Faith and Skepticism

Liberals Promote One of the Seven Deadly Sins

2011-07-15T04:14:00.001-07:00

I have long loathed the use of "class warfare" as a tactic by liberal politicians. Somehow I am to believe that bringing down those who have more than me will make me better off. Of course, this is true only if we lived in a zero-sum economy where there was only so much of the "pie," and for me to get more, I'd have to take it from someone else. But wealth and prosperity are made, not taken, and the liberal class warfare tactic is really Envy, dressed up in modern garb to hide its Seven Deadly Sins origin.

Dante defined this as "a desire to deprive other men of theirs." Envy can be directly related to the Ten Commandments, specifically "Neither shall you desire... anything that belongs to your neighbour". In Dante's Purgatory, the punishment for the envious is to have their eyes sewn shut with wire because they have gained sinful pleasure from seeing others brought low. Aquinas described envy as "sorrow for another's good".

Third Edition of The Roman Missal

2011-07-15T03:23:00.000-07:00

There are changes coming to the Mass.

The Third Edition of the Roman Missal calls for more singing during the Mass, for both priest and assembly. When I first read about this change, I was not happy. I'm not a singer, and prefer to speak my role in the Mass. It is one of the reasons I prefer Mass Monday thru Friday rather than Sunday -- I find the setting in the church, without piano or organ, with minimal singing, with peace and solemnity, more conducive to communion with Christ.

However, as I read more about this change, the more intrigued I became, as they referred to it more as a revival of the Gregorian chant than true singing as we know it. If this is the case, I look forward to it. I've always loved the Latin chants of the early church.

Gregorian chant is uniquely the Church's own music. Chant is a living connection with our forebears in the faith, the traditional music of the Roman rite, a sign of communion with the universal Church, a bond of unity across cultures, a means for diverse communities to participate together in song, and a summons to contemplative participation in the Liturgy.

Some parishes may begin to see these changes as early as September, as the Church intends to slowly roll out these changes in the Liturgy to the assembly.

Interesting times ahead.

The Mosque Controversy

2010-08-21T08:13:00.000-07:00

I've followed with some annoyance the calls from people like Barack Obama and Mayor Bloomberg to welcome the mosque near Ground Zero as a gesture of tolerance and religious freedom. Let me think back to the last time I heard such talk from these people (and their liberal ilk) when it came to tolerance and freedom for Christian worship. Well, what do you know, I can't think of a time when such passionate calls for religious tolerance was offered to Christians. But that glaring liberal hypocrisy is only part of my annoyance. After all, I've become all too familiar with their many hypocrisies.

Obama and Boomberg, among many others, set up a straw man in characterizing opposition to the mosque's location as religious intolerance, or in any way as denying the builders their Constitutional rights. As far as I can tell, no one is denying that they have the right to build wherever they want, provided they meet all jurisdiction zoning and building codes. Where there are rights, however, there are responsibilities, something liberals often ignore. The mosque proponents tell us that building the mosque that close to Ground Zero is a gesture of "healing." However their decision to build there has been nothing but divisive. If they truly wanted to offer a gesture of peace and healing, they'd voluntarily move the location, and if they refuse to do so, we must then question what their REAL MOTIVE is. What is this agenda that they MUST build in that spot, despite the intense feelings it has aroused in the general public?

They would gain so much more good will by practicing some of that responsibility that comes with rights. Just because they have the right to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Charles Krauthammer, the brilliant writer, recently penned an editorial about this subject (see
"Sacrilege at Ground Zero" WSJ) and offered these great examples of rights versus responsibilities:

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Today, On Good Friday, Here's Why I Remain Catholic

2010-04-03T05:09:00.000-07:00

Article from NPR Online by Elizabeth Scalia who is a contributing writer to First Things Magazine as the blogger known as The Anchoress.

The question has come my way several times in the past week: "How do you maintain your faith in light of news stories that bring light to the dark places that exist within your church?"

When have darkness and light been anything but co-existent? How do we recognize either without the other?

I remain within, and love, the Catholic Church because it is a church that has lived and wrestled within the mystery of the shadow lands ever since an innocent man was arrested, sentenced and crucified, while the keeper of "the keys" denied him, and his first priests ran away. Through 2,000 imperfect — sometimes glorious, sometimes heinous — years, the church has contemplated and manifested the truth that dark and light, innocence and guilt, justice and injustice all share a kinship, one that waves back and forth like wind-stirred wheat in a field, churning toward something — as yet — unknowable.

The darkness within my church is real, and it has too often gone unaddressed. The light within my church is also real, and has too often gone unappreciated. A small minority has sinned, gravely, against too many. Another minority has assisted or saved the lives of millions.

But then, my country is the most generous and compassionate nation on Earth; it is also the only country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

My government is founded upon a singular appreciation of personal liberty; some of those founders owned slaves.

My family was known for its neighborliness and its work ethic; its patriarch was a serial child molester.

The child molester was also a brilliant, generous, talented man — the only person who ever read me a bedtime story. I will love him forever, for that, even when I wake up gasping and afraid.

I am a woman with very generous instincts, and I try to love everyone, but I am capable of corrosive scorn. Have I been much sinned against? Yes. So have you. Have I sinned against others? Oh, yes. So have you.

Like a pebble cast into a pond, our every action ripples out toward the edges, reaching farther than we intended, touching what we do not even know, for good and for ill. It all either means nothing, or it means everything.

As a Catholic, I believe it means everything.

That doesn't mean I do not suffer for the sins of my church; we people in the pews are roiling with feelings of betrayal, shame, revulsion.

Having survived sexual abuse in the family and the public schools, I identify deeply with the pain, the sense of powerlessness and abandonment that the victims of some of our priests and administers have endured. I grieve for them — and for my church, and for my pope, and for all of the countless good priests and religious who are tarnished by the actions of a depraved minority.

I am saddened beyond words to know that these very real sins of commission and omission will repel people, who will miss the consolations of the church in light, out of concern for its shadows.

But the painful and incomplete news stories that have dominated this Holy Week helpfully illustrate how and why I am able to continue on in faith. Particularly during the Easter Triduum, we are thrust deeply into the crucifixion narrative of the Gospels. There, on the wood of the cross, we encounter Jesus, son of Mary, who knew shame, betrayal, abandonment, scorn, jeering, ridicule, unimaginable pain and sorrow, and submitted to them, in order to draw us into a consoling embrace that says, "I know what you are feeling; I know what you are thinking. You tortured ones, you shamed ones, you innocent ones, you slandered ones; I am the One who knows, and we are actually all in this together, and quite outside of time."

I want my church to shine. But I understand that everything, from our institutions to our innermost beings, are seen through a glass, darkly. Arms outstretched, listening for the Word, and its echoing liturgy, I make my way forward, in bright hope.

Church in Italy to issue clarification on cremation

2009-11-10T16:23:00.001-08:00

Rome, Italy, Nov 3, 2009 / 01:50 pm (CNA).- The Italian Bishops' Conference is preparing to publish updated norms on funeral rites including cremation and the burial of ashes.

The manual, which will be reviewed and approved by the bishops' conference in Assisi on November 9, will explain that Catholic doctrine does not oppose cremation but rejects the practice of storing ashes of loved ones at home. The document will stress that this is a violation of the work of mercy that obliges Catholics to provide a holy burial to the dead.

Cremation was approved by Paul VI in 1963 as a practice that does not contradict the Church’s teaching on the resurrection, since it does not affect the soul “nor prevents the omnipotence of God from rebuilding the body.”

However, the document will note, a norm approved by the Italian government in 2001 runs contrary to Catholic teaching, as it allows the ashes of the dead to be kept in an urn at home or to be scattered in the wind, land or sea.

Keeping the ashes of the dead at home does away with the important rite of accompanying the deceased to the cemetery, “which unites the community of believers.” Burying the ashes at a cemetery, the “place of the dead,” is what makes most sense, the bishops will add.

Scattering the ashes, according to the Italian bishops, is based on a pagan ritual that supposedly symbolized the union of the deceased with “the great soul of mother earth,” and is contrary to the Christian obligation, established by the Lord Jesus himself, to bury the dead.

According to official statistics, currently 10 percent of those who die in Italy are cremated.

Vatican looks to heavens for signs of alien life

2009-11-10T16:16:00.000-08:00

By ARIEL DAVID (AP)

VATICAN CITY — E.T. phone Rome. Four hundred years after it locked up Galileo for challenging the view that the Earth was the center of the universe, the Vatican has called in experts to study the possibility of extraterrestrial alien life and its implication for the Catholic Church.

"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Funes, a Jesuit priest, presented the results Tuesday of a five-day conference that gathered astronomers, physicists, biologists and other experts to discuss the budding field of astrobiology — the study of the origin of life and its existence elsewhere in the cosmos.

Funes said the possibility of alien life raises "many philosophical and theological implications" but added that the gathering was mainly focused on the scientific perspective and how different disciplines can be used to explore the issue.

Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona, said it was appropriate that the Vatican would host such a meeting.

"Both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe," he told a news conference Tuesday. "There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe."

Thirty scientists, including non-Catholics, from the U.S., France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy and Chile attended the conference, called to explore among other issues "whether sentient life forms exist on other worlds."

Funes set the stage for the conference a year ago when he discussed the possibility of alien life in an interview given prominence in the Vatican's daily newspaper.

The Church of Rome's views have shifted radically through the centuries since Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600 for speculating, among other ideas, that other worlds could be inhabited.

Scientists have discovered hundreds of planets outside our solar system — including 32 new ones announced recently by the European Space Agency. Impey said the discovery of alien life may be only a few years away.

