Recently in Doctrinal Issues Category

I've discovered Red. They are sort of the Linkin Park of the Christian music scene. They have a couple of really excellent songs, dark night of the soul type stuff, which is getting more popular in Christian music these days. I think in general people are getting a little worn out of all the saccharine praise and worship type stuff, which has its place and its value but won't always suffice for the difficulty of the real world Christian experience.

Red's album is "End of Silence." My favorite song on it is "Pieces."

I'm here again
a thousand miles away from you
a broken mess
just scattered pieces of who I am
I tried so hard
thought I could do this on my own
I've lost so much along the way

Then I see your face
I know I'm finally yours
I find everything
I thought I'd lost before
You call my name
I come to you in pieces
So you can make me whole

I come undone
but you make sense of who I am
Like puzzle pieces in your eyes

Then I see your face
I know I'm finally yours
I find everything
I thought I'd lost before
You call my name
I come to you in pieces
So you can make me whole

How true is that?? That's what I love about these guys. You listen to their stuff and you know that these aren't a bunch of holy rollers who have never done anything bad. These guys know what it's like to be in pieces.

And that's something the non-Christian world, and the Christian world, really needs to know: that Christians aren't perfect people. They are in pieces. The only difference is they are made whole, and that is something that everyone can have, if they know where to turn. And that I daresay even accomplishes what a theme like "Take Me As I Am" aims to but without the confusion. It makes the point that Christians know they are fallen people, but that God is indeed a God who takes us as we are, in pieces, but who makes us whole.

If I had been on the creative counsel that picked out the theme for the National Young Adult Conference 2006, set for August 4 thru 6 in San Francisco, I think I would have had a few things to say. "Take Me As I Am." Is it catchy? Yes. Is there some pastoral value in it? Maybe. Is it a bit confusing? Perhaps more than a bit. The first thing I think of is all the questions I have about this theme.

"Take me as I am." Who is saying these words, and to whom?

If they mean it as God saying these words to us, then all I can say is right on. (It's even rather perfect that the words "I am" are in the theme.) That's something that absolutely needs to be said to a world that has been making it it's business to redefine God in terms that make us all feel "validated" and good about ourselves. For all our whining about feeling judged and oppressed by moral authorities like God and the Church to which he gave that authority, we don't often realize that we judge God with far less mercy and understanding than he judges us. If I was the keynote speaker at this conference, that's probably the way I would take this theme, even if it wasn't what the authors intended.

But alas, I have a feeling that the theme is intended to be precisely what I fear it is: a command to those in moral authority--the Church or God or both--to be more accepting of people who have difficulties with the standards they so rigidly set. (Course that's pretty much all of us who are not God, including the leaders of the Church.) If I'm right, and these words are spoken by us people to either the Church or to God then it implies some or all of the following to me:

1) an unwillingness to change, that is, an unwillingness to be converted from sinful inclinations, tendencies, and practices. A demand that those in authority, either the Church or God or both, change in order to be reconciled with me, AND / OR
2) that the Church or God or both need to learn to be more forgiving and accepting of sinful people like myself so that we can enter into the process of conversion without being judged or looked down upon, AND / OR even
3) that the Church or God or both need to recognize that not everyone agrees with their moral codes, and that they are free to disagree and practice their own versions of the moral life. In other words, these moral authorities need to be "tolerant."

I'm not saying that this is what the crafters of this theme or this conference intended by this theme, just saying that's how I took it at first and why it confuses me. "Take me as I am" implies to me a certain acceptance of "who I am" that is simply not healthy for a serious Catholic.

The least abhorrent of those three to me is the second. I suppose there is some value in that, because at least in that case it accepts the Church's moral authority and asks the Church to do better at inviting people in so that conversion can actually take place. But I can't help thinking that in that case it accepts the premise that most of the Church is cold, uninviting and judgmental. I've been to confession hundreds and hundreds of times in my life and the number of times I have walked out of a confessional feeling more judged than loved is once, by an ultra-ultra-ultra-conservative priest who I don't think I've ever seen smile. (I've also known some liberal priests whom I've never seen smile.) Priests (and people in the Church) like him are the exception, not the rule.

This is why I can't help thinking that dedicating a whole weekend to telling the Church to accept me as I am is a waste of time. Heck, I don't want to be accepted as I am. I want to be expected to change, to convert, to grow closer to him. That's what Catholic spirituality is all about: constantly repenting, constantly renewing, constantly turning back to Jesus. "As I Am" seems to neglect that whole journey and process. That's how it struck me anyway.

