May 2006 Archives

Reuters reports from Hong Kong that the Rome-approved bishop in China, His Excellency Bishop Wu Qinjing, is defying the Chinese authorities and actually serving as a Successor of the Apostles! Pray for this heroic man.

Yesterday the Holy Father delivered an address on the grounds of what used to be the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in Poland. As an article from Reuters reported, the reception of the address was mixed.

Apparently some commentators applauded the pope for asking such questions as "Where was God?" and "God, why did you remain silent?" The Reuters guy described the asking of such questions on Benedict's part as a "bold decision." As if this is some new and unusual thing for committed and faithful Christians to ask the Lord questions. Course, Job did it. And um, Jesus did too. I don't think Benedict would say he was blazing some new trail. Still, it does create a connection and a sense of understanding with all the poor souls who lost faith in God as a result of the persecutions they and their loved ones suffered as a result of Nazi atrocities. That's always been a little-known strength of Benedict's, meeting people where they are.

Still, some critics just couldn't be satisfied with the Holy Father's words as long as he stopped short of incriminating himself, his Church, and in particular his predecessor Pius XII, who was the pope during World War II. Ever since the holocaust, Pius has been maligned for not speaking out with enough volume during the Axis' reign of terror. It is believed in some circles that His Holiness was indifferent or even complicit in the slaughter of six million Jews and millions of others during the war. People were upset because the pope did not so much as mention Pius or Pius' actions from that period.

One possible reason he would choose not to do so is because the accusations against Pius are utterly preposterous. Jimmy Akin has a nice article on this topic at Catholic Answers entitled "How Pius XII Protected Jews." I recommend the whole thing as it is lays to rest a lot of myths surrounding Pius XII's supposedly wimpish papacy. But here's my favorite passage which sums it up pretty well:

While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.

Looks like that armchair quarterbacking continues to this day. Some were dismayed that Pope Benedict wasn't strong enough in denouncing anti-Semitism specifically. From the Reuters piece:

Some faulted him for not clearly mentioning anti-Semitism, others for saying Germany was taken over by criminals in the 1930s, as if Adolf Hitler had not had any popular support.

First as to the matter of implying that Hitler had not had any popular support, Benedict never denied that he did have plenty of popular support. Benedict merely observed how he came to garner so much popular support--through "false promises." Not too much unlike today's "idelologies of evil" that John Paul II described in Memory and Identity. As Benedict put it:

[A] ring of criminals rose to power by false promises of future greatness and the recovery of the nation's honor, prominence and prosperity, but also through terror and intimidation, with the result that our people was used and abused as an instrument of their thirst for destruction and power.

And as to the matter of anti-Semitism, apparently these words of the Holy Father weren't quite explicit enough:

The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the earth. Thus the words of the Psalm: "We are being killed, accounted as sheep for the slaughter" were fulfilled in a terrifying way.

Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham.

What more does anybody want? The admission of historical fallacies about as well grounded as the Da Vinci Load? Next time I feel like I can't please anyone, I'll take comfort in remembering that a good man named Pope Benedict visited the site where so many people were killed to express solidarity with them and their sons and daughters, and his words weren't good enough for some.

This has been a good weekend in terms of discernment for me. A lot of issues that I have had on my mind lately have really come out.

The celibacy issue
I have begun reading The Courage to Be Chaste by Benedict J Groeschel, CFR. I like it so far. Here's one good passage from the book.

Perhaps one of the most persistent and obviously invalid assumptions of our civilization is that sexual behavior brings happiness. The media trumpet the message, "Sex brings happiness." If this were true, we would indeed live in an earthly paradise, and the world would be "Happy Valley."

I suppose that half the people you meet on the bus, or in a shopping center, or even at church on Sunday have had some genital sexual experience during the preceding few days. It is the observation of an old celibate from way back that they are not all so very happy. If sex brought happiness, the world would shine like the sun, at least half the time. Celibates need not try to convince themselves that chaste celibacy is the road to earthly bliss, but on the other hand they need not feel deprived of the key to happiness. If there is a single key to contentment, it cannot be sexual experience.

It's a good idea for me to be reading this book, especially at this juncture in my life, preparing to go into seminary and seriously consider a lifelong commitment to celibacy.

Fr Groeschel says that sexual experience can be ruled out as the single key to contentment. The single key to contentment, I would venture, is intimacy with Christ and to do his will. That is what I hope I will find at seminary.

My bishop on Catholic radio
As I was driving home from the parents today I was listening to Relevant Radio and was caught pleasantly by surprise to hear the voice of my bishop, Most Reverend Gregory Aymond of the Diocese of Austin, Texas. He was speaking along with Bishop Zubik of Green Bay on, precisely, vocations to the priesthood.

Bishop Aymond invited those listening to the program who were discerning the priesthood, in the words of John Paul II, to "Be Not Afraid" to be open to what they really desire. This ties in with what Fr Groeschel wrote about so aptly, for since the mantra of the media today is that sex brings happiness, it so goes that no sexual activity means no happiness. And that is indeed a frightening thing, if it's true. The battle of a seminarian and those discerning the possibility of a lifelong celibate vocation is to realize contrary to the cultural message that what really brings happiness is the will of God, whatever that may be.

Folks if you are looking for any kind of advice on romantic relationships, stay as far away as you can from MSNBC.com. Every now and then I come across an article that after I read it I just have to look at it and say to myself, “Oh Lord, this is bad on so many levels.” I had that experience yesterday when I found an article posted on MSNBC’s website from the Today Show. Apparently a Today Show contributor named Dr Gail Saltz serves as a sort of Ann Landers for couples: individuals write to her and she gives them advice (if you can call it that—more on that later).

So yesterday as I said I found this article entitled: “My partner prefers watching porn to having sex.” The subhead directly beneath it reads, “A woman wants to know if she should leave her boyfriend. Dr Gail Saltz says she should find out more about his obsession – and then decide.”

Poor diluted “widow”
That by itself made me want to take a baseball bat to my computer monitor. But I calmed myself and read on. Here is what the lady seeking advice had to say to Dr Gail. (NOTE: I have reworded a couple of phrases from her original letter in order to make it sound less crude or irreverent. Reworded phrases are placed in brackets [like so.])

Dear Gail: My boyfriend and I have been dating for a rocky two years, and things were finally starting to mellow out. But now we have this porn issue! He has watched porn occasionally over the years, but it never [decreased our tendency to have premarital sexual intercourse.] So using the pick-your-battles theory, I’ve dropped it. But now that we’re living together, I find it increasingly hard to accept his obsession and I'm tempted to end our relationship.

He only watches porn alone, and he has refused my offers to watch it with him. Every time he’s home alone, he watches it. Then when I come home [hoping to have premarital sexual intercourse], he’s not interested. He has started lying and sneaking around. He basically told me, “I’m going to do this. I can either lie about it or you can leave me alone about it.” Can you give me some insight? —Weary Porn Widow

Shoddy advice
And this is the part where I said to myself, “Oh my dear woman, this is bad on so many levels!” But even more astonishing was the ineptitude of Dr Saltz’s advice. Now I’m not a counselor or a PhD or anything. But I know shoddy advice when I see it. And this is textbook shoddy advice. I’ll just take it line by line.

The first thing she says about the whole situation is: “If your boyfriend feels driven to do something — whatever it is — behind your back, your relationship is in trouble.” In other words, the fact that he’s watching pornography and not playing low-stakes poker with his buddies isn’t that big of a deal.

“Another concern is that you’ve been together for all of two years and he is no longer interested in having sex with you.” Why is this such a surprise? They’re not married. They’re having sex. The guy has lost interest. I’ve heard this story a million times and usually it takes a lot less time than two years. It’s called using a person, which is the opposite of love and which Karol Cardinal Wojtyla discussed at length in his book Love and Responsibility. Study after study has shown that the couples with the most fulfilling relationships—sexually and emotionally—are the ones who practice complete heterosexual monogamous fidelity in marriage. Surely Dr Saltz has familiarized herself with these studies? Or does she just watch Friends?

Next she says: “Keep in mind that I am not addressing the social or moral issues of pornography, which generate great controversy and which people have strong feelings about.” So she tries to straddle the fence, even though her remarks throughout the article indicate a distinct lack of consideration for the point of view of those who think pornography is what it is—a festering tumor on the face of the media industry. “Whether a couple includes pornography in their sex life is a personal choice.” Of course, what would a column like this be without paying homage to the false sense of moral autonomy?