"If biology is not unique to the Earth, or life elsewhere differs bio-chemically from our version, or we ever make contact with an intelligent species in the vastness of space, the implications for our self-image will be profound," he said.

This is not the first time the Vatican has explored the issue of extraterrestrials: In 2005, its observatory brought together top researchers in the field for similar discussions.

In the interview last year, Funes told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that believing the universe may host aliens, even intelligent ones, does not contradict a faith in God.

"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said in that interview.

"Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God. This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom."

Funes maintained that if intelligent beings were discovered, they would also be considered "part of creation."

The Roman Catholic Church's relationship with science has come a long way since Galileo was tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant his finding that the Earth revolves around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

Today top clergy, including Funes, openly endorse scientific ideas like the Big Bang theory as a reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.

Earlier this year, the Vatican also sponsored a conference on evolution to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

The event snubbed proponents of alternative theories, like creationism and intelligent design, which see a higher being rather than the undirected process of natural selection behind the evolution of species.

Still, there are divisions on the issues within the Catholic Church and within other religions, with some favoring creationism or intelligent design that could make it difficult to accept the concept of alien life.

Working with scientists to explore fundamental questions that are of interest to religion is in line with the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, who has made strengthening the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.

Recent popes have been working to overcome the accusation that the church was hostile to science — a reputation grounded in the Galileo affair.

In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared the ruling against the astronomer was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

The Vatican Museums opened an exhibit last month marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's first celestial observations.

Tommaso Maccacaro, president of Italy's national institute of astrophysics, said at the exhibit's Oct. 13 opening that astronomy has had a major impact on the way we perceive ourselves.

"It was astronomical observations that let us understand that Earth (and man) don't have a privileged position or role in the universe," he said. "I ask myself what tools will we use in the next 400 years, and I ask what revolutions of understanding they'll bring about, like resolving the mystery of our apparent cosmic solitude."

The Vatican Observatory has also been at the forefront of efforts to bridge the gap between religion and science. Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.

The observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, is based in Castel Gandolfo, a lakeside town in the hills outside Rome where the pope has his summer residence. It also conducts research at an observatory at the University of Arizona, in Tucson.

IS CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING INHERENTLY LIBERAL?

2009-05-15T06:42:00.000-07:00

Here is a great article by Phil Lawler from catholicculture.org taking on an issue I've always found vexing myself: Why do so many Catholics reflexively think that liberalism is closer to Catholic doctrine than Conservatism? Just the contrary, I believe liberalism is anathema to organized religion -- but they do a good job of fooling people. Just look at what Obama is doing. Anyway, read the article:

IS CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING INHERENTLY LIBERAL?
In a speech that he delivered in Washington last month, drawing kudos from many liberal Catholic analysts, Father John Langan of Georgetown argued that American Church leaders show engage the Obama White House on a broad range of issues, rather than allowing their relationship to deteriorate solely because of a disagreement on abortion.

The problem isn't only abortion, of course; the Obama administration is pursuing policies inimical to the culture of life on several different fronts. And the notion that the American Catholic hierarchy has been hostile toward the Democratic Party leadership will quickly be recognized as laughable by anyone who is acquainted with American bishops. But these are old arguments, which have been thoroughly explored elsewhere-- not my topic for today. From among all the familiar themes raised by Father Langan's talk, one sentence leapt out at me:

There seems to be a fairly strong prima facie case for Catholics to support the Obama administration and its agenda as an effort to move American society somewhat closer to the ideals of Catholic social thought and to move our society forward from the pit which it has dug for itself.

Notice, now, that our Jesuit mentor is not merely saying that it is possible to make a Catholic case for Obama's policies. He is claiming a "prima facie" case-- a case so obvious that it almost doesn't need to mentioned; an argument so strong that the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees.

Is it really true-- is it really self-evident-- that Obama's policies match the social teachings of the Catholic Church on issues such as welfare and economic justice? Sadly, I think that many Catholics who answer that question reflexively, with a strong Yes.

Moreover, I suspect that many of the people most likely to accept Father Langan's "prima facie" argument are those involved in teaching Catholic social thought. For years the Church's institutional efforts to promote social justice have been dominated by political liberals, and years of exchanging similar ideas within their closed fraternity, their conversation has become so restricted that they can easily fail to recognize the existence of other viewpoints.

Early in the 1980s (I forget which year exactly), I was asked to address a Washington gathering of "justice and peace" coordinators from Catholic dioceses all around the country. At a forum that was, predictably, dominated by liberals, my task was to explain how a Catholic could embrace the conservative policies of the Reagan administration. The hostility of my audience was palpable. When I suggested that the universal Church has a more implacable enemy than Ronald Reagan, that attempt at sardonic humor drew not even a single responsive chuckle-- not a glimmer of understanding that the battle against Satan is more crucial to the Church's mission than the battle against Republican policies.

If the diocesan officials who greeted me with such stony silence were the same people who helped to design the social-justice curricula for parochial schools, it is not surprising that younger Catholics have drifted toward more liberal stands on political issues. It is no surprise-- to cite just one leading indicator-- that a solid majority of Notre Dame students are pleased to welcome President Obama to their campus and proud to have him receive an honorary degree.

For far too long, students in Catholic schools and subscribers to diocesan publications have heard only one side of what could and should be a lively debate about the implications of Catholic social teaching.

The Church clearly teaches that the moral duty of all believers to help those in need, to exercise the "preferential option for the poor." But is it self-evident that the effort to fight poverty should be waged through impersonal government programs, supported by mandatory taxation, rather than by the freewill offerings of charitable donors? Is it self-evident that the federal government should supervise these anti-poverty programs, although the principle of subsidiarity would seem to militate in favor of local solutions to local problems and individual approaches to needy individuals? Is there a prima facie case for allowing the Church's own charitable efforts to be subsumed into the tax-subsidized programs, so that "Catholic Charities" is for all practical purposes a government agency?

These questions are rarely raised when parish "justice and peace" committees meet. The conservative Catholics who make make these arguments are generally not members of those committees; they are already too busy with their work on the pro-life committees! So liberal Catholics eventually come to take it for granted that what seems so obvious to them must be equally obvious to their fellow Catholics. They are genuinely surprised to learn that some faithful Catholics are not enthralled by the promise of an Obama presidency, even apart from issues involving the dignity of life.

Oddly enough, to each of the questions raised above, I think that the answer isobvious. The federal government should not usurp the role of private charity. Government activism should be confined to the local level. Church agencies should eschew involvement with government programs. I would happily explain my views on each of these questions to diocesan justice-and-peace officials if I were invited to do so again. But an entire generation has passed, and I have not been invited back to their national conference, while a parade of liberal speakers has been welcomed to reinforce the group's existing prejudices.

What is obvious to me, apparently, is not obvious to the justice-and-peace clientele. So be it. I do not claim that every good Catholic must agree with me; I realize that contrary arguments can be made. And there is where we differ: Conservative Catholics would never dare to argue that a "prima facie" case can be made for their own preferred political policies. That liberal Catholics make that argument is a sign of destructive intellectual inbreeding, and an arrogance which must be corrected.

ST. PAUL ON CATHOLICS WHO POLITICALLY PROMOTE ABORTION?

2009-04-16T11:14:00.000-07:00

Here's some great insight by Dr. Jeff Mirus from catholicCulture.org:

ST. PAUL ON CATHOLICS WHO POLITICALLY PROMOTE ABORTION?

Posted Apr. 16, 2009 10:11 AM || by Dr. Jeff Mirus

About five minutes after I completed my column “God and Mammon” concerning the falsity of Catholic arguments in favor of abortion, I came across in my daily spiritual reading the following passage from St. Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:1-7):

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

As an exegetical note, “the last days” refers to the entire time between Christ’s first and second comings; let us not be sidetracked here by signs of the end of the world. Now note again these words: “Holding the form of religion but denying the power of it…those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses.” Without in the least arguing that St. Paul had this present circumstance in mind, nothing could more clearly describe those Catholic worldlings who seek to facilitate abortion and their impact on the women whom they thus betray.

Easter

2009-04-12T09:56:00.001-07:00

Good Friday at Holy Name

2009-04-11T09:45:00.000-07:00

It was a packed house and a moving service at Holy Name on Friday afternoon. Kettle drums wound up to crescendo as the priest moved to the altar -- very powerful and dramatic.

After the Liturgy of the Word came the second part of the service, the Veneration of the Cross. This was very emotional -- two men carried a heavy cross to the altar to stirring vocals from the choir loft. Then, slowly and reverently, we all made our way to the cross, each to venerate it in our own way. Some knelt before it, touching it ever so lightly. Others bowed and placed their palm onto the rough-hewn wood.

It was a visual and emotional reminder of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

Tonight is the vigil -- at 8 pm where we, the Church, wait at the tomb.

Holy Saturday

2009-04-11T06:20:00.000-07:00

On Holy Saturday the Church waits at the Lord's tomb, meditating on his suffering and death. The altar is left bare, and the sacrifice of the Mass is not celebrated. Only after the solemn vigil during the night, held in anticipation of the resurrection, does the Easter celebration begin, with a spirit of joy that overflows into the following period of fifty days.

Holy Saturday (from Sabbatum Sanctum, its official liturgical name) is sacred as the day of the Lord's rest; it has been called the "Second Sabbath" after creation. The day is and should be the most calm and quiet day of the entire Church year, a day broken by no liturgical function. Christ lies in the grave, the Church sits near and mourns. After the great battle He is resting in peace, but upon Him we see the scars of intense suffering...The mortal wounds on His Body remain visible....Jesus' enemies are still furious, attempting to obliterate the very memory of the Lord by lies and slander.

"It is finished."

