March 2006 Archives

“The Cross. There is a point where they cross. . . Your passions in life and the needs of the world. . . There is a point where they cross, and that is where you will find fulfillment in life. That is where God is calling you to be in this world.” I can not take credit for this analogy, or idea. I heard it during a talk on a retreat. It really struck me then, and continues to stay with me. This is an easy discernment process for some. Some have wanted to be doctors since they were young. There passion for medicine and healing others, fits with the desperate needs of the world for healers. Others have a passion to be husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers. Doing whatever it takes to support their family, because their passion is their family, and what the world desperately needs right now are good Christian families.

What I discussed with a friend recently is that we desire not only to have a family and to passionately love and support our families, we also want to wake up in the morning knowing that what we do at our jobs, what we do to make money to support our families, is also something that is making a difference in our world. We want our jobs to be something we are passion about and that truly help meet the needs of the world. This is so hard to find in life. We sometimes think that our goal is to get the best job we can, making the most money we can so that we can provide for our children, wives, husbands, the best that we can. While money is important, I think that at least for me and my friend, we will be able to do a better job of raising our children and loving our wives, truly providing for our families with love, if we are passionate about what we get out of bed in the morning to do. Being passionate about our jobs, coming home to our families, knowing that we are making a difference for good in the world and sharing that peace and joy with our families, spreading that fulfillment and peace to our families, so that they can then spread it to all they meet. Maybe this is idealistic, maybe this is naive, but maybe this is what I'm passionate about, and maybe this is what the world needs; people who are on fire with their lives and with what they are doing, so they can spread that fire to all. Imagine this world if we were all fulfilling our potential, fulfilling our true passions. Maybe it's a dream that's unrealistic, but it's a dream I want to live, and bring to life, so that I can live my life fully.

Lord, I ask that you may fill me with Your peace. Lord I ask that you forgive me for all my sins, all the times I have offended you, all the times that I have hurt others, especially when I was unaware. Lord I ask that you may help me to know my true passion, and that you may direct me so as to fulfill that passion in a way that is most beneficial to meeting the needs of this world. Lord, I ask that You may help us all on our journeys through life, and that most importantly we may help to bring about Your Will on earth. For if we all follow the cross, if we all focus on the cross, the point where our passions and the needs of the world meet. If we focus on that cross, the same cross that you Died upon, your passion to save us, and the need of the world's sins to be forgiven. If we focus on the cross and carry our cross, we will be bringing about Your Will on earth.

Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman who was starved to death over the course of nearly thirteen days last year. She died on the Tuesday of Holy Week, and was joined days later by His Holiness John Paul II.

It has been reported that in his new book Michael Schiavo admits to having come close to giving up on the years long battle to starve his wife to death. In the book he explains that the day before Terri's feeding tube was removed, he called up his attorney George Felos and said that he was going to back out of the battle. But Felos, a staunch euthanasia lobbyist who continues to promote the practice today, persuaded Michael to stay the insidious course.

As Mr Schiavo recalls:

(Felos) reminded me that we had to realize that it wasn't just about Terri anymore. It was about the rest of the people who didn't want the government telling us how we could die and when we were allowed to decide that we didn't want further medical treatment. And it was about who has the right to make decisions between a husband and wife.

Surely the husband and the wife, provided the decision is not about whether or not to murder said husband or wife.

In the year since Terri's passing, her family has continued to minister in her name for the rights of patients, having founded even before her death a website known as Terri's Fight. As the website's mission statement reads:

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, Inc., (TSSF) is a non-profit group dedicated to ensuring the rights of disabled, elderly and vulnerable citizens against care rationing, euthanasia and medical killing.

This past Sunday morning March 26 during an internationally broadcast religious service, Fr Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, read an open letter to Mr Schiavo before a worldwide audience. Here it is in its entirety.

A year ago this week, I stood by the bedside of the woman you married and promised to love in good times and bad, in sickness and health. She was enduring a very bad time, because she hadn’t been given food or drink in nearly two weeks. And you were the one insisting that she continue to be deprived of food and water, right up to her death. I watched her face for hours on end, right up to moments before her last breath. Her death was not peaceful, nor was it beautiful. If you saw her too, and noticed what her eyes were doing, you know that to describe her last agony as peaceful is a lie.

This week, tens of millions of Americans will remember those agonizing days last year, and will scratch their heads trying to figure out why you didn’t simply let Terri’s mom, dad, and siblings take care of her, as they were willing to do. They offered you, again and again, the option to simply let them care for Terri, without asking anything of you. But you refused and continued to insist that Terri’s feeding be stopped. She had no terminal illness. She was simply a disabled woman who needed extra care that you weren’t willing to give.

I speak to you today on behalf of the tens of millions of Americans who still wonder why. I speak to you today to express their anger, their dismay, their outraged astonishment at your behavior in the midst of this tragedy. Most people will wonder about these questions in silence, but as one of only a few people who were eyewitnesses to Terri’s dehydration, I have to speak.

I have spoken to you before, not in person, but through mass media. Before Terri’s feeding tube was removed for the last time, I appealed to you with respect, asking you not to continue on the road you were pursuing, urging you to reconsider your decisions, in the light of the damage you were doing. I invited you to talk. But you did not respond.