But nothing could have prepared me for this: “Asking to be included in his porn watching was a good move.” Um, um, what? A good move? It’s the worst thing she could possibly do! Get down in the gutter and roll around in the filth with him? What is the widow supposed to say? “Now that you’re exploiting the people on the TV, won’t you exploit me as well”? This is absurd! How can Dr Saltz possibly claim to be morally neutral in her approach to pornography if she’s telling her client that it was a good idea to try to watch it with her poor excuse for a boyfriend? These are the people who think that it would be a good idea to teach our kids how to use condoms. I am the definition of incredulous right now.

“Porn can be an enhancement to your sex life, but it shouldn't be a substitute for it.” But that’s what it is. Pornography by definition is a substitute for the intimacy that takes place in any sexual relationship. Even in situations where the viewing of pornography leads to a “normal” act of marital intercourse, where is the arousal coming from? It’s not coming from the two persons. It’s coming from the images on the screen. And again, anyone who has done serious counseling work with married couples knows that pornography does not enhance the sexual life of a couple; it stagnates it. Why? Because just like contraception, it cuts off communication between the two persons. And I didn’t even learn this from the Church. I learned it from my interpersonal communications professor at UT. What leads to satisfaction in the sexual life of a couple is communication. Equally important are commitment and openness to life. Pornography destroys all three of those.

The myth of "empowerment"
But in a “morally neutral” society, where sexuality has been made into this sort of judgment free zone, even this plainest common sense is lost on people who should be the most educated and wise among us. The argument has been made in some circles of feminism that pornography is not about female subjugation or exploitation but rather female empowerment—that the woman is able to use her feminine wiles as a means to power. But what we see here is that the opposite happens in real life. Pornography reduces women to pathetic states of life, as in this story of a woman who hopes at best to share a man, who obviously does not care for her in the least, with a television screen, and is encouraged to do so by the closest thing our friends at MSNBC can find to a voice of reason.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to spend my Memorial Day Weekend thinking about happy things, and I hope you will too.

The BBC reports that in preparation for the Holy Father's visit to Poland, his beloved predecessor's homeland, a number of things are changing. The southern town of Wadowice, where John Paul II was born, has banned the sale of takeaway ice creams and cream cakes for the duration of Benedict's visit! If I were him, I would be outraged!

Polish authorities are calling it a health risk. Bozena Okreglicka, a spokeswoman for local health inspectors, said:

Cakes and ice cream can easily go off in summer temperatures and can pose a danger to health. That's why we're banning takeaway sales on the day many pilgrims will be arriving in Wadowice.

And that's not all either. Some places that the pope will visit, including Warsaw and Krakow, will be dry! Dry! For a German pope who has unabashedly expressed his approval of Bavarian Ale!

Polish police say the ban is in place to maintain public order and as a mark of respect for the pontiff.

Pope Benedict XVI himself will be offered both red and white wine as he attends a series of gala dinners, according to local media reports.

I read this and I'm thinking, is the pope the only one who will be offered wine at these things? Surely other people will too? They're not just all going to get together and watch the pope get sloshed are they? I think a guy like Benedict would likely prefer that other people get to share in the joy of drink. He's a German, for crying out loud!

If banning ice cream and alcohol wasn't enough, there's also a ban on certain television advertisements--such as advertisements for alcohol, contraceptives, lingerie and tampons. Tampons? I don't think there's any Catholic teaching that bans the use of tampons. Wait let me check the Catechism ... Nope, nothin' on tampons. In fact the only thing on that list that the Catholic Church actually prohibits outright is contraceptives. Why the sudden scrupulosity?

Apparently with the Holy Father's visit the Polish airwaves have rediscovered the art of modesty.

Even a television advert for a new television has been barred. The ad featuring a couple appearing to have sex promoting the "multiple pleasures" of LG Phillips television sets is currently only aired late at night and will not be shown at all during the Pope's visit.

"There is always the risk that the faithful may feel hurt if programming devoted to the Pope's visit is interrupted by frivolous ads," Zbigniew Badziak, head of advertising for Telewizja Polska, the state-run TV network, told the Associated Press news agency.

The double-standard
Well well well! They didn't want to offend the Catholics. Meanwhile in America, the number one movie in the nation, advertised and promoted to the nth degree, has drawn fire from Catholic ckergy and lay people, making many feel quite slandered and attacked for no other reason than because of where their allegiances lie. (I'm thinking in particular of American members of Opus Dei here.) And what have they gotten in return for their distress? A few explanatory words before or after the film about the reality of the organizations depicted? The pithiest acknowledgment of people's concerns? The slightest bit of empathy? No. Catholics are basically being told in this country, "It's just entertainment, get over it."

What we're seeing in Poland is an example of what it might look like if the Hollywood powers that be had half the respect for Catholics that they have for other ethnic and religious groups. The criteria that they used in Poland for Catholics, and in America for everybody else, is that if there is a possibility that someone might feel offended by something, it's time put our pandering caps on. We see here in America quite a strong and empirically verified fact that some Catholics will in fact be and are offended by the Da Vinci Load of Crap. But we are expected to be magnanimous and open-minded. But newspapers in this country won't run Danish cartoons of Mohammed because they're insensitive.

Pandering vs magnanimity
I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. I'm just saying let's have one standard for everyone, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu whatever. Either pander to and walk on eggshells around everyone, or rather expect everyone to have enough inner strength to choose not to be offended or threatened by malevolent or slanderous material. Perhaps in that sense pop culture is paying Catholics a compliment, expecting us to be stronger than anybody else because, after all, we knew this was coming didn't we? Jesus told us so.

What if he came here?
You know what I'm thinking, folks? I'm thinking the Holy Father ought to visit our fruited plane. Of course, of course, we know the network and film executives probably wouldn't care nearly as much what would offend the Catholics in this country. But imagine if the Holy Father commanded the same kind of respect in the Land of the Free that he commands in Poland? Would anything still be on the airwaves? Desperate Housewives? Friends? One Tree Hill? This may be hitting a soft spot for some people, even friends of mine, and even myself, but it's an honest question. If it's not worthy of the pope's viewing, is it worthy of ours? Just throwing it out there.

I attended the University of Texas at Austin Commencement ceremony this past Saturday. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience, full of all the pomp and pompousness that we Longhorns are so well-known for. One of my favorite parts of the evening was the commencement address delivered by keynote speaker Antonio O Garza Jr, US ambassador to Mexico. I think he is probably Catholic, for a several reasons, among them being the hints of Catholic theology and anthropology littered throughout his address.

At the beginning of his address he observed: “I have been asked to give you a little advice today for the road ahead. Frankly, I’m a little wary. After all, Socrates gave advice and they poisoned him.” That struck me as the academic equivalent of the I daresay more well-known story about Jesus, who gave advice and told the truth and opened minds and hearts, and was crucified. I suspect Ambassador Garza may well have had that in mind but had to tailor the message for a secular academic audience. But the point is the same: Telling the truth is risky business.

“You don’t choose your family”
In his address he gave the degree candidates four basic pieces of advice, all of which have a distinct Catholic bent to them. His first was: “Families are the backbone of our society.” As he put it: “The steadiest rock you will ever find in your life is your family – both the one you have now and the one you make for yourself in the future. Nothing else will ever come close.”

But what really got my attention along these lines was when he quoted Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said, “You don't choose your family. They are God's gift to you, as you are to them.”

When I heard this, I could not help but think that yes, it is true that we do not choose our families, but it is also true that in modern society many of us wish we could. What does it mean after all to value “choice” more than life itself? Not just in the field of abortion but in areas of reproductive and genetic technologies, we are seeing examples of this desire coming more and more to fruition. Sperm banks feature samples that are categorized in terms of the desired traits in the newborn: seed from a Harvard grad for a childbearer who values intelligence; seed from a NCAA football star for one who values athletic prowess. Genetic manipulation and prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome all point to this desire not just to govern our own actions but to exercise power over circumstances that should be beyond our control. Modern society wants to choose its families. And thus this backbone of our society is growing weaker.

Real personal connections
His next point: “It is people – the real, human connections we make – that matter most.” As he puts it:

Globalization is revolutionizing the way we live. But something in danger of being trampled in the stampede to the future is the delicate thread that draws us together as human beings.