Gee whiz I love our pope!

The more I see of this man, the clearer it becomes that this is a pope who will not keep silent about that pesky thing that gets in the way of so much "progress," that annoying x-factor, that "narrow" and "imposing" mantra used by us unenlightened religious folk--"The Dignity of the Human Person." While power elites hide behind a false rhetoric of "freedom," while misguided technologists press the weakest human beings on the planet into lethal servitude in the name of "science" and "medicine," they can only roll their eyes and hang their heads in dismay (or is it shame?) as the Successor of Peter reminds us all about the truth and mystery of each person, and thus the discriminatory and destructive nature of these cultural fads.

The Meeting of Families
During his homily at Mass at the FIfth World Meeting of Families on Sunday, the Holy Father made plane multiple times that marriage is to exist between one man and one woman, and that couples must accept the child born to them as loved by God. Said he:

In contemporary culture, we often see an excessive exaltation of the freedom of the individual as an autonomous subject, as if we were self-created and self-sufficient, apart from our relationship with others and our responsibilities in their regard. Attempts are being made to organize the life of society on the basis of subjective and ephemeral desires alone, with no reference to objective, prior truths such as the dignity of each human being and his inalienable rights and duties, which every social group is called to serve.

"The Human Person: Heart of Peace"
On the heels of that dramatic message, the Vatican News Service reported Thursday that the Vatican issued a communiqué announcing the theme for the next World Peace Day, which will be celebrated on January 1, 2007: "The Human Person: Heart of Peace." The theme was chosen by Pope Benedict, the communiqué said. The news report quotes the communiqué at length, saying that the theme

...expresses the conviction that respect for the dignity of the human person is an essential condition for peace within the human family. Only through an awareness of the transcendent dignity of each man and woman can the human family follow the path that leads to peace and to communion with God.

Today, perhaps more persuasively and with more effective means than in the past, human dignity is threatened by aberrant ideologies, assailed by the misguided use of science and technology, and contradicted by widespread incongruent lifestyles. Indeed, ideologies that find their inspiration in nihilism or fanaticism (material or religious) seek to deny or to impose supposed truths upon reality, upon man and upon God.

Catch that? It's often said by proponents of these "aberrant ideologies" that it's us unenlightened religious types who seek to "impose our views" on the rest of humanity. But the Vatican press office here is turning the tables, saying it is rather these aberrant ideologies that actually impose their own views upon reality itself, in other words, trying to establish what is right and wrong merely by their own whims. This table-turning has proven to be a rhetorical specialty of Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict, as exemplified by his now well-known phrase "the dictatorship of relativism."

...[O]ften science and technology (especially biomedicine), rather than serving the common good of humanity, are instrumental in serving an egotistical vision of progress and wellbeing. Moreover, propaganda and the growing acceptance of disordered lifestyles contrary to human dignity are weakening the hearts and minds of people to the point of extinguishing the desire for ordered and peaceful coexistence. All this represents a threat to humanity, because peace is in danger when human dignity is not respected and when social coexistence does not seek the common good.

Culture wars on World Peace Day?
So direct is the Vatican in announcing the focus of the Day that it makes reference to the encyclical of John Paul II that made clear in an unprecedented way the Church's emphatic defense of life.

The Church has the mission of announcing the Gospel of Life, the central position of mankind in the universe and God's love for humanity. [emphasis added]

It's rather striking when one considers: we are talking about the World Day of Peace. Yet the day looks to focus on issues the contentious and sometimes downright hateful conflicts over which have been described by many as "culture wars." Someone might then object: How are we to work towards peace if we are fixating on issues that are so divisive? Won't this just lead to more conflict?

This argument depends upon a false understanding of peace that, it seems to me, the pope and the Vatican are now blowing out of the water. Peace doesn't just mean the absence of conflict. It does not mean simply sitting down and remaining silent in the face of evil. Sometimes, one must fight--yes, fight--against falsehood and injustice in order to build a culture where peace is possible. Not necessarily with guns but with truth. Not with missiles but with charity. We must love those who disagree with us, but that does not mean pretending no disagreement exists. It means finding charitable ways to communicate truth to them. This is an ongoing and difficult struggle. But it is a necessary prerequisite for real peace.

His Holiness' holiness
Remember all those folks in the secular press who preened like peacocks when the pope came out with his first encyclical and didn't mention abortion, contraception, homosexuality or divorce? Remember Ian Fisher at the New York Times and so many others who beamed back in January that the pope had "presented Roman Catholicism's potential for good rather than imposing firm, potentially divisive rules for orthodoxy"?