Then, after Terri died, I called her death a killing, and I called you a murderer because you knew – as we all did – that ceasing to feed Terri would kill her. We watched, but you had the power to save her. Her life was in your hands, but you threw it away, with the willing cooperation of attorneys and judges who were as heartless as you were. Some have demanded that I apologize to you for calling you a murderer. Not only will I not apologize, I will repeat it again. Your decision to have Terri dehydrated to death was a decision to kill her. It doesn’t matter if Judge Greer said it was legal. No judge, no court, no power on earth can legitimize what you did. It makes no difference if what you did was legal in the eyes of men; it was murder in the eyes of God and of millions of your fellow Americans and countless more around the world. You are the one who owes all of us an apology.

Your actions offend us. Not only have you killed Terri and deeply wounded her family, but you have disgraced our nation, betrayed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and undermined the principles that hold us together as a civilized society. You have offended those who struggle on a daily basis to care for loved ones who are dying, and who sometimes have to make the very legitimate decision to discontinue futile treatment. You have offended them by trying to confuse Terri’s circumstances with theirs. Terri’s case was not one of judging treatment to be worthless – which is sometimes the case; rather, it was about judging a life to be worthless, which is never the case.

You have made your mark on history, but sadly, it is an ugly stain. In the name of millions around the world, I call on you today to embrace a life of repentance, and to ask forgiveness from the Lord, who holds the lives of each of us in His hands.

-- Fr. Frank Pavone

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a growing number of states are considering enacting laws which would require all hospitals to make the morning after pill, also known as "Plan B," available to rape victims. This obviously isn't going to sit too well with the Catholic Church, which has always said that morning after pill is for one thing contraception and therefore always wrong, and for another thing will rather often double as an abortifacient, which is murderously wrong.

Seven states already require all hospitals to give it out, and twelve more states are considering it. And if you want to talk about media bias, have a look at the description attributed to the Merger Watch Project, the activist group behind this legislation: "A New York-based group that fights religious restrictions on patient rights and health care."

Yet again, we have a mainstream news organization framing the debate, taking for granted that the morning-after pill is a "patient's right" that can be legitimately described as "health care." Meanwhile they leave it up to the specifically Catholic sources in the story to frame the debate from the other perspective, namely that this is an attack on Catholic institutions, particularly (although this was never stated explicitly in the story) on the Church's "freedom of conscience"--which is so integral to the practice of religion free of government intervention. I guess the First Amendment is a red herring when reproductive empowerment is involved.

The main objection to this not just from the activists but from many in the "conflicted middle" is: Yes, but we are not talking about reproductive empowerment. We are talking about relieving a young lady of the terrible burden of carrying a child who was conceived during an act to which she did not even give consent.

These situations are certainly tragic, but sanctioning abortions in these circumstances, be they medical abortions (as in the case of the morning after pill) or surgical (as in suction, saline, or partial-birth abortions), would imply that the deliberate killing of the most defenseless human beings among us could conceivably be the solution to a problem if the problem is bad enough. But the Church has always recognized the contrary: that abortion in whatever form it takes is not the solution to a problem, but quite a traumatic problem in itself. It is not that the Church cares nothing for the best interests of the victims of rape who come into hospitals. It is that the Church cares too much to make the woman a victim twice, first by rape, and then by abortion.

This issue actually gives me a good opportunity to address a question that was posed to me by a student of mine a few weeks ago. Not long ago, in an address to the Pontifical Academy for Life, the pope made rather plain (or strongly implied) that it is the Church's position that new human life begins at the moment of conception. The immediate context was explaining why the Church cannot endorse research procedures that destroy human embryos, even if those embryos are not implanted. The same argument applies to the morning after pill.

But this student was confused because she had heard on television (that wonderful source of timeless wisdom) that it says in Leviticus that "a thing is not living until it has blood running through its veins." Now, we all know today that it takes a good three weeks or so for a child to form a vascular structure and a beating heart. Well well well, this TV program mused, if it takes this length of time for those blood structures to form, and a thing is not living until it has blood running through its veins," then perhaps Moses wouldn't have such a big problem with Plan B?

My initial response was that i would have to see this verse, since I had never read it. But I also pointed out that the Bible is not a scientific treatise but a divine revelation, and that it cannot be read the same way a biology textbook is read. Even so, I was curious and went looking for this verse, but was unable to find it. Unfortunately, my student couldn't recall the exact citation or the program on which she had heard of this.

But lo, a few days ago I was putting together "New York Times violates pro-choice orthodoxy," and I came across a page on the Concern Women for America site that directly addressed what this student had told me about. It was an article entitled "Life is in the Blood" by CWA contributor Kelli Wait. She talks about a recent episode of the CBS crime drama CSI , in which one of the main characters presents his argument for the point at which life begins. He actually cites a passage from, that's right, Leviticus, chapter 17 verse 11: "The life of a living body is in its blood" (NAB).

But as Wait points out:

Scripture has to be taken in context. The full passage in Leviticus 17 reads, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (NKJ). This reading makes it obvious that the Biblical reference is about sacrifice and atonement, not about when life begins.

Leviticus 16 and 17 have been called The Laws of National Atonement. In these chapters, God tells His people how to atone for their sin. He emphasizes the necessity for sacrifice.

Nothing in the chapter has anything to do with when life begins, and it is erroneous for anyone to use the Leviticus passage as support for abortion. While it is true that blood enters the embryo on the 18th day, one cannot argue that Leviticus 17:11 supports a pro-abortion position.