We surf the internet in multiple languages, yet never speak to the person next door. Webcams show us deprivation in the far reaches of the globe, yet we never notice the poverty in our own backyard. What good is crystal clear reception on your Bluetooth if you can’t hear the voice of your own conscience or your neighbor asking for help?

In Catholic terms, Garza is observing the potential dangers that technology pose to our understanding of the dignity of the human person. It is certainly true that technology brings profound benefits such as the ability to communicate with greater efficiency (as evidenced by this blog for example). But it can also depersonalize human contact. Technology has removed the physical element from human contact, you might say it has Gnosticized human contact, making it something that takes place in an entirely nonphysical context, so that even letter-writing no longer produces anything physical, but rather an electronic transmission.

Again, there are advantages to this, namely efficiency and convenience and ease. But human contact was always meant to take time, and was always meant to require us to go at least a little bit out of our way, because people are worth that. But the value of efficiency elevated by technology has threatened our understanding of this. It has affected family life by saying that if a new birth or a certain lifestyle is not efficient or convenient or comfortable, it would as well be done away with. In interpersonal relationships, it has given way to a more functionalistic understanding of the person, appreciating persons only for what they can bring us—pleasure, notoriety etc—rather than who they are. This kind of functionalistic approach is what the Church has referred to as “exploitation.”

“Find your purpose”
His third point was one that spoke to me personally because it had directly to do with the subject of discernment: “Find your purpose and set the bar high, but don’t let success alone be your goal.”

This ran parallel to Sara Martinez Tucker’s point last year of “inspired ambition.” She quoted St Ignatius Loyola in saying that when ambition is inspired (by God) it is almost holy, but we have to guard from our ambitions becoming self-centered and “disloyal.” On Saturday, Garza invited the students to strive for success, because success is better than failure, especially if it’s something you really believe in, but to always “reach for the substance, not the shadow.” “[U]nderstand success for what it is -- and what it isn’t. Use it to make a real difference in the world around you,” he said.

He even pointed out that a key to being successful and really helping other people is to have a certain contemplative spirit:

[N]o matter how famous you get, how much money you earn, or how many scientific mysteries you unravel, they are nothing if you lose your sense of imagination and wonder.

I grew up along the border, and I remember if someone seemed a bit odd or colorful, folks would say: “es que tiene la música por dentro” – he’s got the music inside of him.

Looking back, some of the most successful and most satisfied people I’ve ever known are those with that “música por dentro.” And it’s because they took the time to stop and contemplate the world around them with awe and wonder.

How we treat “others”
Finally his fourth point: “Life will test you in ways you cannot imagine. And one of the ways it will test you – over and over -- is how you treat others who don’t look like you, talk like you or earn like you.”

I’ve heard it called the human tendency to “other-ize” categories of people, because of differences between these categories and the observer(s). He spoke most directly in terms of the recent ongoing immigration controversy between the United States and Mexico. But his message on this other-izing of peoples applies equally well to the forms of exploitation that we see in life issues. He made a couple of points that screamed the pro-life message to me.

First, he said, “[Y]ou and I know that our work is not done until the invisible are invisible no more. Until all hearts accept what no law can mandate – and that is to love one another.”

Now this made me sit up in my chair. Love one another? Not quite the language that you hear very often in a setting like this, but it’s straight from the mouth of Christ. In fact the readings from the Sunday following his address contained those exact three words from Jesus to his disciples. Coincidence? I’m inclined to think not.

Also his imagery of “making the invisible invisible no more” and changing people’s hearts to “accept what no law can mandate” got me thinking particularly about abortion. It is not that we should not work to change laws. Certainly we should work, and very hard. But the changing of a person’s heart is precisely what is needed to really make laws more just, since it is people who change the laws to begin with. We have to pray not just for laws to change but that all people can really be convinced that the mystery of each person mandates Christian love whether the law of the land mandates that or not.

His other point that I liked very much was his reference to what Martin Luther King called the “inescapable network of mutuality.” “What affects one citizen, affects all citizens.”

Now, there’s a dangerous premise for pro-choicers to accept. For the premise behind the value of “choice” is precisely that of “privacy.” It is the notion that an individual decision made by an individual person will in fact not affect anybody else for good or for ill, and therefore it ought not to be anyone else’s place to tell a lady what she may or may not do with her physical self. But if there is an inescapable network of mutuality, and what affects the woman who has the abortion affects in turn all others, then what of privacy then? And how does the abortion affect the woman? For good or for ill? If it is for ill, and more and more evidence is springing up that the affects of abortion are quite awful indeed, then might that single act of abortion permeate through the whole of society?

If one accepts that simple observation from the ambassador, that what affects the one affects the whole, then abortion becomes the business of everyone, especially when the object of its exploitation—namely the child—becomes invisible no more.

These are all the tangents off to which my mind flew as I was listening to the ambassador's great speech. Quite entertaining and thought-provoking.

Steven Greydanus of Decent Films writes a fantastic review of the DaVinci Load. This part in particular struck me:

Is it possible to put all this aside and just enjoy the story as a thriller, an enjoyable yarn? I honestly have no idea how people can take that approach.

Catholic writer Mark Shea tells an anecdote about a college bull session among students at Central Washington University over The Da Vinci Code. “Even if it’s just fiction,” a student opined, “it’s still interesting to think about.”

To which another student replied: “Your mother’s a whore.” And then, to the first student’s stunned incredulity, he added, “And even if that’s just fiction, it’s still interesting to think about.”

Snap. When I read this it really got me thinking about just how personal this situation is, even if I don't realize it. This isn't just about some high-browed arteests slandering some old geezers in the Vatican and some fringe kooks in a secretive organization.

The reality is that I am a son of the Church, whom is classically referred to as Mother Church. And it is this Mother Church whose son I am and whose sons and daughters populate the whole United States and the world over, who is being maligned and slandered and pooped upon by the popular world. And how passionately are we sons and daughters defending the mother who has been feeding us with the Word of God since we were little kids? I hope that next time the topic comes up in conversation, I will have the guts to say something, if only to point out that my mother is not, in fact, a secretive murderous whore.

Well the weekend that heralded the gigantic opening of Ron Howard's cinematization of Dan Brown's Catholic smear tome The DaVinci Code has finally come and gone. Whew. Now I can't wait until it's three months from now and everyone has forgotten about this. Course there's always that second media campaign with the release of the DVD to look forward to.

The movie made $77 million in the United States (which is not anywhere close to what The Passion of the Christ made in the US in its opening days). The DaVinci Load of Crap also grossed $147 million everywhere else in the world, including recordbreaking sales in Italy and Spain.

We saw this coming of course. And now the Church is bracing for all sorts of confusion and misconceptions on the part of the folks who watch the movie and don't know that what they're watching is about as grounded in reality as Fox's 24, which, by the way, has featured public service announcements from Kiefer Sutherland (AKA Jack "If everyone followed his instructions the show would be called 12" Bauer) inviting people to recognize that most Muslims and Arabs are in fact ordinary decent people. Anything like that from Ron Howard? Tom Hanks? Dan Brown? Course not. Why not?

Sorry I know I've covered this ground before but I feel the need to say it again: When it's Christians and Catholics being maligned in a Hollywood load of crap it's cool, it's in demand, or at least it's "just entertainment." But when it's Muslims or homosexuals or anybody else you can't portray anything less than the highest nobility without being expected to run a public service announcement. And there's nothing wrong with that. But we Catholics would like one as well. I think we deserve it. Especially the real Silas. Did you know he's a stockbroker in New York with a wife and kids? And heres the kicker: the dude is Nigerian.

The LA Daily News ran a piece today rejoicing over the sizeable ticket sales of the Da Vinci Load. Exhibitor Relations Co. president Paul Dergarabedian said: "The critics certainly weren't kind to ("Da Vinci") but audiences heard so much about it, so how could they not see it?"

How could they not see it? What kind of silly question is that? They could not see it the same way I'm gonna not see it: by not going to see it. It's not that complicated. And frankly, I do wonder how it is that so much curiosity can be ginned up. The promoters of the film argue that protesters of the films are just promoting it by speaking out. But seriously, what are they supposed to do? Not speak up? Not defend themselves and their honor? If Opus Dei members were to keep their mouths shut it would be taken as a confirmation of the argument made by the film and book: that Opus Dei is a secretive and probably corrupt organization.