2009-04-10T13:04:00.000-07:00

Maundy Thursday

2009-04-08T05:57:00.001-07:00

Tomorrow is Maundy Thursday (also "Holy Thursday" or "Shire Thursday"1) commemorates Christ's Last Supper and the initiation of the Eucharist. Its name of "Maundy" comes from the Latin word mandatum, meaning "command." This stems from Christ's words in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you." It is the first of the three days known as the "Triduum," and after the Vigil tonight, and until the Vigil of Easter, a more profoundly somber attitude prevails (most especially during the hours between Noon and 3:00 PM on Good Friday). Raucous amusements should be set aside...

The Last Supper took place in "the upper room" of the house believed to have been owned by John Mark and his mother, Mary (Acts 12:12). This room, also the site of the Pentecost, is known as the "Coenaculum" or the "Cenacle" and is referred to as "Holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches" in St. James' Liturgy. At the site of this place -- our first Christian church -- a basilica was built in the 4th century. It was destroyed by Muslims and later re-built by the Crusaders. Underneath the place is the tomb of David.

After the Supper, He went outside the Old City of Jerusalem, crossed the Kidron Valley, and came to the Garden of Gethsemani, a place whose name means "Olive Press," and where olives still grow today. There He suffered in three ineffable ways: He knew exactly what would befall Him physically and mentally -- every stroke, every thorn in the crown He would wear, every labored breath He would try to take while hanging on the Cross, the pain in each glance at His mother; He knew that He was taking on all the sins of the world -- all the sins that had ever been or ever will be committed; and, finally, He knew that, for some people, this Sacrifice would not be fruitful because they would reject Him. Here He was let down by His Apostles when they fell asleep instead of keeping watch, here is where He was further betrayed by Judas with a kiss, and where He was siezed by "a great multitude with swords and clubs, sent from the chief Priests and the ancients of the people" and taken before Caiphas, the high priest, where he was accused of blasphemy, beaten, spat upon, and prepared to be taken to Pontius Pilate tomorrow morning.

As for today's liturgies, in the morning, the local Bishop will offer a special Chrism Mass during which blesses the oils used in Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Unction, and the consecration of Altars and churches.

At the evening Mass, after the bells ring during the Gloria, they are rung no more until the Easter Vigil (a wooden clapper called a "crotalus" is used insead). Parents explain this to their children by saying that the all the bells fly to Rome after the Gloria of the Mass on Maundy Thursday to visit the Popes. Children are told that the bells sleep on the roof of St. Peter's Basilica, and, bringing Easter eggs with them, start their flight home at the Gloria at the Easter Vigil, when when they peal wildly.

Then comes the Washing of the Feet after the homily, a rite performed by Christ upon His disciples to prepare them for the priesthood and the marriage banquet they will offer, and which is rooted in the Old Testament practice of foot-washing in preparation for the marital embrace (II Kings 11:8-11, Canticles 5:3) and in the ritual ablutions performed by the High Priest of the Old Covenant (contrast Leviticus 16:23-24 with John 13:3-5). The priest girds himself with a cloth and washes the feet of 12 men he's chosen to represent the Apostles for the ceremony.

The rest of the Mass after the Washing of the Feet has a special form, unlike all other Masses. After the Mass, the priest takes off his chasuble and vests in a white cope. He returns to the Altar, incenses the Sacred Hosts in the ciborium, and, preceded by the Crucifer and torchbearers, carries the Ciborium to the "Altar of Repose," also called the "Holy Sepulchre," where it will remain "entombed" until the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday.

Then there follows the Stripping of the Altars, during which everything is removed as Antiphons and Psalms are recited. All the glorious symbols of Christ's Presence are removed to give us the sense of His entering most fully into His Passion. Christ enters the Garden of Gethsemani; His arrest is imminent. Fortescue's "Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described" tells us: "From now till Saturday no lamps in the church are lit. No bells are rung. Holy Water should be removed from all stoups and thrown into the sacrarium. A small quantity is kept for blessing the fire on Holy Saturday or for a sick call." The joyful signs of His Presence won't return until Easter begins with the Easter Vigil Mass on Saturday evening.

The Language of Symbolism

2009-03-17T13:31:00.001-07:00

I reflected in an earlier post about my spiritual path which led me to Catholicism in the 1980s. Having been somewhat adrift for years, with no formal religion in my life, I found that the symbolism of the Catholic ritual filled an important need. Being a curious and skeptical individual, I always had difficulty with the "mysteries" of faith -- it was coming to terms with these mysteries through symbolism which brought me back. Symbolism was "language" by which I could understand, or come to terms, with that which is inexplicable. I was reminded of this today as I was paging through the introductory portions of my Sunday Missal. There it was, "The Language of Symbolism":

Religious symbolism points to beautiful realities often more effectively than mere words can do. Entering the church, I make the sign of the cross with holy water. It reminds me of my baptism. Likewise, the sprinkling with holy water, which may replace the penitential rite, points to cleansing from sin. Genuflecting is a sign of respect for the Blessed Sacrament, kneeling is a symbol of humility, and standing expresses respect for God.

Incense clouds may symbolize my prayers going up to God, and striking one's breast is a confession of sinfulness. We should develop a feeling for symbolism and make it meaningful.

I see the same symbolic importance in the intricate carvings at the altar, the colors of the Liturgical Year, and on and on. It all forms a rich and ancient tradition which helps me receive the Holy Spirit. A true blessing.

Modern Day Mengeles

2009-03-11T05:41:00.000-07:00

Josef Mengele was known as the "Angel of Death." He performed experiments on human subjects at Auschwitz. Today we have Obama and his "angels of death" - the abortionists and now the scientists experimenting with human embryos. Just as Mengele and his nazi counterparts had their rationale, so do today's death-dealers.

Morally, what is the difference?

A Very Special Ash Wednesday

2009-03-10T04:04:00.000-07:00

I had an emotional Ash Wednesday at Holy Name. From the beginning of Mass, my eyes teared up -- it hit me from out of the blue. Was is the significance of the day? Stored up emotions from the difficult year past? I don't know, probably all of the above and the Holy Spirit. I was overcome with emotion throughout the Mass -- it was draining -- and liberating and joyful all at the same time. What a morning that was.

Thank you, Jesus!

Join the fight against the radical pro-abortion agenda

2009-03-05T15:22:00.000-08:00

Join the fight against the radical pro-abortion agenda.

The Catholic bishops of the United States have launched a massive postcard/e-mail campaign urging Congress to:

maintain widely-supported pro-life laws
oppose the federal funding and promotion of abortion.

Why is our pro-life voice needed now?

Congress has the most pro-abortion members in 16 years—and abortion advocates are newly energized. Their radical agenda goes beyond Roe v. Wade, and seeks to turn abortion into a fundamental “right” that the government would have to subsidize with taxpayer monies.

If the well-funded abortion lobby succeeds, abortion will become—for the first time in our country’s history—a government entitlement.

One such effort was fought back successfully when the bishops mobilized the Catholic faithful in their 1993 postcard campaign against the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). Recent sponsors of FOCA plan to introduce a similar bill soon…and President Obama has promised to sign it if it reaches his desk.

While FOCA would achieve the abortion promotion agenda all at once, other bills could accomplish the same agenda in a piecemeal fashion. Widely supported pro-life measures in the annual appropriations bills are already at risk.

Recent polling shows that Americans strongly support laws limiting or regulating abortion, including laws honoring parental involvement in a minor daughter’s abortion decision, laws upholding the conscience rights of health care professionals, limits on abortion funding, and bans on partial-birth abortion.

To guard against the erosion of current pro-life measures—and to keep abortion from becoming a federal entitlement—our voice is needed now more than ever.

Add your voice to the millions of citizens urging our government to “oppose FOCA or any similar measure, and retain laws against federal funding and promotion of abortion.” As pro-life messages start flooding in from their constituents, members of Congress will see that they should avoid dividing our nation with policies that offend the pro-life values of the majority of Americans.

Denver archbishop warns against 'spirit of adulation' surrounding Obama

2009-02-25T10:36:00.000-08:00

Denver archbishop warns against 'spirit of adulation' surrounding Obama

CatholicNewsAgency.com | 2/23/09

Toronto, Canada, Feb 23, 2009 / 09:03 pm (CNA).- Canadians packed St. Basil’s Church in Toronto on Monday evening to hear Archbishop Charles Chaput speak about how Catholics should live out their faith in the public square. He warned that in the U.S., Catholics need to act on their faith and be on guard against "a spirit of adulation bordering on servility" that exists towards the Obama administration.

The public lecture by Archbishop Chaput took place on the campus of the University of Toronto at St. Basil’s Church and was attended by an overflow crowd of more than 700 people.

After giving a sketch of the basic principles in his New York Times Bestseller "Render Unto Caesar," the archbishop offered his insights on the need for an honest assessment of the situation of the Church in the public square.

"I like clarity, and there’s a reason why," began the archbishop. "I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth -- which means candor."

The Denver prelate then provided his critique of President Obama.

"President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there’s no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change. Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with."

Yet this will be "very hard for Catholics in the United States," Chaput warned.

According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a "spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer."

Looking ahead to the coming months and years, Chaput offered four "simple things" to remember.

"First," he said, "all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil."

"In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies."

In a reference to the messianic treatment the Barack Obama received from some Americans during the presidential primaries, Archbishop Chaput delivered his second point: "in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs."

Noting that Obama actually trailed in the weeks just before the election, the Denver archbishop said that this places some of today’s talk about a "new American mandate" in perspective.

"Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That’s the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion. That retooling could easily happen, and it clearly will happen -- but only if Catholics and other religious believers allow it."

The third point to focus on when the beliefs of Catholics are challenged is that "it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs," Chaput counseled.