Neither then can such pseudo-intellectual games be played by those who favor the morning-after pill. The temptation may be very great to try to reframe or redefine life, particularly in cases of rape, so as to provide an easy out.

Neither then can such pseudo-intellectual games be played by those who favor the morning-after pill. The temptation may be very great to try to reframe or redefine life, particularly in cases of rape, so as to provide an easy out.

But the Church's belief, and the fact of the matter, is that life is always a blessing, even when to the human mind it seems most burdensome and its circumstances the most tragic. And when some activists lobby to require the Church to supply abortifacient drugs to rape victims or anyone else, they are not merely asking the Church to change her practice, but thereby to ignore that fundamental attitude towards life: that it is not a liability, but a gift.

I was at mass today and the first reading from Ezekiel really struck me.
Ez 47:1-9,12 . Verses 9 and 12 struck me the most.

9 “Wherever the river flows, every sort of living creature that can multiply shall live, and there shall be abundant fish, for wherever this water comes the sea shall be made fresh.
12 Along both banks of the river, fruit trees of every kind shall grow; their leaves shall not fade, nor their fruit fail. Every month they shall bear fresh fruit, for they shall be watered by the flow from the sanctuary. Their fruit shall serve for food, and their leaves for medicine."

What these prophetic words from Ezekiel immediately made me think of is the water that poured forth from the side of Christ when the spear pierced His side. This stream of water has become a river just as the one in today’s reading. All those who come to this flowing river shall live life abundantly and be made fresh. They shall be made clean from there sins, and fresh again in the new spirit of Christ. All those that receive this water, this blood of life that has been poured out for us and given us in the Eucharist, shall bear fruit that will not fail. Those who drink of this water, and live within its life giving presence will be ministers of healing to others. Christ’s blood and the water from His side is the river flowing forth from the sanctuary which is His body, to refresh and bring life to the world. We just need to keep ourselves immersed in the river of life as the fish and always stay near the river so as to drink when thirsty as the trees, so that we may bear good fruit. If we live our lives embracing the Eucharist, our life giving nourishment, as the trees and fish do the flowing river we will be fulfilled and help to further fulfill Christ’s deepest longing, to bring all to everlasting and abundant life through Him.

I attended a diocesan staff prayer day today, a workshop on forgiveness and healing. Here's just a few of the things I took from it.

Forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same. Forgiveness is an act of the will, which can be controlled entirely by the individual doing the forgiving. Reconciliation requires initiative from both parties.

Forgiveness does not imply approval of the behavior for which forgiveness is offered. In fact, as I actually pointed out during the workshop discussions, forgiveness implies disapproval of the behavior because it assumes that something about the behavior was unjust. And you could even take it a step further and say that unforgiveness implies approval of the behavior. Why? Because when no forgiveness is offered, there is no attempt to rectify the wrongdoing. When no forgiveness is offered, there is no attempt to bring righteousness or remedy into the relationship. Refusing to forgive and just holding a grudge is just a more intense and painful way of ignoring the problem. Forgiveness is the only response that acknowledges the Christian concept of justice, which is why forgiveness is the way of God above and beyond merely human nature.

An objection that might follow from this is that forgiveness opens one up to further harm. But here an important distinction must be made. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting. We must forgive rapists for example, but we must never forget their actions. Forgiveness is the decision to no longer be angry with someone for the sins they've committed. It is not the decision to again give trust away to such a person.

The most difficult aspect of forgiveness to me is indeed the notion that forgiveness implies wrongdoing on the part of the one which I am forgiving. So if I choose to forgive someone, I would be implying that the person sinned against me somehow. But can I always be certain of that? Or might I at times be mistaken about a person's intentions?

This is why I consider it best to always assume best intentions on the part of others, which is actually an attitude most conducive to forgiveness. It's refusing to allow other people's frivolities and hurtfulness to become really hurtful to ourselves. People who can do this, as our presenters emphasized, are found to be clearly the happiest.

I just finished watching the movie "Crash" for the second time. I have to first say, that in my opinion it greatly deserved best picture over "Brokeback Mountain." Before any critics might castigate me, I did actually go to the theaters and watch "Brokeback Mountain" and I did enjoy it, I thought it was a wonderful movie. I'm going to leave my personal thoughts on the ethics of that particular movie aside. I am just going to reaffirm the "Academy's" decision to choose "Crash" as the best picture of the year. I highly encourage everyone to go out and rent or buy the movie "Crash", or have a friend rent it and/or buy it so that you may watch it with them, if you are on the cheap side, like myself.

What I wanted to primarily focus on in this reflection was the use of the patron saint "Saint Christopher." Also, before I continue, if you have not seen the movie, I may be giving away parts of the movie in the following, this serves as your warning, you may continue to read at your own risk. To continue, there is a small subplot involving the use of a Saint Christopher statue on car dashboards. As you may or may not know, Saint Christopher is the patron saint of travelers. He has also been exposed as a Saint that has no historical proof. Therefore he is technically speaking a legend within the Catholic Church. Personally I think it is still quite alright to pray to "Saint Christopher" (quote, unquote), even though he doesn't actually exist, as I am sure there are plenty of saints up in Heaven who we do not venerate, who are more than welcome to take over and fill in at the prayer stations for this "legend" of a saint. I digress, what I think is interesting is how the legend behind Saint Christopher fits so aptly with this movie. I am not sure if the makers of the film were aware of it or not. I may be typing up a reflection that has been stated ad nasuem, I have yet to hear of it though.