If the DaVinci Load of Crap is going to rake in hunreds of millions of dollars then so be it. It won't be the first two-and-a-half-hour baloney-fest to do so. I just hope the people who go to see it realize that what they're watching is in fact baloney.

But the fact of the matter is that whether they know that going in or not, they should be able to recognize the fact as soon as they walk out of the theatre and are confronted with numerous Catholics and members of Opus Dei and Catholic clergy etc, all of whom are saints. Of course, we would have to actually be saints in order for those who see the movie to recognize that. Perhaps that is the good that will come from this whole Catholic smear-fest. Perhaps now all we Catholics will have to be saints.

This morning I drove to a Catholic school in the rural Central Texas to talk to third, fourth and fifth graders about the possibility of becoming of a priest or entering religious life. I talked about my background and how when I was their age I never once thought about becoming a priest.

At one point in the talk one of the fourth graders raised his hand and asked me: "What are you gonna do if you become the pope? Are you gonna try to change the world and be like John Paul II?"

I kind of chuckled. In response I said:

Well, I do not think that I am going to become the pope. But if I did then sure I would try to change the world and be like John Paul II. But it's important to remember that, you don't have to be the pope to change the world. All of you here in this room can change the world just by growing up and getting married and raising four or five or however many good kids. You can change the world just by being a priest or by being a sister like Mother Teresa, and serving people that way. That's how I wanta change the world, is by encouraging the people that I serve to be saints, which just means imitating Christ and spreading his love around. If you can be a saint, then you guys can change the world.

On Friday night I attended the Annunciation Maternity Home benefit banquet. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. I mingled with other diocesan staff and joked around with the Catholic Longhorns for Life, said hi to the mothers in residence at the home, and even played around with one of their particularly rambunctious future-athlete toddlers.

But the highlight of my evening was the same as everyone else’s: Gianna Jessen, that rare and embarrassing case of someone who was aborted, and lived to tell about it later in life.

"I don't die easily"
What immediately hits you though when she walks up to the microphone and starts to do what she was obviously born to do, is that she is more than a walking pro-life bumper sticker. She is a person, an enormously gifted and refreshingly humorous one. She began by quipping, “Hi my name’s Gianna. Gianna is an Italian name and I’ve recently discovered I’m Irish.” She then sang three songs for the audience, the first of which was her own rendition of “Soon and Very Soon.” She didn’t just sing it either. She belted it out like she was at the Grand Ole Opry. (She is, after all, from Tennessee.)

After nailing the song, she said with a big smile to the audience, “I think whatever you do, you oughta do it with all your heart.” Gianna Jessen has done a lot, and in just that way. In addition to singing and traveling around the country to tell her story and encourage pro-life ministers, she also is learning about the real estate business, and various vibrant physical pursuits like running marathons. Marathons. Here is a lady who got cerebral palsy from lack of oxygen to her brain during the abortion procedure. She calls it “the gift of cerebral palsy.” When the alternative is death, whatever limitations or hardships we face in life become gifts, because they presuppose the fact that we are alive to have them.

One also gets the immediate impression that Gianna Jessen is an enormously happy and optimistic person. She is acutely aware of the evils that exist in the world, in a way that very, very few people possibly can be. Yet throughout her talk she smiled in a most sincere way that betrayed an impenetrable Christian joy, and several times she simply started laughing uncontrollably.

She recounted the story of what happened to her seven and a half months after her conception. Without shedding a tear or missing a beat she told us how the saline abortion chosen by her mother in 1977 entailed injecting a saline solution into her mother’s uterus so that it would enter the baby’s system, burning her outside and in, until twenty-four hours later the mother would deliver a dead baby.

But as Gianna said with a mischievous smile, “Apparently I don’t die easily.” Indeed what is so inspiring about Gianna and what so many people can benefit from regardless of their background is her determination not just to avoid death but to actually live. She was not supposed to be able to sit up, or crawl, or stand or walk, and certainly not run 26-mile marathons. But she has done all of that. Why? Because she does not die easily. Her survival of the abortion and her life since are a testament to the theological virtue of hope.

Reflection of humanity
The beauty of people like Gianna—and there are several of them walking around, people who were not “meant to be” in the eyes of the world but who by God’s grace survived the world’s attempt on their lives—is that they serve as mirrors reflecting humanity back to itself. When you think about it, Gianna is but an extreme example of every person’s life, and every person’s vocation. There is no reason Gianna should necessarily have come into this world. In fact the odds were profoundly against it, except for the force of God’s providence. If one thing had gone differently in the events leading up to her birth, she could very well have been killed like the millions of other children in this country who have been. Yet here she is today walking among us, and that is a great gift and a great mystery.

Nothing less is true of any of us. There is no reason any of us should necessarily be alive and walking around today. Human life is contingent—it depends on the correct alignment of so many circumstances and if even one of them is lost or even altered, we fade away unnoticed like the unborn. Think about how many generations came before you, and what if one couple three hundred years ago had not met or not married? You would not be here. The odds were profoundly against all of us, except for the force of God’s providence. In less philosophical terms, human life is frail. All of us know this. At any moment a human life can be destroyed with the flip of a switch, the cutting of a tube, the pull of a trigger. It is not to be taken lightly or for granted that any of us are alive and walking about. It is a great gift and a great mystery. That is why we are all called, like Gianna, to “not die easily.”

Many are Gianna Jessen’s weaknesses and difficulties. But she does not take them as a sign that her life is not worth living, because she has a piece of evidence to the contrary that trumps any hardship she might face, and that is: the fact that she is alive to begin with. She recognizes that the only reason she is alive is because God chose for whatever reason not to call her home yet. So with us. The only reason we are alive is because God wills us to be. And if he wants us to live, then he wants us to live with all our hearts, to know that life is worth living, not in spite of our hardships but because of them. Gianna lives her life in the face of all her challenges, in spite of the frailty of her life, in spite of the fact that in the eyes of some she was never meant to be. And that’s all she has to do to be a shining light of the Gospel of Life.

If pro-lifers are to be witnesses to the Gospel of Life, their witness must extend beyond their activism. A cornerstone of the spirituality of St Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the much-maligned Opus Dei, was the call to witness to God’s glory in regular activities. In performing each task to the best of our ability, and making it a sacrifice to God. In speaking with charity to and appreciating the humanity of everyone with whom we come into contact, even those who disagree with us. In hanging out with friends. In going to work. In playing sports. In meeting the suffering and the sinful (including ourselves) of the world where they are and inviting them to something better. Inviting them not to die so easily. That is how we refuse to die easily. That is the fullness of life.

I've just recently begun preparing myself for the rhythm of seminary life. At the seminary there will be morning prayer every day at 630 a.m. followed by daily Mass, followed by breakfast. Therefore, I have just begun getting up every morning at 530 p.m. and driving to St Mary's Cathedral in downtown Austin for daily Mass.

I recall that Peter Kreeft suggested in one of his books that rather than go to bed at midnight and wake up at 7 a.m., one ought to try going to bed at 10 and waking up at 5. I find in anticipation of seminary that I am beginning to approach or at least try on this daily routine. It definitely has its benefits. For one, you get up before the sun is out, thus giving yourself the opportunity to enjoy the sunrise. You are not immediately bombarded with all the input of an already bustling day. It's quiet. And while I can't really handle quiet all day long, it's nice to be in a quiet place before the bustle starts so I can hear the voice of God. And when one hears the voice of God in the stillness, and the bustle gradually escalates, that voice of God somehow always stays near, whereas waking up to the bustle one can forget to listen for His voice in the first place.

Beginning the day with the real presence of Christ is an awesome gift. At least for people who take the concept of fitness or proper disposition seriously, it creates a heightened state of alertness to avoid temptation and occasions of sin. When one has constant daily contact with the Lord, one wants to always do what is right in his eyes, in the same way that when one has daily contact with a close friend, one is less tempted to do anything to injure his trust. Contact breeds loyalty.

And walking out of Mass at 7 a.m. and into the streets of downtown Austin, when the streets are still calm, you can see the sun rising. God says good morning from within the walls of the chapel, and then from without. An added bonus is that you start your tasks of the day earlier than before. You're not hurried or stressed out. You're just doing what you have to do. And as the day progresses you feel a greater sense of accomplishment, and peace, for you know that Christ really is present in you. And you're allowing him, although it is sometimes quite a challenge, to guide you.