"The fourth and final thing to remember, and there’s no easy way to say it," remarked Archbishop Chaput, is that the "Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years."

"And now we’re harvesting the results -- in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington."

American Catholics need to realize that many in the current generation haven’t just been "assimilated" into the American culture, but have in fact been "absorbed and bleached and digested by it," Archbishop Chaput asserted.

If this realization doesn’t happen, the coming generations will continue on the same path and "a real Catholic presence in American life will continue to weaken and disappear," said Chaput.

Citing the example of "unhappy, self-described Catholics who complain that abortion is too much of a litmus test," he stated, "We can’t claim to be ‘Catholic’ and ‘pro-choice’ at the same time without owning the responsibility for where the choice leads – to a dead unborn child."

The archbishop also addressed the "abortion reduction" argument being made by some in politics.

"We can’t talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we’re Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don’t really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we’re something we’re not."

"Catholic social teaching goes well beyond abortion," Chaput noted. "In America we have many urgent issues that beg for our attention, from immigration reform to health care to poverty to homelessness."

Winding his talk down, the Archbishop of Denver remarked on the misunderstanding of the word "hope."

"For Christians," he explained, "hope is a virtue, not an emotional crutch or a political slogan. Virtus, the Latin root of virtue, means strength or courage. Real hope is unsentimental. It has nothing to do with the cheesy optimism of election campaigns. Hope assumes and demands a spine in believers. And that’s why – at least for a Christian -- hope sustains us when the real answer to the problems or hard choices in life is ‘no, we can’t,’ instead of ‘yes, we can.’"

The full text of the archbishop's speech can be found here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=790

Ash Wednesday

2009-02-24T18:16:00.000-08:00

Lord, protect us in our struggle against evil. As we begin the discipline of Lent, make this day holy by our self-denial. Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

A Quote by Archbishop Timothy Dolan

2009-02-23T07:45:00.000-08:00

"Maybe the greatest threat to the church is not heresy, not dissent, not secularism, not even moral relativism, but this sanitized, feel-good, boutique, therapeutic spirituality that makes no demands, calls for no sacrifice, asks for no conversion, entails no battle against sin, but only soothes and affirms."

2007 lecture on preaching.

Excommunicate Pelosi

2009-02-19T13:48:00.000-08:00

Apparently a spokesperson for Pelosi has said that the Speaker will not change her pro-abortion/pro-death stand. In that case, I think that the Pope should excommunicate her.

If she's such an "ardent, practicing Catholic" as she claims, she should at least follow one of the more important doctrines of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI sets Pelosi straight on Catholic doctrine

2009-02-18T06:45:00.000-08:00

Pelosi, in her own words, described herself as an "ardent, practicing Catholic." What a joke. She is pro-abortion, and tries to defend it by saying that the Church hasn't come to a decision as yet to when life begins. What? What Catholic Church does she belong to? So I thought it particularly bold of her to ask for an audience with the Pope. Well, the Vatican has released the following. Apparently Pope Benedict set the Speaker straight on Catholic doctrine:

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday told U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development," the Vatican said.
Pelosi is the first top Democrat to meet with Benedict since the election of Barack Obama, who won a majority of the Catholic vote despite differences with the Vatican on abortion.

The Vatican released remarks by the pope to Pelosi, saying Benedict spoke of the church's teaching "on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death." That is an expression often used by the pope when expressing opposition to abortion.

Benedict said all Catholics—especially legislators, jurists and political leaders—should work to create "a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Pelosi could not immediately be reached after the 15-minute meeting, which was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room of a Vatican auditorium after the pope's weekly public audience.

A number of the bishops in the United States have questioned Pelosi's stance on abortion, particularly her theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Godless America

2009-02-15T05:56:00.000-08:00

Religious people of all faiths should be afraid of the new liberal take-over of America, for where there is expansion of government power and influence, there follows a diminution of God and faith in our culture and public square.

Liberalism, in the form now represented in our government by the likes of Reid, Pelosi and Obama, is anathema to religious institutions. No matter how they try to disguise themselves as Christians, what do their actions tell you? Pelosi, a supposed Catholic, is pro-abortion. One of Obama's first actions in office was to once again allow taxpayer funds to support abortions abroad. The entire liberal wing of the Democratic Party is pro-abortion.

Liberalism, like socialism, dislikes religion. Religion interferes with the workings of a mammoth secular government. It's liberals who got prayer out of schools -- and now judging from the sorry state of our schools, just how did that work out for us?

Liberals hate school choice and home schooling because it diminishes their power and the power of their servants the Teachers's Unions. Recall Hillary Clinton's "it takes a village"? Pure socialism.

Liberals object to things like Nativity scenes and Christmas trees on public property.

Buried in that monstrosity of a "stimulus bill" is a provision which would censor religious speech and worship on school campuses by prohibiting use of any "stimulus" funds for facilities that are used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity.

Liberals want to control your health care, which would mandate that Catholic hospitals and all healthcare givers perform procedures which go against their religious beliefs -- or face penalties meted out by the Federal Government.

These people whom some of you have elected are attempting to radically change this country. They are doing it under the guise of an economic emergency, in the dead of night, without Obama's promised "transparency." I don't understand how people of true religious faith could support polices which will ultimately undermine religion in America. Elections have serious consequences. These people are ravenous wolves.

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15)

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

2009-02-14T13:12:00.000-08:00

Here is an excerpt from a great Wall Street Op Ed piece by Stephen Moore. Read it all here.

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

An Open Letter to the Congress and the President of the United States

2009-02-14T05:38:00.000-08:00

An Open Letter to the Congress and the President of the United States
by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.

For the last 35 years, educators and analysts at The Heritage Foundation have been intimately involved in the nation's great public policy debates. In all that time, we have never encountered legislation with such far-reaching and revolutionary policy implications as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act currently before Congress. And never have we seen a bill more cloaked in secrecy or more withdrawn from open public exposure and honest debate.

In addition to being the single most expensive bill ever proposed, this measure calls for a massive expansion of the federal government's reach into the day-to-day life of virtually every citizen, business and civic organization in the nation. That, in itself, should be the subject of an extensive public conversation and thoughtful debate. Instead, we have seen Congressional leaders schedule snap votes on a 1,434-page bill that no one—repeat, no one—has had a chance to read in its entirety, much less digest and deliberate.

This bill has been advertised as an economic stimulus bill—despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will actually weaken our nation's long-term economic growth. While the stimulative utility of the bill is, at best, questionable, it would unquestionably rewrite the social contract between the American people and their government. For example:

The bill reverses the bipartisan and highly successful welfare reforms of 1996 and drastically expands the welfare state. For instance, it will start rewarding states for adding people to their welfare rolls, rather than for helping them find gainful employment. And contrary to long-established practice, it will entitle able-bodied adults without children to receive cash assistance.

It does extreme violence to the concept of federalism—bailing out states that have spent irresponsibly at the expense of taxpayers in states that have been fiscally prudent.

It greatly shifts the responsibility and power over health care delivery and decision making from individuals to government. Among other things, it would create a new federal health board to decide which medical services are "effective" in America, paving the way for government effectively to overrule the clinical decisions of private physicians.

It deliberately censors religious speech and worship on school campuses by prohibiting use of any "stimulus" funds for facilities that are used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity.

The list goes on. These and similar provisions will mean fundamental changes in our society. In many instances, the bill would establish policies that directly challenge widely held American values.

We are appalled that Congress is even contemplating such profound changes with so little openness and due diligence. In the past, major policy changes in our welfare system, or health care, or trade policies, etc., were always, quite properly, preceded by extensive public conversation and full debate. That is how a democracy should make important decisions.

The failure of Congress and the Administration to allow that debate is damaging to our democracy. Both chambers of Congress suspended their budget rules to push it along. And both the President and the leaders of the House and Senate have violated their solemn promises that the bill would be available for several days of public review prior to voting, so that the American people might have a chance to learn what is in the bill and to make their views known to their elected officials.

This reckless approach to governance can only undermine public faith in our elected officials and our government as a whole. We call on Congress and the Administration to live up to their promises and stated ideals, and give the democratic process a chance to work.

Could popular opinion of our feckless Congress sink any lower?

2009-02-11T04:31:00.000-08:00

Camille Paglia is a talented writer. A liberal at heart, I'm sure, she still maintains the commonsense most liberals have long ago lost in the name of their ideology. Here are some excerpts from her most recent column on salon.com. Go here to read the full column "A Rocky First Few Weeks." Just savor the first two paragraphs -- it conjures up a Dante-esque image of malformed hogs fighting to get at a trough of slop. Not a pretty picture of our government.

Feb. 11, 2009 | Money by the barrelful, by the truckload. Mountains of money, heaped like gassy pyramids in the national dump. Scrounging packs of politicos, snapping, snarling and sending green bills flying sky-high as they root through the tangled mass with ragged claws. The stale hot air filled with cries of rage, the gnashing of teeth and dark prophecies of doom.

Yes, this grotesque scene, like a claustrophobic circle in Dante's "Inferno," was what the U.S. government has looked like for the past two weeks as it fights on over Barack Obama's stimulus package -- a mammoth, chaotic grab bag of treasures, toys and gimcracks. Could popular opinion of our feckless Congress sink any lower? You betcha! ....

Most mainstream American voters are undoubtedly suffering from economist fatigue these days. This one calls for tax cuts; that one condemns them. One says we're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars; the other claims that sum falls pathetically short. A plague on all their houses! Surely common sense would dictate that when Congress is doling out fat dollops of taxpayers' money, due time should be delegated for sober consideration and debate. The administration's coercive rush toward instant action, accompanied by apocalyptic pronouncements of imminent catastrophe, has put its own credibility on the line....

Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.

One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.