The legend of Saint Christopher, goes something along these lines (please don't quote me on this), Saint Christopher was at a river crossing when The Christ Child was young, and he offered to help Jesus across the river by picking Him and putting Jesus on his shoulder. As Christopher was carrying him across this river, the small Christ child on Christopher's shoulder become heavier and heavier. On the other side of the river Christopher asked Jesus, "how is it you became so heavy for such a lad." Jesus then told Christopher," I am carrying the weight of the world's sins and as you helped me across the river you felt that weight upon yourself."
While maybe it's not true, i think it's a beautiful story. And the association with the movie is that throughout the movie there is a theme of people trying to help other's. Trying to be like Christopher and help another Human Being. What is painful to watch and so moving is that these altruistic acts are met with hatered and fear and anger. These individuals who are trying to share the Love of God are met with the products of sin. In trying to be Christ Like and to help bear His burden His cross, these individuals feel the weight of sin. It is interesting seeing how the different individuals react to the burden. Some learn to embrace it others, stumble and fall beneath it.

The movie is about race relations in the United States of America, specifically Los Angeles. I see it really getting to the heart of sin. Due to sin we are unable to look at others as children of God. Instead we make judgements on people and put them in categories, and refuse to love them. We learn to hate others, out of fear. We forget that we are all human beings, needing and deserving of Love. This movie does a wonderful job of showing also how some people who use to hate, based on a generalized judgement, come into contact with an individual and learn to love them purely as a person and not as a member of a category of "others." This is what the USA, and truly the world needs to remember. We are not just different groups, we are billions of persons, who all need and deserve love individually just as our mothers, brothers, and friends do. This is the effect of sin which we must fight, we must fight the "fading" of people and the stark "boldness" in our minds of "groups that hate us." We must learn to love one person at a time as Mother Teresa, and not Hate the group that isn't "us." We must learn to Love despite fear. Learn to rid ourselves of hate, rid ourselves of sin. And just as Mother Theresa's work, this act of learning happens one person at a time.

Well I've rambled on enough. I'll leave with this: GO SEE "CRASH!"

Today is the 25th day of Lent 2006. For 25 days, we have fasted, sacrificed, prayed more, and done more good works than we had 26 days ago. This almost marks our halfway point in this Holy Lent as well.

We come up with these great ideas on what we're able to do. I'm going to give up sodas, pray the Liturgy of the Hours (at least aspects of it), stop the little cursing I still do, go to Mass when I can around my work/class schedule, volunteer at a food pantry, stop skipping class and help more old ladies across the street. I'm going to start all of this at midnight on March 1, 2006.

I'm going cold turkey on everything. When ashes were imposed on my foreheard with the priest or minister saying "Remember man, you are dust and to dust you shall return" or "Repent, turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel", I was suddenly empowered to do all these things I had planned on doing. On Ash Wednesday, seeing all of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ- many times, I'll see more people in church than I would see on either Christmas or Easter- I am given this superhuman, divine, all-powerful spirit of renewal and vigor.

Have you caught the error in my thought yet?

We, and myself in particular, saw this Holy Season of Lent as a chance to make right all the things I wish I didn't do. I hate that I skip class. I hate that I drink so many sodas. I wish to gain into a deeper relationship with my Creator and look to the Liturgy as a way for me to do so. I wish to pray more for my friends and family. I want to reverse my material living and give more for God. I want to do all these things.

Just because the day changes or a prayer is said, that doesn't change anything in our lives unless we're ready for that change and allow it into our lives.

In order to live the lives we wish to live, we can't wake up one morning and change everything that we wished to change. We are too much creatures of habit to allow for such a transition under normal circumstances. We have to start slow and prepare ourselves for this change. This is what Lent is- a time of preparation for the great Easter. Easter, the festum festorum, is Christ breaking the bonds of death and sin once and for all. This is a massive change! For all of human history, we have been bound by sin and death. Even for us individually, we are still born into this cycle. Easter changes all of that. Whether it was the first Easter thousands of years ago or our personal Easter, that is our baptism, this feast transforms our sin and death into rising to new and everlasting life.

This change cannot happen overnight. Just as we cannot break old habits with the change to a new day and ashes, we cannot accept this new life without preparation.

For me, I broke Lent from day one. I did not make it through Ash Wednesday without breaking at least one of my "Lenten promises". By now, I have already broken every single thing I hoped to sacrifice over these 40 days.

Why?

I wasn't prepared.

Lucky for me, I realized this by drinking a Dr. Pepper. This Lent won't be the perfect one we all imagine. I won't make this great list of things to do and do them all throughout the entire season. This Lent will be a messy one. Through self-doubt, depression and death, I will prepare myself for a greater experience of God.

Maybe next year, I'll be prepared to make a promise and keep it. Maybe, I'll be prepared to sacrifice and have a true intent behind that sacrifice.

It's been a long time since I've read an article by a pro-choicer that made me smile or chuckle as much as this one did.

George Weigel wrote a great opinion piece in the Denver Catholic Register on the abject bias of CBS' 60 Minutes news team in a recent feature story on stem cells. He begins:

The CBS news magazine 60 Minutes prides itself on asking the hard questions that other television news vehicles are too polite, or perhaps too afraid, to ask. That tough-minded approach to an important issue wasn’t much in evidence, however, when 60 Minutes recently took on the question of whether “spare” embryos “left over” from in vitro fertilization procedures should be used for stem-cell research that would result in the embryos’ death.