Harmless fiction?
So, the DaVinci Code is just a bit of entertainment right? It's just a bit of fiction, it's not meant to mirror reality or anything. And besides most people aren't going to have their beliefs altered or really be influenced at all by what's in the book anyway. Right?

Wrong.

Disclaimer too much to ask?
Lifesite News reports that Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had some harsh words for director Ron Howard, who announced recently that there will be no disclaimer at the beginning of DVC. The story includes a list of films which had disclaimers at the beginning expressing that there was no intention of maledicting the groups depicted therein. Get a load of these:

· Asians: "Year of the Dragon"
· Blacks: "Birth of the Nation"
· Gays: "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"
· Jews: "Merchant of Venice"
· Mormons: "Big Love"
· Muslims: "True Lies"
· Native Americans: "Pocahontas II"
· Nearsighted: "Mr. Magoo"
· Wolves: "White Fang"

Now that's crazy. The most striking example to me is True Lies. If DVC was really the innocent little bit of fictional action fluff it claims to be, there would be no problem with a disclaimer of that sort. The fact of the matter is, for all their pretensions and posturing, the makers of this film are objectively hostile to bona fide Catholicism and to the image of the Church. These filmmakers and Hollywood in general are clearly not hostile to any of the above groups because they recognize the kind of sensitivity that all of them rightly warrant. They do not recognize that Catholics have a right to the same kind of sensitivity. In light of this double-standard, perhaps it would be appropriate to redub the movie, maybe something like, False Lies.

I've recently taken up the practice of actually writing out what I perceive the Lord to be saying to me. It goes without saying that it's not an infallible translation from the divine language into human language. But I find that it actually helps me to listen. You have to really listen when you're transcribing what the person with whom you are talking is saying. Here's a little excerpt of what I perceived God saying to me earlier today. Perhaps readers can relate.

Just listen to me. I love you anyway. And you may say you know I do. But do you really? No I don't think you do. You think I'm here to tell you that what you did was sinful and wrong. Don't you know I know everything? Don't you know that I know that you know that your sins are sins? Do you really expect me to waste time telling you again after I've written it on your heart and you have read it and grilled it into yourself over and over again? i'm not gonna do that. Now you listen to me:

You are my child, and I love you. I am going to take care of you. I am not going to deem you unworthy of me because of mistakes that you have made while you were upset and suffering. You are fallen. That's not news to me. I am going to love you until you get back on your feet and start walking with me again. That's right. Right now, I am carrying you. Do you feel it? You may not. Most people don't realize it as it's happening. But I'm telling you right now to open your eyes, open the eyes of your heart. I'm right here...okay?

Just trust me. Give me your guilt. Give me your brokenness. Give me your losses. Every loss you have suffered is my loss too. I am your best friend. I know the emptiness that festers inside you. Let me fill it. You are an empty glass right now, Let me make you a vessel of my love. You are a blank canvas. Let me draw my face on you, so you can show it to the world. You are a vast plot of land. Let me build my City on your soil, and in your heart. You are mine. I claim you. I claim the broken, that i may heal them. I claim the average, so that I might make them extraordinary. I claim you, that I might make you who I made you to be in the first place. But right now, just rest your head, and I will heal the brokenness, fill the emptiness, and build the city of love inside you.

...Amen...

I'm scheduled to report to Holy Trinity Seminary in Irving, Texas on August 20, 2006 to begin priestly formation for the Diocese of Austin. The application process is completed. Every "i" dotted, every "t" crossed. I'm in. The only thing left to do now, is wait.

That last sentence, I have to keep reminding myself, is patently false. There are three months and six days between now and the day I report to seminary. I have been telling myself that I cannot wait to get out of my office and go there. I want to be there now.

And the situation is not unique to myself. Everyone deals with this on one level or another. We are not particularly good at the interim, "the meantime." We want to get down to the business of things. We can't wait.

And the good news is, there is no need to sit on our hands and do nothing during this iterim. In fact, this interim is not an "interim" at all. Today, this very moment, is the day that God is calling us to really do his work. That work does not begin when we go to seminary, or graduate from high school or college, or get ordained, or get the new job, or move to New York City, or whatever else. These are human characterizations of when we are supposed to get down to the business of things. We know that at some point, God will call us forth into those exciting new horizons. That exciting new horizon arrives for me in just over three months.

But that's not the question. I know what God is going to want me to do on August 20. He will want me to wake up, take I 35 north 220 miles to Dallas Texas, exit into Irving, and report to the seminary between 12 noon and 4 p.m. There's dozens and dozens of days between now and then, most pressing of which is this one.

What does God want me to do on May 14, 2006? Who does he want me to talk to? And what does he want me to say? Who does he want me to pray for? What good works is he calling me to do? That is the exciting horizon that God is calling us to this very moment. Just because I'm not journeying off to a new city and a completely new environment doesn't mean God doesn't have something very important that he is calling me to accomplish. The same is true for every Christian who thinks that today is "just another day."

The time to do God's will is now. There is no "meantime."

From St Josemaria Escriva's tome The Way:

You seek the friendship of those who, with their conversation and affection, with their company, help you to bear more easily the exile of this world--although sometimes those friends fail you. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But how is it that you do not seek everyday, more eagerly, the company, the conversation of that great friend who will never fail you?

Well there's controversy in Britain. From the Indepent Online Edition a few hours ago:

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales sacked a senior aide because he was gay, it was reported last night. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was personally involved in the dismissal of his personal press officer, according to The Mail on Sunday.

A spokesman for the Cardinal declined to deny the claim last night, fuelling controversy over the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality.

The new equality minister Ruth Kelly, who is a member of the Catholic Opus Dei sect, has appalled leaders of Britain's gay community by failing to say whether she believes being gay is a sin.

Well if she says yes, they're going to be angry. If she says no, they'll say she's lying and still be angry. She'd just as soon not hog the spotlight they so desperately desire by saying anything herself. At any rate, to answer the question we would have to know what precisely the phrase "being gay" really means. If it means that someone has a tendency to be attracted to members of the same sex, then the answer is no. No one is guilty of sin for being a certain way. One might however act on impulses in a way that is sinful. And typically, the term "gay" has the connotation not just of having an inclination but of acting thereupon. If "being gay" thus means actually living out a gay lifestyle then yes, of course, the Church teaches that "being gay" is a sin. And that's all these reporters had to do was pick up a Catechism and look for themselves.

Of course, they didn't want to know what the Church teaches. Apparently they wanted to know whether equality minister Ruth Kelly believed it to be a sin. This of course is something she has no obligation to tell a bunch of snoopy reporters because it has nothing to do with her job.

Oh but according to Peter Stanford at the Guardian Unlimited they are when you're a member of Opus Dei, as Kelly is. Stanford gives his spin on Kelly's troubles with the press.

the beleaguered Blairite contralto is in difficulties as Secretary of State for Communities, as she was at Education, because she is said to be a supernumerary (or associate member) of the secretive and ultra-conservative Catholic group Opus Dei. According to The Da Vinci Code, Opus Dei is a bunch of sinister monks willing to murder to keep the church going. The truth is different but still disturbing.

Whoa! Now I have to wonder, if it weren't for all the Catholics and other Christians out there campaigning night and day to expose the DaVinci Code as the fraudulent anti-Catholic hack-job that it is, do you think he would have bothered to point out that DVC was wrong about Opus Dei? The campaigns must be doing something. It forces even those who are determined to malign Opus Dei to footnote their slander. "We still think they're sinister and hiding something, even though one of our fellows has obviously gone and damaged our collective credibility by writing some second-rate flop supposing this order is composed of psychotic albinoes."

So what's the "different but still disturbing" truth about Opus Dei?

Opus Dei may not murder - claims that it had a hand in the premature death of Pope John Paul I in 1978 after just 33 days have been disproved - but its core belief is that in your everyday work (Opus Dei means 'work of God') your prime duty is to convert the people you come into contact with to the traditional beliefs of the Catholic Church. They call it fishing and are quite open about doing it.

So again, since we don't have any evidence to really support our claim that Opus Dei wants to subjugate the world, we'll just engage in the spin in which we've specialized for so many years. Even when Mr Stanford gets into the part that is supposedly the truth he distorts it. The prime duty of a member of a member of Opus Dei is to lift up every activity of his life on a daily basis to the glory of God, and to witness to the grace of Christ through prayer and good works. What others in his life do with that witness is up to them. Human beings don't convert. It's the Holy Spirit that speaks to people. It's just the Christian's job to be a witness, not to twist arms, and Opus Dei is clear about that in a way that Stanford is not, which makes him not much better than Dan Brown.