The Lies of Scientism

2009-02-10T19:06:00.000-08:00

THE LIES OF SCIENTISM
by Bishop Michael J. Sheridan

Several decades ago, a Russian cosmonaut returned from his first venture into space and proudly announced that he had been into the heavens and could now verify that God was nowhere to be seen. This finding, of course, fit nicely into the atheistic picture of reality that prevailed in the Soviet Union of those days.

More than simply a glib pronouncement on the non-existence of God, however, the remark was expressive of what has come to be known as "scientism." Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, provides a good definition of scientism: "Scientism is the scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

Put even more simply, scientism is the belief that whatever cannot be experienced by the senses, i.e., seen, touched, heard, etc., simply does not exist. First and foremost, this means that God does not exist because he cannot be subjected to scientific observation and proof.

One of the most well-known gurus of scientism was the late Carl Sagan, best know for his popular television series "Cosmos." Sagan was unrelenting in his insistence that the methods and speculations of science are absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of all reality. Science, then, surpasses any other form of knowledge, including religion. In the "religion" of scientism only matter is eternal. "Mother Earth" was for Sagan the only god to be worshipped, as is the case for many who espouse New Age thinking.

In his book "Cosmos," Sagan wrote that "our ancestors worshipped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it now make sense to revere the Sun and stars?" (p. 243).

Recently, scientism has taken a curious turn. Last year scientists at the National Institutes for Health in Bethesda, Md., performed experiments that convinced them that what religion calls the moral conscience is, in fact, nothing more than basic brain activity. Remaining true to the tenets of scientism, these scientists would allow no explanation of moral action other than the claim that that's the way our brains are wired.

What is interesting, however, is that, instead of using science to discredit religion, these scientists seem to be claiming that what people of faith have known all along can now be substantiated by the scientific method. It's an intriguing twist, but in the end scientism reigns supreme.

Harvard neuroscientist and philosopher Joshua Greene, as good an example of scientism as anyone, has stated that his goal as a scientist is "to reveal our moral thinking for what it is: a complex hodgepodge of emotional responses and rational (re)constructions, shaped by biological and cultural forces . . ." There it is. For Greene — as for all good proponents of scientism — not only do conscience and morality have no objective meaning or content or even less do they come from God, the human person is ultimately understood to be no more than the product of cultural and biological forces.

This way of thinking is becoming more and more acceptable in what has been called our "age of science." It has infected even people of faith. Nowhere is it more obvious than in the implicit — and even explicit at times — agreement that conscience is, in fact, nothing more than what I think and feel about a particular subject. My own personal thoughts are understood to be little other than the effects of the culture in which I live. And so, even for some Catholics, the moral conscience has little to do with God or his revelation or the natural law. Rather, conscience has everything to do with how I, as an individual, perceive reality. What else could account for the sad fact that many Catholics believe that a crime like abortion could be morally justified in certain situations?

In an age of relativism such as ours, it is vitally important that we appreciate that God is the source of all truth and meaning. He created that world and all that is in it. It is his law that governs right behavior. It is his truth that informs and binds every human conscience. It is his truth that is communicated authoritatively by the magisterium of the Catholic Church. We read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings" (No. 1783).

Stimulus Plan? Are you kidding me?

2009-01-29T12:30:00.000-08:00

I'm a bit off my usual topic of spirituality, but I can't let this hoopla over the so-called "stimulus" bill go without saying something. First of all, who's kidding who here? I don't think even the dyed in the wool lefties could say that this multi-billion dollar scandal is going to bring back jobs -- well, unless you're a union worker, a trial lawyer, a teacher, an artist feeding at the public trough. This is nothing more than a generous payback to all of Obama's leftwing supporters. Nothing more.

And though I don't need much more evidence than reading the 1,500+ pages of pork-laden tripe, I submit this little tidbit from today's news:

Unions and liberal activist groups are pressuring key Republican senators to get on board with the Obama administration's economic stimulus proposal, after every Republican in the House voted against the plan Wednesday.

MoveOn.org, along with the Service Employees International Union and other groups, announced Thursday they will run a set of ads in five states urging Republican senators up for election in two years to support the plan, which passed the House despite GOP opposition.

If ever there was a reason to oppose this bill, it's that it's supported by MoveOn.org and unions. I just hope all those who voted for Obama wear those buttons proudly over the next few years so I know who to blame when we find ourselves even further in debt, with inflation running rampant, and no new jobs to speak of unless you work for NPR.

Say no more.

Lax Catholics

2009-01-27T15:19:00.000-08:00

Bishop Robert Hermann, administrator of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, says that the election of President Barack Obama would not have occurred without the support of lax Catholics.

“If at this stage our anger is directed at President Obama, our anger is misdirected,” Bishop Hermann writes. “Obama is not the enemy. He needs and deserves our prayers, not our condemnation. As Catholics, we are not guiltless. It seems to me that when President Kennedy compromised Catholic teachings and accommodated political pressures in order to be elected to the highest office in the land, he set the tone for many Catholic leaders to follow and to compromise their Catholic principles to get ahead. In our Supreme Court and in our Congress, we have a plethora of so-called Catholics who are failing to live their Catholic identity. Over 50 percent of our electorate voted for a president who is one of the most pro-culture-of-death candidates from a major party to run for the highest office of the land. Yes, we can thank one-half of our Catholics for bailing out on their faith!”

Arrogance

2009-01-24T15:20:00.001-08:00

A senior Vatican official on Saturday attacked US President Barack Obama for "arrogance" for overturning a ban on state funding for family-planning groups that carry out or facilitate abortions overseas.

It is "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right, in signing a decree which will open the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life," Archbishop Rino Fisichella was quoted as saying by the Corriere della Sera daily.

Fisichella is president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, one of a number of so-called pontifical academies which are formed by or under the direction of the Holy See.

"What is important is to know how to listen... without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death," he added.

Obama signed the executive order cancelling the eight-year-old restrictions on Friday, the third full day of his presidency.

The so-called "global gag rule" cut off US funding to overseas family planning clinics which provide any abortion services whatsoever, from the operation itself to counselling, referrals or post-abortion services.

"If this is one of the first acts of President Obama, with all due respect, it seems to me that the path towards disappointment will have been very short," Fisichella said.

"I do not believe that those who voted for him took into consideration ethical themes, which were astutely left aside during the election debate. The majority of the American population does not take the same position as the president and his team," he added.

More Wisdom from Hollywood

2009-01-23T03:50:00.000-08:00

"He is a community organizer like Jesus was. And now, we're a community and he can organize us."
-- Susan Sarandon, offering her thoughts on President Obama

Hope and Change? Not for the unborn

2009-01-22T06:17:00.000-08:00

A week before his installation as archbishop of the United States’ fifth-largest diocese, Bishop Allen Vigneron criticized President Obama’s stance on abortion in a newspaper interview. “I share the concern of all of the bishops of the United States that the administration has, at least prior to the election, given us indications that they are going to rescind some of the protections of the unborn,” he said. “And I am very disappointed in that.” He added, “We are going to have to represent our opposition as forcefully as we can and try to build coalitions to dissuade the administration from moving to that.”

Bishop Vigneron refused to say whether he would deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians. “I am not going to answer any hypothetical questions like that, especially from this distance,” he said. “I simply want to affirm that part of being a Catholic is having a conviction that on these moral matters, the Church speaks the mind of Christ. And I want to help Catholics, especially Catholics in responsible positions, to maintain the integrity of their professions.”

Obamessiah

2009-01-19T16:58:00.000-08:00

The messianic worship of Barack Obama scares me.

I've seen it throughout the campaign, to one degree or another, but it is reaching near hysteria as we sit this evening on the eve of the inauguration. Just watch the news and listen to the people talk, listen to these people who have their future, their hopes and dreams, tied to one man, a politician, at that. See them weep at the sight of him. Oprah Winfrey said "I feel like I am better because of his being elected. And I think that the country is going to be better. I feel like it is a beautiful thing, and we all start to see ourselves differently, the possibility.”

Now I fully admit to not having supported Obama, however unlike the Bush-haters who spent 8 years wishing his failure, at the expense of the country no less, I wish Obama well, and I truly hope he does a good job for the country. We need it.

But even in my most adoring sentiments for past presidents like Reagan, I never let myself lose sight of the fact that he's just another human being.

Those who put all their hopes in one man are doomed to disappointment.

Such adoration as Obama is receiving now should be left for Christ alone.

US BISHOPS WRITE PRESIDENT-ELECT; FUNDAMENTAL PRIORITY: DEFEND RIGHT TO LIFE

2009-01-19T14:42:00.000-08:00

Washington, Jan. 16, 2009 (CWNews.com) - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday released a letter from Cardinal Francis George, the conference’s president, to President-elect Barack Obama. The letter, dated Tuesday, outlines the “principles and priorities that guide the [bishops’] public policy efforts” so as to offer “an agenda for dialogue and action.” A similar letter was sent to the vice president-elect and members of Congress.

The foundational priority, according to Cardinal George, is the protection of innocent human life. “Most fundamentally,” he writes, “we will work to protect the lives of the most vulnerable and voiceless members of the human family, especially unborn children and those who are disabled or terminally ill.“ He continues:

We will consistently defend the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death. Opposed to abortion as the direct killing of innocent human life, we will encourage one and all to seek common ground that will reduce the number of abortions in morally sound ways that affirm the dignity of pregnant women and their unborn children. We will oppose legislative and other measures to expand abortion. We will work to retain essential, widely supported policies which show respect for unborn life, protect the conscience rights of health care providers and other Americans, and prevent government funding and promotion of abortion. The Hyde amendment and other provisions which for many years have prevented federal funding of abortion have a proven record of reducing abortions. Efforts to force Americans to fund abortions with their tax dollars would pose a serious moral challenge and jeopardize the passage of essential health care reform.”