Check it out.

In anticipation of the release of the upcoming film adaptation of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, the Catholic Church in America has begun a campaign designed to address the myths and misrepresentations that apparently (I've never read it) abound in the novel. The website for the campaign is entitled "Jesus Decoded," and I haven't had much chance to surf through the whole thing, but it looks really good.

The Jesus Decoded campaign is part of the Catholic Communication Campaign. This is precisely the kind of thing I've been thinking the US Bishops have been needing to do for a long time, namely, to address all the hogwash that's spouted in the media and popular culture about the Church on a daily basis. This is certainly a step in the right direction. I'm excited to see what they come out with the future.

Interesting story to come out in the last few days: A couple of senators--Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana--have proposed to revive legislation from last year to create new domain suffixes for websites. The new suffix would be ".xxx." The suffix would of course be appended to websites that peddle pornography. Last year the legislation made the suffixes optional, but the legislation faced heavy opposition and ultimately was rejected.

Well these two Congressmen have brought it back and they've upped the ante. Now not only would the dot-xxx be made able to porn-peddlers, it will be made mandatory. So playboy.com would have to trade in its current URL for a "playboy.xxx."

However, there's apparently a sizable contingent of people from both sides of the pornography issue who are all working towards the same goal: killing this legislation like the last one. The movement to protect the pornography industry, spearheaded by the Free Speech Coalition, is actually working towards the same goal as conservative pro-family lobby organizations who would like to see the pornography industry in shambles both on and off the internet. These organizations include Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. The reason the two sides are working towards the same goal however is because they have radically different ideas of how the legislation will affect online pornography.

The Free Speech Coalition complains that the "dot-xxx" would lead to the "ghetto-ization" of online porn. Well ... yeah. On the other hand, pro-family coalitions like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are concerned that this might create a "virtual red-light district" that would actually consolidate the online pornography industry and may thereby make it stronger. Who's right?

As best as I can read this, whether or not the legislation proves beneficial or counterproductive ... depends. It depends for one thing on whether the peddlers will comply with it. Many of them may not, but that’s true of any law that regulates anything. It also depends on whether one has a moral compass. Those who have rightly formed consciences will see a dot-xxx and they will know to avoid it. Those who do not have rightly-formed consciences will see one and be enticed to consume it. It gives parents the opportunity to protect their kids, but it doesn't actually constrain the ability of vice-peddlers to distribute their materials, or perverts and addicts to consume it.

I have to say from a Catholic standpoint on this issue I can see both sides. On the one hand, creating dot-xxx domains would seem to legitimize the practice and stop short of what should be our ultimate goal of eradicating pornography completely. I can see how it would be somewhat like allowing contraception into the curricula of junior high and high school sex ed classes in the hope that it would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. It appears to put a band-aid on the problem, but might it only make the problem worse?

On the other hand, I can't get over the fact that these online pornography-peddlers actually target youngsters. They use innocent or familiar domain names--Disney, Barbie, ESPN etc--to lure people in so that they will stumble upon the material accidentally (for the consumers, but not for the peddlers). A dot-xxx would make such insidious ploys all but impossible. “Barbie.xxx” is clearly distinguishable from “Barbie.com.” The way it is now, the cyber-porn industry is more or less able to just blend into the crowd, getting new accidental users hooked every single day.

Consider it this way. There are many pornographic films that stylistically resemble legitimate genres of film. There are sci-fi porns, romantic comedy porns, medieval fantasy porns, western porns, etc. Right now all those movies are in the same section at the video store. Granted, those video stores are public places whereas the internet is at least ostensibly private. But it does create the effect of marking the material, placing all of it under the same umbrella according to similar content.

Imagine if there was no such section. Suppose all the sci-fi porn was in the sci-fi section, romantic comedy porn in the romantic comedy section, and so forth. It would be much more difficult to navigate a video store without bumping into that kind of filth. That’s how it is right now on the internet. Granted, we should work to eradicate such material from video stores anyway. But in the meantime it helps to know which part of the store merits boycotting.

Dot-xxx is the closest idea anyone has had to creating that kind of effect in cyberspace. It would be simple as pie for parents to cordon off all the dot-xxx’s if cyber-pornography peddlers were mandated to switch over. Would all the vice-peddlers on the internet comply with this legislation? Maybe not, but it might be a start. If there’s a better way to hamper this business then somebody needs to come out with it.

I welcome people’s opinions on this as I am still trying to form my own. All I know for certain is that this is an industry that makes $2.5 billion on the internet and $12 billion overall in the United States each year, with 72 million online consumers, the largest portion of that being children ages 12 to 17. (These numbers and others are rather eye-opening.) It is an industry that violates the dignity of the human person, male and female, in a most egregious and violent way, and it is time we took the fight to them. I don’t know if dot-xxx is the best way to do it, but it’s something that needs to be seriously discerned by those interested in promoting the common good.

I've been slacking the last few days. The site went down a few days ago and I took it as a pretty good excuse to not put anything new up for just that one day and focus on my other Lenten writing project. And then that one day became two. I intend to cap it at three. But I think I will try modifying the daily reflections. They won't necessarily have to be from the daily readings. It could just be any sort of contribution to the website under any of the categories--US News, doctrinal issues, prayers, etc.

There will definitely be at least one later on today.