There was at least one person who made pretty good sense in the media uproar, as recorded in the Independent:

Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP, defended the Cardinal. "I don't think that the Cardinal had any choice. The Church's teaching is very clear. It would be difficult if you had a press secretary explaining the teaching, while at the same time violating it."

Exhausted is one of the best things a Christian can be. Exhaustion is a consciousness of one's powerlessness to make any more progress. But in truth, we are always powerless, because without Jesus we can do nothing (cf John 15:5). Therefore to be exhausted is to be closer to the reality of our human frailty, and therefore it is an opportunity to become more reliant on God. So invite him into your exhaustion. Invite him into your powerlessness, and see what the one with whom anything is possible can do even through a paragon of impotence like you and me.

So today USA Today ran a praise piece on Oprah. She is, of course, the media darling of the modern world. A few things about this article that struck my eye, or maybe, poked it like a cattle prod.

First off, Kathryn Lofton, a professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon who has written two papers analyzing the religious aspects of Oprah, said this about her: "She's a really hip and materialistic Mother Teresa."

Um, what? First of all, the words "materialistic" and "Mother Teresa" do not belong in the same sentence. And certainly not the latter right after the former. The last thing Mother Teresa was was materialistic. And according to an expert on Oprah, it's the second thing she is. "Materialistic Mother Teresa" is a contradiction in terms, a stringing together of words that causes said words to lose their meaning and become superficial and bereft of substance. Now, if that's what we mean when we describe Oprah as a "materialistic Mother Teresa," superficial and bereft of substance, then I can accept that as a possibility.

Perhaps by "Mother Teresa" Professor Lofton just meant to refer to Oprah's participation in good causes like Darfur and Hurricane Katrina. The distinct difference here of course is that every day of Mother Teresa's life was about the good cause--specifically in Calcutta. Anything less was not enough for her or for her good name. For Oprah, the natural disasters are on Monday and Tuesday, and what not to wear is on Wednesday. That's not a jab at Oprah, it's just what is. There's also the distinct difference that everything Mother Teresa did was aimed at the glorification of Jesus Christ. She pointed to Him. Who does Oprah point to?

Later on the article reads:

One of Winfrey's most appealing subtexts is that she's anti-institutional, says Chris Altrock, minister of Highland Street Church of Christ in Memphis. He says Winfrey believes there are many paths to God, not just one. After doing his doctoral research three years ago on postmodernism religion, a religious era that began in the 1970s as Christians became deeply interested in spirituality and less interested in any established church, he came up with what he calls "The Church of Oprah," referring to the culture that has created her.

"Our culture is changing," he says, "as churches are in decline and the bulk of a new generation is growing up outside of religion." Instead, they're turning to the Church of Oprah.

"People who have no religion relate to her," Nelson says.

Well of course. This is no big riddle here. What makes the Church of Oprah so appealing to so many people particularly in America is the same thing that ever made every other craze in history so appealing: the veritable absence of challenging moral requirements. That's what's at work in the DaVinci Code, it's what's at work in alternative spiritualities and yes even in the spirituality of Oprah. Does she say some good things? I guess maybe: frankly I don't watch her show that often. What I do know is that in the Gospel according to Oprah most of the notion of moral obligation has to do not with your neighbor but with precisely "you". The article makes it clear: "purchase self-indulgent gifts, take time for you — because you deserve it. The notes rang true to millions of viewers."

True or false doesn't enter into it. It rings comfortable. And that's the pop cultural view of religion right there. Religion is a sort of therapy. It's all about comfort and happy feelings and the moment that it makes an uncomfortable demand on a person or a culture it ceases to be valuable. That's the popular religious outlook of many in America today and Oprah is glad to preach it. Catholicism is a profound rejection of that idea.

One pointy-headed Oprah follower actually goes so far as to invite readers to ponder the question: "Why do we all need her so much?"

"We all"? Excuse me? Forty-nine million viewers a week--okay, it's impressive. But it does not in any way shape or form constitute "we all," especially for those of us two-hundred-some-odd million Americans who actually don't watch it every single day.

I have to say, my favorite parts of the article were the quotations of Debbie Schlussel, a blogger who, aside from resenting the ridiculous comparisons of Oprah to bona fide saints, seems to just plain not like her. She describes Oprah's fans as "incredibly gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves." Winfrey, according to Schlussel, "acts as if her show has 'evolved,' but in fact, she still has the salacious sex and deviance stories, with a psychologist in the audience to make it seem highbrow and give it the kosher seal of approval. If this is the person whose morals we are putting on a pedestal, then America's moral compass is in much need of retuning."

Well, yes Debbie, I'm afraid it in fact is. Trying to look on the bright side though, I wonder if all 49 million of Oprah's viewers really are "fans," in the sense of being the gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves that Schlussel describes. Is it too much to hope that people can watch Oprah with a critical mind? I don't think so. Still, it is rather unsettling when "Oprah said" becomes an authoritative prefix culturally rivalling "Jesus said." But that's from the point of view of the present time. In terms of history, I think it's safe to say which person's words will last longer.

I attended a presentation today on the DaVinci Code and certain issues that it raises. The presentation was excellent, particularly in its presentation of the reality of what Opus Dei is, cutting through all the mythology of Dan Brown and others.

What I found most fascinating was the main idea behind Opus Dei, namely the universal call to the perfection of Christian holiness. The presenter, a member of Opus Dei himself, observed that this main thrust of Opus Dei is really just a microcosm of the larger Church's teaching, particularly as found in the Second Vatican Council.

Before the Second Vatican Council, it was understood correctly that the Church was structured hierarchically in terms of teaching authority. Think of a pyramid, at the top of which is the pope, and then just below him are the cardinals and bishops, and then the priests, and then the religious, and then the lay people. The teaching authority would flow from God to the pope on down accordingly. The problem before the Second Vatican Council was that some folks understood incorrectly that in the Church grace for holy living was disseminated similarly. So the pope gets all the grace from God, distributes it to the cardinals and bishops, then the priests religious and the lay people get whatever is left. This was never an official teaching, just a broad misconception.

The Second Vatican Council's teaching on the unviersal call to the perfection of Christian holiness was a response to this misconception. Rather than the notion that the pope should be really holy and lay people can be "just lay people" and not hold themselves to a similar standard of holiness, now the Church pronounced clearly that all Christians are called to be saints, to be holy as Christ is holy, "perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Lumen Gentium 39 puts it beautifully:

Therefore in the Church, everyone whether belonging to the hierarchy, or being cared for by it, is called to holiness, according to the saying of the Apostle: "For this is the will of God, your sanctification".(215) However, this holiness of the Church is unceasingly manifested, and must be manifested, in the fruits of grace which the Spirit produces in the faithful; it is expressed in many ways in individuals, who in their walk of life, tend toward the perfection of charity, thus causing the edification of others; in a very special way this (holiness) appears in the practice of the counsels, customarily called "evangelical."

What follows, which was a teaching of St Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, is that we are called to make our ordinary day-to-day work an offering to God. As the presenter observed, if something is not intrinsically evil, it can be lifted up as prayer for the glory of God. If we are garbagemen, we are called to be excellent garbagemen; if lawyers, then excellent lawyers; if firemen, then excellent firemen; if cops, then excellent cops; if news reporters, then excellent news reporters; if bloggers, then excellent bloggers. That is the way to become a saint: not necessarily just as a priest or a bishop or a religious person or a minister, but in ordinary everyday activities. Hence the "universal call to holiness."

It causes me at any rate to examine myself and my own work, and to ask myself: Are my standards high enough? Do I glorify God in my ordinary day-to-day activities? Not when I'm ministering, not when I'm praying or attending some Church function. Do I glorify him when I'm doing the things that ordinary people do? Is every action I take supernaturally motivated? According to the Church, according to Christ, it should be. Something for us all to pray for.

I heard it asserted yesterday that the Catholic Church denies women the opportunity to make use of their spiritual gifts. At the risk of making myself appear chauvinist, I cannot endorse such a proposition, in fact, I'm inclined to think it absurd.