Where are those people now? Might they be eating their own speculations? Why, this snarling bulldog of a pope was supposed to have been enlightened by the importance of his office! He was supposed to realize that the world was bigger than the tiny world he knew as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! How frightfully upsetting that he has turned out to be just as committed to these narrow-minded doctrines now that he is the Successor of Peter as he was when we all made fun of him and called him "God's Rottweiler"! How could he be so unconcerned about what we think?

The fact of the matter is he doesn't have to be concerned about whatever the rest of the world says about him because His Holiness' holiness is a direct refutation in itself of whatever defamations might fly his way. Instead of never shaking any cherry trees and being just the irrelevant nice-guy pope so many in power and the press wanted him to be, he has consistently made himself a model of what it means to speak difficult truths to the world--even a world that slanders him--with the love of Christ. And no one who ever actually knew or appreciated him is surprised by this. He is simply the same man with the same strong message and the same gentle voice that he always was.

Except now he's the Rock. Viva il Papa!

The Fifth World Conference of Families recently wrapped up in Valencia, Spain this past weekend.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero annoyed the Vatican by playing hooky from yesterday's Mass, although he had welcomed the pope at the airport when he arrived to visit the conference. Now why would he want to do that? Maybe because the Catholic Church and the Vatican in general and Pope B16 in particular represent all the sorts of moral absolutism and family defense and life defense that the socialist prime minister abhors.

John L Allen Jr at the National Catholic Reporter anticipated the Holy Father's visit to the conference in Valencia and his much awaited meeting with Zapatero by looking back at his time in office.

Since taking office in 2004, Zapatero's government has either adopted or discussed legislation in favor of:

* Same-sex marriage legislation;
* Fast-track divorces;
* Curbing religious education in state schools;
* Supporting embryonic stem-cell research;
* Easing abortion laws;
* Reducing or eliminating public funding for the church.

After listing off a few other jabs Zapatero has taken at the Church and her vision for a culture of life, Allen writes:

Cumulatively, the impact of all this has been to make Spain the front line in the battle against what Benedict XVI has called the "dictatorship of relativism." The stakes are doubly high, from the Vatican's point of view, because not only is Spain a traditional Catholic stronghold in Europe, but it exercises a strong gravitational pull on Latin America, home to almost one-half of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world.

It was not supposed to be like this.

When Zapatero was elected just three days after the March 11, 2004, terrorist attacks in Madrid, he attracted support even from practicing Catholics. Many thought his government would be akin to former Socialist Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales -- cautious on social questions, albeit officially committed to progressive positions, and respectful of the church. Prior to the election, almost no one predicted a serious church/state clash. Zapatero campaigned in favor of dialogue, and he was actually closer to the church on what was the election's deciding issue, the war in Iraq.

Once in office, however, Zapatero let loose the dogs of cultural war.

What puzzles me is Allen's assertion that "it was not supposed to be like this." I don't see how anything that has taken place in Spain could not have been entirely predicted before Zapatero took office. He garnered much of the Catholic vote because of his stance on what turned out to be the deciding issue--the war in Iraq. As Allen puts it, he was closer to the Church on that one particular issue, even though he was decidedly against the Church on a laundry list of others. The simple difference here is that the war in Iraq--I hate to say it but somebody has to--is an issue on which people of good will, Catholic or otherwise, can legitimately disagree. On the other hand, that laundry list includes issues--same-sex marriage, embryo-destructive research, and abortion--that simply cannot be disagreed upon from a Catholic standpoint. And pardon my frankness, but an issue that can be legitimately disagreed upon should not have been the deciding electoral issue in a country where 80 to 90 percent of the population is Catholic.

But alas, what do we have here? We have a mostly Catholic electorate choosing a candidate based on issues--like war--that require prudential judgments on the part of the part of the politicians. (That is to say, the Church in the end leaves it to the prudential judgment of the heads of State to decide what the best course of action is in terms of war and peace. They can assess, they can persuade, but theirs is not infallible judgment in matters of state.)

So in the process the Spanish electorate basically ignored issues--like same-sex marriage, embryo-destruction and abortion--Church teaching on which is clear and unequivocal. And I'm telling you folks, it's just not that complicated: When you elect politicians who claim to agree with the Church's prudential judgments but not with the Church's timeless moral and social doctrines, you can expect major friction with the Church if that person wins. And that's exactly what's going on in Spain right now. This whole thing was entirely predictable.

It's also entirely predictable on account of less than 20 percent of the Catholics in Spain are practicing. If they don't go to Mass, they can hardly be expected to make the distinction between intrinsic evils and prudential judgments.