The readings today feature one of the most talked about and preached about passages in the Bible and in literature as a whole. The Parable of the Prodigal Son. In the beginning of the parable we see essentially the epitome of the entitlement mentality which was talked about yesterday. The son demanded the gift of the father, which the father willingly bestowed. And the son did not produce fruit worthy of the gift, so it was taken from him.

It is interesting to note the change in the prodigal son's philosophy from the beginning of the story to the end. By the end of the story, the prodigal son recognizes indeed that he never had any right to his inheritance. He should rather have been grateful to his father who loved him. And this becomes his attitude. When he comes back he recognizes that he deserves nothing and indeed expects nothing. His attitude is one in which he would be grateful for even the lowest place among his servants. And the father, overjoyed that his son has returned, gives him instead a place of highest honor in his household.

And this is right just, contrary to the "good" son's objections, precisely because of the dynamic change of the prodigal son's outlook. His complete and utter humility and gratitude to his father is one of the key factors in making possible the joyous celebration of his return. If he had returned and demanded more with the same obstinance from his father, the celebration would have been awkward at best. The joy came from his complete repentance. His philosophy went from "I deserve," to "Thank You."

There is even good news for the dejected "good" son. When he complains to his father, the father says to him, "Everything I have is yours." I think in our meditation on the father's immediate acceptance of his prodigal, we tend to overlook what incredibly good news this is for the rank and file Christian faithful. Everything our Heavenly Father has belongs to his children. That is a gift and a mystery the depth of which I will not even try to plume tonight.

In modern society we have a strong sense of "rights." Sometimes this strong sense of "rights" is so perverted as to give way to a sort of entitlement mentality.I wrote a lengthy blog on the subject at my personal web journal last year. Here it is.

The more I think about it, the more I hesitate to speak of "rights." Not that people don't have them, of course. All people have rights. The right to life. The right to freedom. The right to truth, justice, etc. But I find that in an individualist context speaking of rights inevitably degenerates into that pithy pathetic thing called "my rights."

"My rights" more or less sums up the doctrine of the entitlement mentality, with which I am growing by the day more and more disillusioned. I can scarcely think of two words containing in themselves such flippant irrelevant twaddle. For this "my rights" doctrine flies in the face of grace. It is the opposite of thanksgiving. It is being confronted with the sight of the morning sun or the smell of trees or the touch of cool rain and saying, not "Thank You," but, "I deserve." Like Tom Cruise in Rain Man.

In the end, that may in fact be the mantra of the populace of Hell. In demanding never to say "Thank You" but only to say "I Deserve," they will be granted to say "I Deserve" for all eternity, and given their eternal state, it will be true.

On the other hand, the populace of Heaven, recognizing that the only thing they deserve is an eternity alongside their thankless brethren, will be moved to utter worship and bottomless gratitude, the eternal "Thank You" of the Communion of Saints. It is the antithesis of "my rights" doctrine. It is entirely about "Your Grace." ("Your" meaning "God's.")

I deserve nothing. Nothing whatsoever in this world is owed to me. By anybody, much less God. My birthright is nil. Rather, I am the one who owes. This is not just a personal principle either. It is a universal doctrine. It is what John Paul II called "Responsibility."

It is widely believed that the entitlement mentality, the philosophy and rhetoric of "rights," is the basis of service. It is in fact the basis of sloth. If everyone thought in terms of "rights" and entitlement, we would stand and wait hands held out for our due. And if one day we should not receive it, what would we say? "I deserve." Not "please," not "shall I return your generosity?" "I deserve." There is a point at which entitlement destroys not only personal responsibility but good manners as well.

The readings today reminded me of all this, and of the simple truth that the Kingdom of God is not a right. Jesus makes this plain in the Gospel, when he says,

[T]he Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.

The Kingdom of God is not a right, but rather, a grace. The difference between a right and a grace is that rights can never be taken away. Even if they be violated, a person can never be reduced to a state of no longer having them. They are inalienable.

A grace on the other hand is by definition given unconditionally, and subsequently may be taken away by the one who gives it, unconditionally. And when it comes to things divine, everything is grace. Which means those graces which God gives, which man either does not use or uses badly may be taken away without a moment's notice, and given to one who produces fruits worthy of the gift. This must be our attitude as regards the Kingdom of God.

CS Lewis once made the analogy that a game of chess (or any other game for that matter) would be far less engrossing and fun if there was no chance whatsoever of losing it. In the same way, what makes the experience of life so momentous and important is the fact that it is possible ultimately to lose at it.

It is sometimes said that Hell is an archaic notion, along with the notion of angels and demons etc. Outdated antiques that belong in dust-filled libraries but not in modern discourse, be it oriented towards theology or science or anything else. Yet if this is the case then much of what Jesus said is composed of outdated antiques that have no bearing on modern life, for of all the prophets in the Bible, Old Testament and New, no one warned against Hell, Satan, and demons more than Jesus did. Today is an example.

Jeremiah and the Psalm address the myth that sin is somehow more interesting than virtue, using the imagery of the living tree versus the barren bush or "chaff." A life of sin, far from being interesting or exciting, is actually dead, stagnant, boring even. Thomas Merton put it best when he said:

There is nothing interesting about sin, or about evil as evil. Evil is not a positive entity but the absence of a perfection that ought to be there. Sin as such is essentially boring because it is the lack of something that could appeal to our wills and our minds.