What other philosophies of woman exist in the world aside from the Catholic one? Well there's the Hefner and Flynt philosophy: A woman is a bunny, whose worth depends upon her ability to sexually excite men. One aspect of this philosophy includes limiting the value of the sexual act with the woman to the unitive aspect, that is, to saying there is no value to the woman's ability to actually bring new life into the world.

Then there's the chauvinist philosophy, which basically says woman is supposed to shut her mouth and do as she's told. This is where we get the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" image. It is widely believed that the Catholic Church is to thank for this image, even though this image limits the value of a woman more or less to her ability to bear children.

Then there's the modern feminist view of woman, which is that a woman's value is ultimately predicated on her ability to climb the corporate ladder. There's the reproductive-rights view of women, which says that a woman's worth is predicated upon her ability to exercise power over her own reproductive system. I could go on and on.

The thing that all these philosophies share in common is that they all focus on one dimension of female existence and elevates it to the exclusion of all the other dimensions of the female identity. The word for this is "objectification," limiting the anthropology of women to one particular aspect. We see this everywhere in the world today--in magazines, in corporations, in schools. On the other hand, there is today one institution that is the definitive authority on all these dimensions of the female person and reveres them all equally. That institution is the Mystical Body of Christ that, some in the popular media and even some of our church leaders, would have us believe denies the spiritual gifts of women.

Does the Mystical Body in fact think that women are supposed to be quiet and clean the dishes? Is the woman's only place within the confines of the physical household? Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on women, written in 1912, such a philosophy is at best "imperfect."

the social position of woman is, from the Christian point of view, only imperfectly set forth in the expression "Woman belongs at home". On the contrary, her peculiar influence is to extend from the home over State and Church.

This was written in 1912, long before the modern notions of female "liberation" ever took hold of the West. The fact of the matter is that the Church, by recognizing the divine authorship of women, and applying the universal call to holiness to them as well, actually expects more of women than do any of these other incomplete ideologies, because the Church gives women more credit than anyone else does. The Church wants women to be on the frontlines, on the cutting edge of societal evolution. But because of long-standing and unalterable liturgical norms that offend modern culture, the Church is maligned as woman-suppressing.

Show me, I would implore these critics, one institution in the world that can claim as a daughter a woman like Mother Theresa. Or Catherine of Siena. Or Therese of Lisieux. Joan of Arc. To say nothing of a certain Blessed Virgin. We are talking about women who did enormous amounts of good in and for the world, and no it didn't advance an ideological agenda. All it advanced was the Kingdom of God. Which is greater?

Has the Church always been free of male chauvinist pigs? Of course not. But if that is the case then it is only because these men did not accept the authentic Catholic teaching on women. At any rate, I would implore critics to explain how a woman-suppressing Church could produce such a paragon of chivalry and gentlemanliness as John Paul II, whose works and writings constantly witnessed to nothing less than a Christ-like reverance and awe of women.

Ultimately, the objectification of women in all the aforementioned incomplete ideologies is tantamount to the historical suppression of women. Historical suppression and modern objectification both accomplish the same thing: the limitation and degradation of the female identity to something less than the full objective reality that is Woman. Have leaders in the Church participated sinfully in that limitation and degradation? Sure. But to point to those within the Mystical Body exclusively, mentioning neither any of the litany of other culprits nor the far greater scale on which they limit and degrade the daughters of God, rather misses the big picture.

I was reminded today of the imminent Catholic truth that time does not heal all wounds. The suppression of pain from sins that have been committed against us by others does not achieve real forgiveness. Sooner or later the hurt has to be addressed. I think all of us have some kind of pain that we choose to sit on because we'd rather not think about it.

The interesting thing about Christianity is that God calls us to forgive and a fundamental prerequisite of forgiveness is acknowledging the pain we've experienced. It's not that we necessarily want to stay angry at the person who is responsible; it's just that we would rather not go there to begin with. We want to stay comfortable. The call to forgiveness forces us to make ourselves vulnerable, to step out of our comfortable little world where we bury all the pain under the sofa cushions.

Because God doesn't bury the pain, he doesn't cover it up. He's a surgeon. He goes inside us and takes the pain out. It's the only way real healing can take place. But we have to co-operate. And when I see that friends in my life are willing to co-operate with this great Surgeon, however scary it might be, it makes me feel a little better about the world.

Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures

by Marcello Pera, Pope Benedict XVI

One of the running themes of the book is the proposition known as Pascal's Wager. Ratzinger observes that in a declining Western culture, the solution that could save it is his proposition that society live as if God did exist, even if evidence may not satisfy the Enlightenment rationalist philosophy which dominates today.

And this is the interesting take on Pascal's Wager that had never occurred to me before. I had always thought of Pascal's Wager as a way of living with the afterlife in mind: that just in case there is a God who will actually care about whether we place our faith in him, we had better do so in order that we might go to heaven. But Benedict's application of Pascal's Wager has little to do with the last things. His proposition is surprisingly practical: that it be applied not (just) in order to sure up a reward in the hereafter, but in order to keep the household of mankind on earth from collapsing.

These and other insights abound in Ratzinger's tome, and its easily readable in a single weekend. Check it out.

The other day I was at a men's church organization meeting and I heard this one guy say that at the parish in his previous place of residence, there are "these old ladies who still keep their heads covered because they're orthodox and haven't accepted Vatican II."

I've learned to keep my mouth shut when people utter such malarkey. Still, I feel the need for my own sake to address the veritable Christmas list of myths and misconceptions contained in that statement.

First, just because someone wears a headdress doesn't make them orthodox. It might make them traditionalist in terms of liturgical dress, but that's not the same as orthodoxy. The term "orthodox" merely means that a person accepts and believes the teaching of the Church. It's possible to do that with or without headdresses, since Vatican II neither prohibits nor requires them.

A person is not orthodox if they haven't accepted the teachings of Vatican II. On the contrary, accepting the teachings of Vatican II is very important to maintain orthodoxy since Vatican II didn't change the traditional teachings of the Church. All it did was reaffirm long-standing teachings and adapt the appearance of the Church to meet the needs of the modern world. It didn't make orthodoxy a red herring.

I'm not a big fan of headdresses, but I respect the women who wear them because I know that they're doing so out of a continued reverence for the sacred mysteries. That's a reverence that many faithful in the Church would do well to adopt today even if they don't do it by covering their heads. And when people dismiss such practices saying that the women who do so are "orthodox," and "haven't accepted Vatican II," it kinda bothers me, not gonna lie.

Here's a good article published in the Pittsburgh Catholic last week that draws parallels between Thomas Jefferson and Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code. There's really not a whole lot new about Dan Brown, particularly in his approach to the question of who Jesus was (is). It's the old art of fence-straddling.

Jesus was just a nice guy you see. He wasn't really the LORD. He was just a really good teacher who made everybody feel good, went around raising everybody's self-esteem. It was that big bad evil Church that hijacked the image of Jesus and turned him into a deity and told people that they better not misbehave or Jesus would send em to aich-ee-double-hockey-sticks.

In the "Total Agony Love" entry, I mentioned that a romantic attraction proves untenable for an enamored man for 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").

I think what's going on with DVC is situation "c." The Da Vinci Code is Dan Brown's bend-over-backwards attempt to keep his distance from the God who loves him, as well as make it easy for other Christians who are unsettled by the message of Christ to do similarly.

And in the meantime it unsettles even committed but uninformed Christians, claiming that maybe our lover is not everything we thought he was. So we then are tempted to distance ourselves, at the fear of being let down. It's a psychological operation.

This comfortable distance allows for a beloved to enjoy the superficial qualities of the lover's affections without having to commit to the uncomfortable ordeal of really reciprocating. So the beloved benefits in all the ways that they would wish to, in the ways that would make them feel better about themselves. But the lover is undeniably short-changed. The more admirable thing to do in this situation would be to simply cut off the relationship, rather than attempt to straddle the fence.

Similarly, DVC attempts to reframe the relationship of humanity with Christ, inviting followers to predicate their previously unqualified belief on whether or not it offends our modern sensibilities. Again, there's nothing new here, except the package. As characters in the book are quick to point out, they mean no disrespect to Jesus himself. They just have it in for the big evil Church. In other words, they don't want to completely sever their relationship with Jesus. They like him and all. They just don't want to date exclusively.

But as Jesus said, "Whoever is not with me is against me." In other words, it's time to fish or cut bait.