Obama's Nod to the Pro-Abortion Groups?

2009-01-14T15:06:00.000-08:00

President-elect Obama has asked 9 ministers to lead prayers at different events during his inaugural celebration; all of them are Protestant. Steven Waldman of Beliefnet notes that in the past, "Presidents typically made a point of including a Catholic and, often, a Jew." The National Catholic Register wonders whether the failure to include a Catholic is coincidental, noting that-- in another break from recent practice-- the Archbishop of Denver was not asked to deliver an invocation at this year's Democratic national convention.

I think this is intentional, and is because of the strong Catholic stand against abortion. Obama is one of the most pro-abortion politicians in this country, and he doesn't hide that fact.

Why would you want to join them?

2009-01-14T04:55:00.000-08:00

From a fascinating book by Father Richard Neuhaus, "Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth":

"Church-hopping is simply church-shopping in search of a 'spirituality that meets my needs.' There was a time not long ago when denominational identity was much more than a matter of individual preference: 'I come from a long line of Presbyterians.' one heard it said.... Back then, it was not unusual for people to tell you why their church was right and others were wrong about issues such as infant baptism, or the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, or about God's predestination of the saved and the damned.

That time is passing, if it has not already passed. Talk about right and wrong or true and false is out. Talk about what 'meets my needs' is in. With the admittedly partial, although still notable, exception of people who are becoming Catholic. Switch from Presbyterian to Methodist, or start attending the evangelical "megachurch" in the neighboring exurb, and you will raise few eyebrows. ... Announce that you're taking instruction to become Catholic, however, and it is likely to prompt sharp questions of intense curiosity. Why would you want to join 'them'?

... Researchers who study denominational 'adhesion power' say that mainline Protestant churches are hemorrhaging members for many reasons. The mainline churches -- for instance, United Methodist, Presbyterian (USA), United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, and now the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) -- are today often called the oldline churches. Less kindly, they are called the 'sideline churches.' They once constituted the Protestant Establishment ... Their precipitous decline in numbers and influence is often attributed to the sharp left turn their leadership took on moral and political issues back in the 1960s."

God's Grandeur

2009-01-09T16:23:00.000-08:00

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; cleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Gerard Manley Hopkins
1844-1889

An Absurd Reasoning

2009-01-06T05:30:00.000-08:00

While I am on the subject of Albert Camus, I thought I would discuss briefly my other favorite essay in that great book "The Myth of Sisyphus," an essay I read for the first time over 35 years ago but which still entertains and prompts me to think, "An Absurd Reasoning."

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."

Wow, what an opening line! He pulls no punches in asking the question, if life has no meaning, then what's the point of going on.

"It is merely confessing that 'life is not worth the trouble.' Living, naturally, is never easy. You continue making the gestures commanded by existence for many reasons, the first of which is habit. Dying voluntarily implies that you have recognized, even instinctively, the ridiculous character of that habit, the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, and the uselessness of suffering."

What Camus attempts to do in this essay is to answer the question, Can we acknowledge that life is meaningless without committing suicide?

What Camus concludes, in true existentialist fashion, is that it is in the very depths of anxiety and ennui, in the very face of meaninglessness and absurdity, that we discover our humanity and our own appreciation of life.

The moral? Without God, Camus and the other existentialists must contort their reasoning to find meaning.

The Ontological Argument

2008-12-17T20:00:00.000-08:00

My earliest philosophical inquiries into the existence of God and the Meaning of Life, began with the most ancient of arguments, the Ontological Argument.

St. Anselm, Archbishop of Cantebury (1033-1109), is the originator of the ontological argument, which he describes in the Proslogium as follows:

[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

What is St. Anselm saying here? Simply put, if we can imagine a being so great that no other being can be conceived which is greater, then this being must exist, for to be that great, it must exist in reality and not just in our consciousness.

More on this argument to follow. Think about it.

Orwellian Doublespeak

2008-12-11T06:00:00.000-08:00

We are truly in the age of Orwellian Doublespeak, where language is now manipulated by political parties (especially the Left) to obfuscate meanings and to eradicate thought which they deem dangerous to their authority.

Take the Freedom of Choice (FOC) bill championed by abortion proponents like Obama and Planned Parenthood. It would eliminate the choice of individuals to opt out of abortion procedures which they deem offensive and evil on moral grounds. So "choice" only works one way. Their way. So that's the "Freedom" of Choice bill.

Then there is the Employee Free Choice Act which masquerades as legislation to help the working man. Among other things, it would eliminate the sacred secret ballot for union elections. That's right, they want the right to KNOW who the people are who DO NOT want a union so they can intimidate them. This is anything but "free choice." Again, true doublespeak.

Finally, there is the Fairness Doctrine which the liberals desperately want to re-enact. It would have the effect of stifling political talk on the radio, which, we all know, is dominated by conservative shows. Since radio, like tv, is propelled by ad revenue, which is based on numbers of listeners and viewers, there is nothing now to stop liberals from having their own presence on the radio. That is what's fair. Having the government impose their will on what should and what should not be on the airwaves is anything but "fair."

But then, we are in the world of Orwellian Doublespeak.

What's Wrong With Catholic Voters?

2008-12-09T13:36:00.000-08:00

There was a very thought-provoking article in Catholic Culture (.org) after the election, titled "What's Wrong With Catholic Voters?" In it, author Phil Lawler wondered why so many Catholics voted for Obama, and by extension, the liberal "culture of death" that is abortion.

I, too, find this puzzling. And alarming. My simple answer would be that too many of all religious persuasions don't take their faith seriously. Obviously there is more to it than that, but I believe it can be boiled down to that simple fact. There are undoubtedly those who call themselves Catholics who disagree with the Church teaching on abortion. Perhaps they also disagree with the celibacy of the priesthood, or any of a host of other Church teaching and doctrine.

Then, why, I ask, don't they leave the Church? If they can't accept the most basic teachings, then they should find a church in which they can feel comfortable. But don't expect the Church to change for them with the vagaries of modern culture. Some things are immutable.

Some people these days have the mistaken notion that institutions like the Church must "get with it," that they must "change with the times." The Church hasn't survived for 2000 years by changing its tune like the music of the day.

Lawler sees the failure of Catholic voters to renounce this culture of death in the election as a failure of the Catholic hierarchy -- particularly in America -- in denouncing it themselves more vociferously.

Yes, the bishops routinely denounced abortion; but at the same time they treated the public supporters of taxpayer-funded abortion with jovial deference. Puzzled lay Catholics concluded that the bishops didn't really take the issue too seriously, and the laity in turn stopped taking their bishops seriously.

Will the next presidential election see even strong support for the "culture of death" among voters who identify themselves-- inaccurately-- as believing Catholics? Regrettably, I see the same forces that corrupted Catholicism in my native state now active all across the nation.

To repair the damage, we must recognize that the problem is not restricted to abortion, nor to defense-of-life issues. Indeed it is not, strictly speaking, a political problem. To restore the integrity of the Catholic vote, we must first restore the integrity of the Catholic faith, and rebuild the foundations of a Catholic culture.

December's Bookshelf

2008-12-09T11:45:00.000-08:00

I tend to have a number of books on my reading shelf at any given time. I like the variety of being able to shift from topic to topic, however the moment strikes me. At the moment they are weighted heavily on the spiritual side, but there are some other diversions:

(1) The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics
(2) The Confessions of St. Augustine
(3) Say Me For A Parable, The Oral Autobiography of Mance Lipscomb, Texas Bluesman
(4) Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
(5) Essential Catholicism: Dynamics of Faith & Belief, Bokenkotter
(6) The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton

Our Mother of Sorrows

2008-12-09T03:48:00.001-08:00

I had my Catholic teaching at Our Mother of Sorrows Parish in Tucson, Arizona, OMOS for short.

It was Monsignor Thomas Cahalane who had the most influence on me when I entered the RCIA -- the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (actually, the Profession of Faith, since I'd already been baptized) -- which ends on Easter Vigil. I was able to have many philosophical discussions with him and one thing he said made me feel at home: "We don't expect you to leave your reason at the door." Being the questioning type, that one comment made me feel comfortable with my new path.

I had come full circle -- as a youth, knowing little about the Catholic faith other than the seeming mysterious rituals -- I had the view of the outsider. I fancied myself the empiricist, and scoffed at this supernatural tomfoolery. But how strange the journey, that as I ventured deeper and deeper in to my spiritual quest, that I finally came around to an understanding: No matter how much I tried, my reason alone wasn't going to get me there.

At some point, I had to embrace the mystery of the universe, of God and his creation, and of his Son. This is where, in an ironic twist of fate, Catholicism came to my rescue. As it turned out, I, the empiricist, needed the ancient rituals to bridge that chasm between Reason and Faith. I needed the Word AND the Tradition. For me, something this mysterious and awe-inspiring demands it -- worship with the connectedness of Tradition back to the time even before the New Testament. Vatican II described Tradition:

Now what was handed on by the apostles includes everything which contributes to the holiness of life, and the increase in faith of the People of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

St. Juan Diego

2008-12-09T03:42:00.000-08:00

Today the Church in the United States celebrates the optional memorial of St. Juan Diego, an Indian convert, to whom the Virgin Mary appeared as he was going to Mass in Tlatlelolco, Mexico. Our Lady asked him to tell the Bishop that she desired a shrine to be built on the spot to manifest her love for all mankind. She left a marvelous portrait of herself on the mantle of Juan Diego as a sign for the Bishop. This miraculous image has proved to be ageless, and is kept in the shrine built in her honor, the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas.