Life is more interesting the more ready one is to practice charity. The rich man's life was already like the chaff, it was already a stagnant, tastless bore, because he never went outside of his little bubble to help the poor man Lazarus. His tragic experience of the afterlife was only a clearer manifestation of the dryness that always existed in his soul because of his insistent inaction.

By contrast, the one who is able to perform great and virtuous feats, by the power of Christ, will always have more to smile about in this life and the next. But the choice is ours. This life indeed is a contest, a battle, a struggle, a war that can be lost to the prince of darkness, or won by the grace of God. It is a life and death situation.

Carl Olson at the Ignatius Press blog "Insight Scoop" blogged about a radio interview experience he had this morning. The entry is entitled, "The Science of Catholic Bashing." It made me smile.

Father Thomas D Wiliams, LC, dean of the theology school at Rome's Regina Apostolorum University where he teaches Catholic Social Doctrine, has written a great piece in the National Review Online on the need for more Pro-Life Democrats. This comes in response to the "Historic Statement of Principles" from the 55 democrats in the House of Representatives. I found this passage particularly well-put.

"True, the statement acknowledges the “undesirability” of abortion, and the signers hasten to assure their constituencies that they do not “celebrate its practice.” That they do not “celebrate” the greatest social ill of our time may prove cold comfort to those who spend much of their free time actively campaigning for its abolition. And as regards its “undesirability,” this poorly chosen term will likely provoke only indignation. Hangnails are undesirable; under-seasoned salads are undesirable; lines at the cash register are undesirable. Abortion is repugnant and evil. Can you imagine a politician stepping forward and (with much hand-wringing) asserting that he finds rape “undesirable” and that he does not “celebrate” its practice, but that he will not stop defending legislation that permits it? Such a politician would rightly be ridden out of town on a rail."

Note: The daily reading reflections will be marked by the number of days to Good Friday.

As I noted in the reflection on "Total Agony Love," it is not the desire for personal or material benefit that is the source of the most powerful passions in people. If it is, it is only because we have lost the sense of our true purpose to such an extent that our hardwiring has been perverted to selfishness. What brings us true happiness--and this we know in the depths of our being--is to give love to other people. It is the one who gives who really finds happiness. Thus "the one who wishes to be great among you must be your slave," Jesus says in the gospel of today's readings.

In the Old Testament reading and the Psalm we are confronted with situations where the messenger's enemies are paying close attention to his words and deeds in the hope of catching him in some inconsistency or scandal. In both passages the messengers turn to God for counsel as to how to deal with these harsh critics and plotters.

The answer given to the messengers back then and today to us is received from Jesus. He acknowledges readily in the Gospel that he will be handed over and condemned to death. He recognizes and accepts that his critics and those plotting against him will stop at nothing. Just so, we must accept that we will be scrutinized, and criticized, often with no justification, and that there is really nothing we can do about it as long as we are Christians. But at the same time he notes the way to confound these critics, to frustrate their search for some justification to put him to death.

He tells his disciples to serve them.

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Authority that seeks to serve only its own interests can be and is easily intimidated by the scrutiny of its constituents. But authority that seeks to serve its beloved need not fear anything. If we are being scrutinized and criticized in our own lives, we need only resolve that the primary motivating factor behind our actions is to serve our sisters and brothers. If we do that, no slander can harm us.

When it comes to the Lenten season, I'm in the habit of coming up with penances for myself as I go along. So here's a new one. I will try to write at least a one-hundred word reflection on the readings each day between now and Easter Sunday. We shall see if I can keep this.

Last night I finally had an opportunity to see the romantic comedy Love Actually, which is a really good film that would have been even better were it not for all the lewdness. The US Bishops' review gave it an "L" for "limited adult audience," just a notch below "O" for "morally offensive."

The moral shortcomings of the film notwithstanding, there are a couple of scenes in the film that resonate with me. I'll only focus on one here. Early in the film, a stepfather named Daniel (played by Liam Neeson) is sitting on a park bench with his eightish-year-old stepson named Sam (played by Thomas Sangster). The woman whom they both loved, Sam's mother and Daniel's wife, has just been laid to rest, and Sam has been closed-lipped ever since.

Concerned, Daniel tries to get Sam to open up. For all Daniel knows, Sam could be having suicidal thoughts at the loss of his mother, or encountering drugs, or something equally awful. Sam finally decides to tell his stepfather what's going on. It turns out, Sam is not fraught with grief at the passing of his mum. Rather, he says to his stepfather, "I'm in love."

Daniel, of course, is relieved. When Sam catches on to this, he asks Daniel why. Daniel says, "I thought it was something worse."

To which Sam replies in an impossibly cute way, "Worse? Than the total agony of being in love?"

So struck was I by this exchange that I pulled out my pen and wrote down "total agony of being in love" on my left arm so I wouldn't forget it. I've been told that I have something of a one-track theological mind. I'll hear a brief exchange like the one above and my mind will race away on a theological tangent. That essentially is what happened for the remaining ninety minutes of Love Actually, which too often forewent later opportunities at great profundity in favor of slapstick bedroom antics.

"The total agony of being in love." It resonates personally with me because I know what the kid is talking about, as most men do I imagine. That principle of attraction that is so crucial to love, the desire to be with someone, with our beloved. The belief that our happiness will be realized if we can be united with this person.