Behold the Pierced One

by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

The following are just a few of the reflections that I took from the book, but I want to make clear to everyone that my reflections will hardly do justice to this great work by the man who is today the Holy Father. In short, this book is a gem: read it.

The book, as this layman reads it, speaks about Christ in two ways: first at the person of Christ himself, and then at how what we know about Christ himself translates into the lives of Christians who are called to imitate him and communicate him to others. First and foremost in the cardinal’s reflections is the observation of the centrality of prayer in the life of Christ. Ratzinger calls our attention to Jesus’ “constant communication with the Father,” making the simple and powerful observation that “Jesus died praying.” And for us Christians, it is not merely that we should pray ourselves, but that we must “participate in his prayer” if we are to know and understand him.

The cardinal goes on to observe that participation in Jesus’ prayer necessarily means a communion with all others who do so as well, and this communion is the “Body of Christ,” “the Church.”

At some points in the book Benedict even resembles the teaching and language of John Paul II (which is interesting considering it was written near the beginning of JPII's pontificate). For example at one point he observes that “when the human will is taken up into the will of God, freedom is not destroyed; indeed, only then does genuine freedom come into its own.” In my ongoing reading of Ratzinger, this is turning out to be a shared theme of his and John Paul II’s. This makes sense as it is perhaps one of the most important messages that the Church can speak in today’s dictatorship of relativism: that freedom is not advanced when people make themselves the authority on good and evil. It is only when man submits to the Source of freedom that real freedom can be obtained.

I've already excerpted the book a couple of times on this blog, but I tell ya folks, I haven't even scratched the surface. Highly recommended.

Sin is nothing more than an illegitimate response to a legitimate desire. Behind every sinful inclination is the desire for something real and good. Behind the temptation to wrath is the desire to correct an injustice. Behind the temptation to lust is the desire to be truly intimate with another person. Behind the temptation to laziness is the desire to "be still and know that He is God" (Psalm 46). Every deep-seated desire of the human person has a counterfeit, a perversion. And that perversion turns out in fact to be the antithesis of the real human desire which burns within us. For the last thing wrath achieves is justice, and the last thing lust achieves is intimacy, and the last thing laziness achieves is real stillness.

This clarity can be helpful in dealing with temptation. It means that refusing to do evil does not entail the suppression of the desire. On the contrary, it is giving in to the evil that really entails the abandonment of satisfaction and surrender to something less than true abundance. It ultimately means the loss of hope, loss of the hope of ever satisfying the real human need for justice, intimacy, and peace. It is compromise.

On the other hand, refusing to do evil is the prerequisite for real personal fulfillment. We often hear about how the commandments are too negative, "thou shalt not" this or that. But it's imminently reasonable. If any of us is going to have a shot at real fullness of life, we have to decisively refuse to do evil. And we have to decisively choose to do what is right.

Temptation then is an opportunity, for a person to find out more about himself. He can say, "Because I am tempted, I know that there is something in my life that I desire greatly. What do I desire?" And when that desire is pinpointed, it is not a matter of asking oneself, "Am I giving in to my desire?" But rather, "Am I giving my desires enough credit? Am I taking my desires seriously enough to do something that will really satisfy them? Or am I settling for something less?"

And perhaps most important of all, we may ask ourselves, when we are in that place of temptation, "What do I hope to gain from this that I was not given freely at baptism?" Justice? The price for all the evil that has been and is now being and ever will be perpetrated on this earth was eternally paid on the Cross on Good Friday. When we are baptized, we are baptized into the death of that Man who paid that price for us--and his resurrection. Wrath has no power to add to such perfection. Intimacy? We are the sons and daughters of God the Father, maker of heaven and earth. We are brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. We are temples of the Holy Spirit. This God is greater than our hearts, he reads us, he knows every intimate detail about us. Above all, he loves us, and wants us to love each other as he does. The anonymity of lust has no power to really love. Peace? The peace of Christ is a peace that breathes in the world and contemplates it, sees the fingerprints of God in it, and thanks Him for it. Sloth fears the world, shuts itself in from it. It has no power to be thankful.

The goodness of God is precisely the power that fulfills the life of a person, sets men and women in motion to truly love each other and do His will. Temptations are the crossroads at which we need only remember that what we really desire is that goodness, and absolutely nothing less.

Lord, when I am tempted,
give me the clarity to know
that only by following You
may I ever find
what it is I really seek

Praise You in this Storm, by Casting Crowns

I was sure by now
That You would have reached down
And wiped our tears away
Stepped in and saved the day
But once again, I say "Amen"
and it's still raining

As the thunder rolls
I barely hear You whisper through the rain
"I'm with you"
And as Your mercy falls
I raise my hands and praise the God
Who gives and takes away

I'll praise You in this storm
And I will lift my hands
For You are who You are
No matter where I am
Every tear I've cried
You hold in Your hand
You never left my side
And though my heart is torn
I will praise You in this storm

I remember when
I stumbled in the wind
You heard my cry You raised me up again
My strength is almost gone
How can I carry on
If I can't find You?

As the thunder rolls
I barely hear You whisper through the rain
"I'm with you"
And as Your mercy falls
I raise my hands and praise the God
Who gives and takes away

And I'll praise You in this storm
And I will lift my hands
For You are who You are
No matter where I am
Every tear I've cried
You hold in Your hand
You never left my side
And though my heart is torn
I will praise You in this storm

I lift my eyes unto the hills
Where does my help come from?
My help comes from the Lord
The Maker of Heaven and Earth

I lift my eyes unto the hills
Where does my help come from?
My help comes from the Lord
The Maker of Heaven and Earth

And I'll praise You in this storm
And I will lift my hands
For You are who You are
No matter where I am
Every tear I've cried
You hold in Your hand
You never left my side
And though my heart is torn
I will praise You in this storm

And though my heart is torn
I will praise You in this storm

Funny thing is, I used to not like Casting Crowns. Like at all. Now they've recently come out with two of my absolute favorite Christian songs. A few months ago it was Lifesong. This morning I'm lying in bed with so many things on my mind. And this song comes on my stereo on 102.3. I really like it, because it's not just a happy God-is-great song (although those are good too). It actually grapples with the reality of the Christian life, that sometimes we turn to God to help us with our problems and yet our problems don't seem to get any better. Something I think we can all very much connect with personally.

And yet the bridge ("I lift my eyes unto the hills...") makes me think of Psalm 22, how it begins with the forsakenness of the Lord's servant but ends with a note of hope.

"How's your relationship with God?"
I got asked this question earlier today, when meeting with Bishop Aymond to discuss my vocational discernment. The question really caught me off guard. Have you ever been asked a really simple question and to your surprise found yourself completely befuddled as to what the answer is? That was me, tongue-tied by the simplest question.

I could look at all the reasons this is the case, but at the moment it seems more pertinent to simply ask myself, how is my relationship with God? Being the doctrinal and theological enthusiast that I am, the way I'm inclined to describe my relationship is in entirely objective terms. So basically, I'm not under mortal sin which means I am currently receiving sanctifying grace from the Lord. But that really says nothing about the state of our relationship. That's just the simplest way to describe my spiritual state at the moment.

So how is my relationship with him? Have I listened to him in a while? I suppose I have, but I always hesitate to listen as if I'm expecting to hear actual words from him. Cuz that doesn't usually happen. Do I really ask for his wisdom in my day-to-day problems? I'm really not sure. Am I a friend of God? Objectively, yes, but do I treat him so? Am I comfortable with dropping everything and making time for him?

Ultimately I realized after Bishop Aymond asked me this question that knowing God is not the same as knowing about God. You can know a whole lot about him and still not really know him, the same way you can read a person's resume and autobiography but still have very little tangible understanding of who they are as a person.

So who is God as a person? And how do I interact with him? Questions to ponder.

How not to handle fear
Again, straight from the bishop. When you enter into a new chapter in your life, into a great unknown, fear will be a fact of life. Don't run from the fear. Don't even ask God to take it away. Invite God into the fear. Remember that there were times in the Gospel where Jesus experienced intense fear. When that happened, he invited God into it. In that sense, he refused to be afraid of his fear. He acknowledged it. He stared it down. He invited God into it. That's how he was able to have courage.

So if you're afraid, just allow that fear to be there. Don't try to conquer it yourself. Invite God into it. Where God is, love is also, and perfect love drives out fear (I John 4:18).