Feast of the Immaculate Conception

2008-12-08T04:08:00.001-08:00

Today, December 8, is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a day of Obligation in the Roman Catholic Church.

A feast called the Conception of Mary arose in the Eastern Church in the seventh century (prior to the Great Schism of 1054). It looked to the West in the eighth century. In the eighth century it became a feast of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the only one of Mary's feasts that came to the Western Church not by way of Rome, but instead spread from the Byzantine area to Naples, and then to Normandy during their period of dominance over southern Italy. From there it spread into England, France, Germany, and eventually Rome.

It is a public holiday in Austria, Nicaragua, Chile, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Macau, Malta, Peru, and Paraguay. In some countries, though December 8 is not a public holiday, their respective Bishops' Conference however declared this day as a Holy Day of Obligation, as it is in the United States, the Philippines and Ireland.

Obama's FOCA Bill Could Force Closure of Catholic Hospitals

2008-12-06T06:05:00.000-08:00

The FOCA bill, which Obama promised Planned Parenthood last year would be the first piece of legislation he would sign, would make unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy the national law.

It would also go further and overturn hundreds of state laws that reduce or limit abortions, including measures that allow Catholic and private medical centers or medical professionals like doctors and nurses to opt out of doing abortions.

The overturning of those laws concerned the nation's Catholic bishops so much that, during their recent national meeting, they talked about the possibility of closing Catholic hospitals if FOCA becomes law to avoid being forced to do abortions.

Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago spoke up about the threats to Catholic health care under the bill.

"It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely," Paprocki said. "It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."

Happy St. Nicholas Day

2008-12-06T05:42:00.001-08:00

St. Nicholas, called "of Bari", Bishop of Myra (Fourth Century) 6 Dec. Feast day. The great veneration with which this saint has been honored for many ages and the number of altars and churches which have been everywhere dedicated in his memory are testimonials to his holiness and of the glory which he enjoys with God. He is said to have been born at Patara in Lycia, a province of Asia Minor. Myra, the capital, not far from the sea, was an episcopal see, and this church falling vacant, the holy Nicholas was chosen bishop, and in that station became famous by his extraordinary piety and zeal and many astonishing miracles. The Greek histories of his life agree that he suffered imprisonment of the faith and made a glorious confession in the latter part of the persecution raised by Dioletian, and that he was present at the Council of Nicaea and there condemned Arianism. The silence of other authors makes many justly suspect these circumstances. He died at Myra, and was buried in his cathedral.

[see complete history at catholiconline.org]

I Want To Believe

2008-12-05T09:45:00.000-08:00

I am a fan of the old TV series, The X-Files. I own the first three seasons on DVD (and plan on owning more) and was apparently one of a only a few who went to the theatrical release of the X-Files movie "I Want To Believe" earlier this year. It didn't get very good reviews, and I guess was something of a disappointment at the box office.

But I thoroughly enjoyed it. Perhaps it's just my fanboy bias.

This week it was released on DVD and I ran across this review in InsideCatholic.com. It's an excellent review, part of which I summarize below, but I encourage going to the site and reading the full review:

A brief intro for the uninitiated: The X-Files was a 1990s television series about two FBI agents, Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, who investigated paranormal phenomena. Mulder was the true believer; Scully -- scientist, doctor, and Catholic -- was the skeptic.

At the film's opening, Scully is out of the FBI game. Why? For one reason, as she tells Mulder, "I'm done chasing monsters in the dark. . . . I don't want that darkness in my home." (Mulder's excellent rejoinder, delivered late in the film: "I don't think it works like that. I think the darkness finds you, wherever you are.") Now, she's a doctor at Our Lady of Sorrows (!) hospital, overseeing the care of a terminally ill child. But she's reluctant to give him up to a hospice, and here she bumps up against the hospital administrator -- who happens to be a priest. "We're here to heal the sick," he reminds her. "Not to prolong the ordeal for the dying. . . . Unless you've come up with a cure, we'd ask that you let the boy go in peace." Hard words, but not unreasonable. In fact, entirely reasonable. A priest as the voice of reason -- who knew?

And it gets better: Set against the reasonable priest is another sort of priest -- Father Joe. He gets called a psychic, but he's closer to a prophet. Father receives visions he can't explain, and says things he knows not why. One of those things he says to Scully: "Don't give up." But Scully doesn't want to listen to him, because the priest is a pedophile (albeit a repentant one). Her Catholicism is part of the reason she reacts so violently against him, and small wonder: She's doesn't want the darkness in her home, and here it is, shepherding the flock....

Getting back to the contest between faith and reason: Father Joe's visions concern two kidnapped women, and as the story progresses, he gets enough right that Scully can't easily ignore him. When he tells her not to give up, she takes it as a sign that she should attempt a radical, risky, and painful course of treatment that might save her patient's life. It's a leap of faith, venturing out in the darkness on the strength of a prophet's testimony. (And it's worth noting that even after she takes the leap, her faith is tested.)

This is the real drama of the film, the story at its wonderfully human heart. No aliens, no conspiracies, just through-a-glass-darkly signs from the Christian God.

The Abortion War

2008-12-05T08:00:00.000-08:00

An all out war between Obama and the Vatican is coming if Obama goes through with his pro-death agenda. See this interesting article from the Washington Times:

President-elect Barack Obama's plan to pass the Freedom of Choice Act is setting up a showdown with the Vatican.

"The first thing I will do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," he said at an address before Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007. And if he does, it will trigger a harsh response from Pope Benedict XVI, as well as a political revolt among practicing American Catholics.

Mr. Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) "would be the equivalent of a war," a senior Vatican official told Time magazine last week. "It would be like saying, 'We've heard the Catholic Church and we have no interest in their concerns.' " At a recent Baltimore meeting, the U.S. Catholic bishops pledged to challenge Mr. Obama on his defense of abortion rights.

FOCA seeks to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. It would remove all restrictions on abortion in state statutes - including restraints on late-term abortions and parental notification laws. It would also entrench taxpayer funding of abortion. Moreover, it would compel Catholic health-care facilities to provide the heinous procedure. In short, it constitutes a fundamental assault on basic Catholic doctrine.

Mr. Obama is a radical on abortion. He is vehemently pro-choice, even opposing the ban on partial-birth abortion. While in the Illinois state legislature, Mr. Obama voted against legislation protecting babies born in botched abortions.

Narcissus Arises

2008-12-03T03:46:00.000-08:00

Here is an excerpt from a great article called "Pop Goes the Mass," in which the author analyzes and bemoans the quality of modern hymns sung at some Masses these days. Near the end of this long essay, is this timely critique of our modern culture, from the book "Culture of Narcissism."

The Church has more than once had to protect the Mass from degenerating into an aesthetic spectacle. I don't claim that all music written for worship before 1960 was good or appropriate for the liturgy. If you look at an old revivalist hymnal you will find many a catchy melody that you wish you could throw back again. But there's a difference.

Ours, said Christopher Lasch in his book by that name, is a Culture of Narcissism. He didn't mean that we indulge our vanity in dress and makeup. He meant that we had elevated the self to the standard by which all questions of good and evil were decided — a self turned inward, analyzing its feelings, picking its scabs, whining about its needs, fearing the frankness of open conflict, suspicious of the claims of reason, severed from tradition, relieving the emptiness of modernity by imagining itself as the central character in a great psychodrama. It is an arrested infantilism. Our economy depends upon it, and our major cultural institutions (most obviously the schools, but also the arts, the family, and the churches) have followed tamely, while preening themselves for daring to advance the standards of "progress."

What are the symptoms of a culture of narcissism? The ancient myth can reveal a few: The lad Narcissus, who fell in love with his image in the pool, was callow and selfish, oblivious to the love of the nymph Echo who pined away for him. The narcissist, then, has a severely constricted range of observation, memory, and imaginative affection.

By this criterion, the Renaissance (to which our own age of Church "renewal" is sometimes incautiously compared) is not narcissistic. It is true that Donatello wanted to outdo the ancient Greek sculptors. But he revered them. He learned all he could about them. He emulated their techniques. He went to Rome and to other sites of ancient ruins to dig up copies of their work. That reverence for greatness in someone else, particularly in someone long past, and the sense that the predecessor exerts a claim upon one's allegiance, is deeply humble, even when united with a desire for preeminence.

But the narcissist of our day cultivates amnesia. He does not want to remember, he does not want to hear. What occurred before he was born is obsolete. Its sole uses are to satisfy an occasional taste for the antique, and to confirm the superiority of the current. Suspicious of tradition, scoffing and yet cowed by the greatness of his forebears, he pretends to reinvent cultural wheels; he has a weakness for primitivism (e.g., "Kumbaya"). Thus he is always talking about "renewing" things whose ancient state he knows little about. Yet in cutting himself off from tradition, he pre vents himself from growing up. Instead of being childlike yet mature, he is childish, yet swaggers like a god.

I will admit to agreeing with the author. I detest the folk songs disguised as hymns. Then again, I'm not a fan of the "pop culturalization" of religious ceremonies. This is one of the great beauties of the Catholic Mass, the solemnity, the reverence, the ancient traditions.

Black, and Bleak, Friday

2008-12-02T04:05:00.000-08:00

The death of a Wal-Mart employee last Friday, trampled to death by out of control shoppers in search of a bargain, is a barbaric example of our declining culture. It is the dark side of our consumer-driven society. Though our economy is driven by consumption, consumption without reason, responsibility, and moderation is sinful.

Give me neither poverty nor riches,
grant me only my share of bread to eat,
for fear that surrounded by plenty, I should fall away
and say, "Yahweh - who is Yahweh?"
or else in destitution, take to stealing
and profane the name of my God.

-from Proverbs 30:8-9

I recommend Advent Conspiracy as an antidote.