But if Sam is at all like me, and I think he is, it is not only that. It is not merely the desire to obtain happiness for ourselves. It is the desire to supply happiness for our beloved. We see a person and become convinced either through fantasy or (preferably) actual experience that this is a person who deserves to be affirmed in a most altruistic and selfless way by someone who loves her. The desire then takes hold to be that person, the man who affirms the value of this woman. Then the total agony sets in, specifically, the agony of feeling powerless to do so for essentially one of three reasons. Either a) she does not know we exist; b) she knows we exist but has no clue how we feel about her; or c) she knows how we feel but would rather maintain a level of comfortable distance (i.e. she "just wants to be friends"). Can you tell I've been through all these before?

That's where the real pain comes in for guys when it comes to these prospective love relationships. It's not that I want to be affirmed myself and I'm not getting that (although that's certainly part of it). It's that I really believe I could love this woman and really make her happy and feel good about herself, but I can't because she's not letting me! She is choosing to miss out on me. (Trust me, ladies, this is what we guys say to ourselves whenever we are rejected.) And what I wouldn't give to just reach into her heart and make her love me and make her let me love her. But that wouldn't be real, because she's not a puppet, she's a person. I can't pull her strings.

All of this, you see, is a parable. This universal experience of unrequited love is one imminently known and understood by no less than the Son of God Himself.

Recall the phrase that started this theological tangent of mine. "The total agony of being in love." This has religious as well as romantic overtones. What do you think was the first thing to pop into my one-track mind when I heard this phrase? Why of course, the First Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary. The Agony in the Garden. What is going through his head at this point? While we may not be able to know the whole of it, we might approach it just by considering this so called "total agony of being in love." Because again, I think many of us can relate.

Jesus is in love with us. He wants to be with us, near us, inside of us even. And the most potent ingredient of that desire is not so much that we would make him happy, but that he desires to make us happy. Forget the shining-armor fantasies of mortal men: Christ knows for a fact that the only shot his beloved--that is, his bride, his Church, his sons and daughters on earth--has at happiness is complete and total union with him. Yet there he is in the garden, confronted with a world chock-full of people who don't even know he exists, or who know he exists but don't know how much he loves them, or who know how much loves them but want to keep their distance.

He wanted to find some other way to do this. What he would not have given to just reach into our hearts and make us love him and make us let him love us. But we're not puppets. We're persons, and he can't pull our strings. And what's more, he had no guarantee that any of that would change after he did what he was about to do. In fact he was fully aware that there would always be a sizable contingent of people who would insist on living as if he never existed, as if he never did what he did.

And it's not just the heathens. It's not just the Planned Parenthoods and Playboy peddlers of this world. All of us are at least in that third class of people, who knows how much he loves us but would rather keep our distance. We choose to keep our distance every time we sin. We choose to miss out on him. There's no person on this planet who has not at one time or another from one day to the next refused to requite his love. He knew this when he was on his knees sweating blood. And yet, he did it, anyway.

So then we are called, to love actually, as he did, anyway. I am reminded of the poem by that title from Mother Theresa. It's really quite a freeing attitude--and one that I saw a few times in the better parts of the movie. The best moments of mankind are the ones when we forget about what we might gain from our actions, whether our affections will be requited, and we simply love anyway. That is the "total agony of being in love." What indeed could be worse? And yet, what could possibly be better?

The US Bishops, particularly Cardinals Keeler, McCarrick and DiMarzio, have written a response to the 55 Catholic Democrat Congressmen who wrote a statement recently about why they choose to ignore Catholic teaching on abortion.

The cardinals affirmed that the dignity of the human person mandates continued efforts to advance social justice in all its varied forms, but made plain that abortion as an issue in particular speaks directly to the right of every human being to live, and that that right to life, as John Paul II said, is " the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights" and that it must be defended "with maximum determination."

Well, it's official. Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota has signed into law the bill that looks to ban abortions in all cases except when the mother's life is in danger. The law is scheduled to take effect this summer, but the imminent legal challenges will almost certainly affect that.

And if the immediate reactions to the bill’s passage indicates anything, it is that there is still a considerable need for education of the public on this issue—both to address the genuinely difficult applications of the law and to cut through the sophomoric drivel cranked out ever-so-dependably by our brothers and sisters adrift in the pro-choice lobby.

So the Academy Awards aired Sunday, featuring Jon Stewart as host. I've never been a huge fan of Jon Stewart, the host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central. But I have to say that I have one regret from not watching the Oscars, and it is that I missed him saying this to the celebrities:

"I’m from New York and I’ve been here a week and a half. A lot of people say this town is too liberal. Out of touch with mainstream America. A modern day beachfront Sodom and Gomorrah. A black hole where innocence is obliterated. An endless orgy of sexual gratification and greed.

“I don’t really have a joke here…and I just thought you should know a lot of people are saying that.”

In my book, his stock just went up a couple of points.

Earlier this week the Pontifical Academy for Life held a two day bioethics conference which examined the "Human Embryo Prior to Implantation: Scientific Aspects and Bioethical Considerations," essentially how embryos are handled before implantation in in vitro procedures. The congress marked the twelvth general assembly of the Pontifical Academy.

VATICAN CITY, MAR 1, 2006 (VIS) - The Holy Father's general prayer intention for March is: "That young people who are searching for the sense of life may be understood, respected and accompanied with patience and love."

His mission intention is: "That, throughout the Church, there may grow that shared missionary awareness which favors the collaboration and exchange of those who work in the missions."