring factors could cause me to stop smoking.

One could say that race is a closer example of what one means in determining lifestyle. This assertion, however, is obviously racist. I would say that race is a very, very poor way to predict behavior. In fact skin pigmentation itself can vary widely within families. Race, color, and creed are very often so superficial that one cannot know any one of them without first asking, regardless of careful behavioral study, for example Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda or Jews and Arians in Germany.

I have been drawing inspiration for my examples from the song “Born this Way” by Lady Gaga. She asserts one just has to be oneself regardless of Religious views of morality. Some of us have expressed their truth by murdering and eating people however and I’m sure she is not justifying that. She is however justifying that. She claims God made her perfect and further reading shows that nothing she does will put that perfection in danger, “I’m beautiful in my way God makes no mistakes.”

The trouble is that my expression of freedom impacts others and their expression of freedom. She asserts, “Different lover is no sin.” This is an easy statement to make, but risk associated with this behavior tends to make individuals nervous and sad, not to mention the stat 1 in 5 people has an STD and about 20% of pregnancies end in abortion, unless you live in New York City were the rate is 41%. Studies show that depression rates rise as the number of sexual partners rise and there is also a correlation between depression, binge drinking, drug abuse, and sexual promiscuity, which is not a stroke inducing shock. If a person were to use all of their dopamine through artificial hyper-stimulation the result is a dopamine deprived brain. Stability creates mental health and instability destroys that health. We may wish humans experienced life differently, but our fairy-godmothers have not been returning calls of late.

What one finds is that when one lives a life with Christian virtue in mind, instead of ignoring other people’s reality so one can attempt to live one’s own, there is more freedom, more stability, and more mental health. The closer our life reflects Christ’s the more we truly have the where-with-all of self expression.

If we are addicted to drugs our life becomes rather predictable. If we are addicted to sex the same thing occurs; we lose our ability to be truly individual and we become that creepy, shallow shell of a human being. The kind that leers at young women and makes them quicken their step. God did not make us for addiction and addicts are not perfect, unless they are perfectly bound.

Lady Gaga states that she loves her life, she loves her record, and love needs faith. Why would love need faith? The “love” described simply requires a warm and willing body at least for this moment anyway.

“Love” doesn’t it always come down to love? Yeah pretty much. If you haven’t heard, I’m sure you have heard, love is an action, no not that action. If you wonder if you are a loving person try to insert your name in place of love in the following passage:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, ⁵ does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, ⁶ does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; ⁷ ^[a]bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
⁸ Love never fails.
That’s a tall order but you can handle it and when we come through the trials of fighting the promise of easy happiness we will arrive at true happiness.