Then there is the Indiana Planned Parenthood which is selling "holiday" gift certificates which can be redeemed for health care -- and abortions. Giving the gift of death to celebrate the birth of Christ -- what has become of our society?

Advent 2008

2008-12-01T04:10:00.001-08:00

The First Gospel reading of our Advent Liturgy from this years cycle B, is taken from St. Mark, chapter 13: 33 – 37: “Jesus said to his disciples: “Be watchful! Be alert! You do not know when the time will come. It is like a man traveling abroad. He leaves home and places his servants in charge, each with his own work, and orders the gatekeeper to be on the watch. Watch, therefore; you do not know when the Lord of the house is coming, whether in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning. May he not come suddenly and find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to all: ‘Watch!’”

The word “Advent” is derived from the Latin words, “ad-venio” or “adventus”, which both signify a coming. It is a liturgical "season" in the Catholic Church and has birthed important customs in Catholic faith and life. Customs that form a framework, a texture that is meant to bring faith to life and form patterns for our daily lives which can move us forward in the Christian life.

The actual celebration of Advent as a season of preparation for Christmas dates back as early as the fourth century. It has grown throughout the history of the Western Church to become a significant part of the pattern of life, faith, culture and worship that is Catholic Christianity.

[from Catholic online]

We Are Star Dust

2008-11-29T14:18:00.000-08:00

I once heard it explained that all the elements that comprise our corporeal bodies -- carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. -- were synthesized in the furnace of ancient stars.

That had a profound effect on me. It changed the way I look at the universe.

Just reflect on that.

God, man, and the stars.

The Image Header

2008-11-29T11:24:00.000-08:00

Just a note about the images at the header of this blog. They are the amazing photos from the Hubble Telescope of the amazing universe (they will change from time to time. The current one at the top of the page is of the Swan Nebulae). It is no accident that I use these, for nothing convinces my rational mind that God is creator than this boundless and spectacular universe. To contemplate its vastness, beauty, and complexity is to truly enter the mind of God.

And I take some pride and joy in the fact that the Catholic Church is at the forefront in astronomical research (from Space.com):

"In a first-floor classroom of the papal summer palace southeast of Rome, Vatican Observatory astronomer Guy Consolmagno keeps careful watch over the pontiffs extensive collection of space aliens.

Each is stored in a carefully labeled plastic bag tucked inside a wooden drawer. Outside, telescope domes stand as silent sentinels on the roof of the 400-year-old palace.

The popes 1,000 extraterrestrials are meteorites and Consolmagno is their curator. He likes to think of them as visitors who fell to Earth from space to tell him stories about their origins and travels.

A graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Arizona, Consolmagno sees nothing incongruous about storing chunks of interplanetary debris next to the courtyard where Pope John Paul II presides over Mass on summer mornings.

Like the telescopes studding the roof of Castel Gandolfo, the 200-year-old meteorite collection is a tangible expression of the Vaticans long-standing commitment to scientific research, he said.

Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatorys $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining "a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator," he said in an interview.

"This is our way of finding God," said Consolmagno, author of Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, published in February by McGraw-Hill.

The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world and the only research group directly supported by the Holy See. The church funds the observatory to the tune of about $1 million a year, leaving its operation to the Jesuits, a religious order whose "charism," or special gift to the church, is scholarship.

Ten Jesuit astronomers split their time between Italy and Tucson, Arizona, where the Vatican Observatory Research Group has offices at the University of Arizonas Steward Observatory. In collaboration with Steward, the Jesuits built the 70-inch (1.8-meter) Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) on Mount Graham, 75 miles (120 kilometers) northeast of Tucson."

Existential Angst

2008-11-29T09:26:00.000-08:00

Still in my twenties, and studying philosophy as an all-consuming pastime (I hadn't yet enrolled back in college to pursue my degree in philosophy), I delved into the realm of Existentialism by way of the literature of existentialism: Kafka, Sartre, Beckett, and Camus, primarily.

Here I found a philosophical voice that seemed to capture that ennui and that feeling of loneliness in the universe that I suffered from at the time. I would ponder the meaningfulness -- or the meaninglessness -- of life, and my complete annihilation at death and utter darkness and sheer terror would wash over me. I truly understood the "nothingness" that Jean-Paul Sartre was to discuss in his famous works.

But, I was to learn, there were major differences as to how the existentialists responded to a hostile and meaningless universe. Where some saw only the Absurd in the human condition, and little hope, Camus compared the human condition to Sisyphus (in his book of essays "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1943)). Camus begins his famous essay:

"The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessy rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor."

And so Camus compares the human condition to Sisyphus and his "futile and hopeless" plight. However, Camus sees Sisyphus as a hero of sorts, but only if he is conscious of his fate. Sisyphus reaches the top of the mountain with the rock...

"Then Sisyphus watches the stone rush down in a few moments toward that lower world whence he will have to push it up again toward the summit. He goes back down to the plain.

It is during that return [to the plain], that pause, that Sisyphus interests me. . . . I see that man going back down with a heavy yet measured step toward the torment of which he will never know the end. That hour like a breathing-space which returns as surely as his suffering, that is the hour of consciousness. At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock."

So Camus attempts to find meaning for mankind in a godless, empty and lonely universe.

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

Camus makes a bold attempt to snatch victory from defeat, meaning from meaninglessness, and I admire him for it. His writings are beautifully done, inspired. However, there is little ultimate consolation for me in knowing that I am responsible fully for making my own meaning. This, in a nutshell, is what the existentialists leave us with. We must make our own meaning in a meaningless universe.

Cold comfort.

I would continue to read and study the existentialists -- to this day I enjoy the literature of Camus, Sartre, Beckett, Dostoevsky, Eugène Ionesco, and Kafka. But I moved on and continued my own search for meaning.

Later I would discover the Christian side of Existentialism offered by Paul Tillich and Martin Buber -- but that is a subject for another day.

The Reason for God

2008-11-27T06:11:00.000-08:00

I'm currently reading "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller, and I'm finding it to be an exceptional book, particularly for the philosophically curious among us.

Keller is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, and according to him, this book was borne of his conversations with skeptics and believers alike over the years.

One by one he takes on the significant questions and doubts thinking Christians, as well as skeptics, wrestle with: Why does God allow suffering in the world? How can one religion be right? Isn't Science in conflict with Christianity? And many more.

Every chapter, every page of this book is a gem, full of critiques constructed from literature, religion, philosophy, and science to dismantle the arguments against Christianity. I can't say it much better than this review:

Just as C.S. Lewis answered the skeptics of his day, Tim Keller has written what feels very much like an updated version of "Mere Christianity". It has all the hallmarks of a classic. Like Lewis, he goes through the major objections modern people have to Christianity and shows how, by nearly logic alone, these objections are easily answered. They simply don't stand up to scrutiny and reason.

For Christians who get anxious when someone challenges their faith with conversation stoppers like, "I can't believe in a religion that believes all other religions are wrong - after all it's that kind of bigotry that has led to more wars than anything else" or, "how could a good God allow suffering" or "I can't believe in a religion that rejects science?", this book is for you. These objections are easily deflated and defeated with a little knowledge and a little logic. And Keller is a master at showing believers how they can answer these objections in a loving, patient and even charming way! When you really understand these issues, there is no reason to ever be anxious or defensive when a friend confronts you with these difficult questions.

While the first half of the book is spent dismantling the objections to Christianity, the second half is a presentation of reasons TO believe:

1. The clues of God
2. The knowledge of God
3. The problem of sin
4. Religion and the gospel
5. The (true) story of the cross
6. The reality of the resurrection
7. The Dance of God

This is a book to savor, over which to linger. The pages are dense with thought and concept -- they must be slowly digested. I will be returning to specific arguments in this book in the days and weeks to come.

The Catechumen

2008-11-26T11:34:00.001-08:00

I became a Catholic in 1989, and the circuitous path that led me to become that catechumen in the early days of January 1989, as well as my continuing curiosity, spiritual struggles, issues with contemporary culture, and, yes, sometime skepticisms, are the focus of this current blog.

The Lutheran Beginnings and Bertrand Russell

2008-11-26T10:57:00.000-08:00

Though raised in the Lutheran Church, I never felt comfortable there. What was the source of that discomfort? I don't know. Looking back now some 40 years later, I admit that it may have been simple youthful rebelliousness. But I think it went deeper than that.

It was the faith of my parents, and I obliged them by dutifully attending catechism (well, most of the time) and I was confirmed at St. Paul's Lutheran Church.

But it was the last time I was to attend that church.

Having the questioning mind of the philosopher-type, I could never wrap my reasoning around the faith (if that's not an oxymoron). What did I truly believe? Was I somehow abnormal because I didn't seem to have the unwavering faith of those around me? Why were the answers given to me never satisfiying? Why did I have doubts?

I've always been the type of person who, when upon learning that the majority of people believed A, would become suspect of that sort of unanimity and like as not believe B instead.

Perhaps it was my youthful age, and not knowing the right questions to ask. All I know is that I had many questions and I wasn't finding answers.

I gravitated in my twenties to philosophy, which I realize now was just another facet in what has become my lifelong spiritual journey.

For a time I fancied myself an empiricist of the Bertrand Russell mold, though without his staunch atheism (see Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian," 1957, and his "Problems of Philosophy," 1950). Was I an agnostic? Let's just say that I hadn't yet given up the quest.

Then there was Aldous Huxley, a man whose writings I devoured. In his later years, he dabbled in psychedelics which he thought brought him closer to some mystical state (see his "Doors of Perception," 1954). I appreciated his adventurousness, however I never accepted that counterculture, new age, Carlos Castaneda-style mysticism.

I'd reached another dead end.