Politicians love to blow smoke about "dialogue," during political campaigns. But bottom line: If they stand against the Church on clear-cut, indisputable evils, we shouldn't be surprised if those politicians go militant anti-Catholic once they're in office. Even if they are Catholic themselves.

Here's a conversation over instant messenger between myself and fellow contributor Brandon Kraft, from this afternoon:

Brandon: the church of england voted to continue the process to admit women to the office of bishop
Mark: of course they did
sorry -- my militancy comes out
Brandon: it's england though- they've been slower to adopt the liberal leanings that we're used to with the [Episcopal Church of the United States]
they have another vote in the future that needs a 2/3rd majority in all three houses to be approved the vote today, only needed a simple majority, would have been only one vote over the 2/3rd required for the final rule change
so really, it could stall out still
today's vote marked the [Church of England]'s acknowledgement that theologically they accept the possibility
Mark: well i suppose we can hope for something
Brandon: i think we've given up hope for an instutitional reconcilation with rome
or at least that's my read
like there's no pastoral provision for the eastern orthodox
we're still hoping for instiutional unity with them
Mark: yeah that's far more likely i think
Mark: with [the Church of England] i just see a history of the false sense of "compromise," giving an inch here and there and pretty soon it's just too far gone to resemble anything that would be considered reconcileable with traditional Christianity (that is to say, Catholicism and Orthodoxy)

So there you have it. I wish I could say it surprised me. But we'll see how all this pans 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.

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

Here's another gem from Ratzinger's Pierced One.

The Eucharist is never merely an event a deux, a dialogue between Christ and me. The goal of eucharistic communion is a total recasting of a person's life, breaking up a man's whole "I" and creating a new "We." Communion with Christ is of necessity a communication with all those who are his: it means that I myself become part of this new "bread" which he creates by transubstantiating all earthly reality.

My bishop once made the observation that when people receive communion, their relationship with each other, objectively, changes. For when they walked in they were ordinary people. But now that they have received the body blood sould and divinity of Christ, they have a whole new way of relating to each other. Their interpersonal relationship changes because their individual identities change. The man's whole "I" gives way to a new "We." So when we relate to each other as we exit the sanctuary, whereas the interaction previously was mortal to mortal, now it has become Christ to Christ.

Thus it is not merely the bread and wine on the altar that changes. The grace and action of Christ actually (Ratzingers phrasing here is great) transsubstantiates all earthly reality. The Mass changes the world! It changes our very selves. So next time we go to Mass, let's remember that, by this food that is stronger than us, it is we ourselves who will be transubstantiated.

From Behold the Pierced One, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Normal food is less strong than man, it serves him, is taken into his body to be assimilated and to build it up. But this special food, the Eucharist, is above man and stronger than man. Consequently the whole process involved is reversed: the man who eats this bread is assimilated by it, taken into it; he is fused into this bread and becomes bread, like Christ himself.

These words are awesome. It is easy to forget the mystery and sheer power of the Eucharist to truly transform a person, to elevate him, to make him into something greater than he now is. We are taken up into Christ, so that the drives that motivate him begin to motivate us as well.

It is like St Paul said in II Corinthians 5:17, "The old has passed away; behold the new has come." Our old self-centered desires and motivations, when we eat the food that is greater than is, become overwhelmed and uprooted, and the ecstasy of self-forgetful love is planted in its place.

From a recent letter by Bishop John M Darcy of the Diocese of Fort Wayne / South Bend, Indiana (the home of the University of Notre Dame):

Young people are idealistic. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, in his recent visit to Cologne, have nourished this Christian idealism, and asked all of us to serve these young people and never let them settle for anything less than an unselfish and devoted life, and such unselfishness will only last when it is rooted in faith. They rightly look to us and to our institutions to live by faith. It is the very best thing we can give them. Without it, we fail them.

THANK YOU BISHOP DARCY! This is the best articulation I have yet seen of the call to the perfection of Christian holiness, aside of course from the Holy Fathers to whom he refers. By making explicit this simple defense of the level of holiness and commitment for which many young people strive, he has assured me and others that there is nothing wrong with really striving to be exceptional as a Christian.

So cheers to never becoming jaded, never settling for less, and always being at least at heart, "young and idealistic." For it's not just uneducated younglings like you and me, dear readers: it's our Papas too!

Anyone read about what the Holy Father said earlier today to the Pontifical Biblical Commission? I heard about it on Relevant Radio on the way home from work. (This news made me smile, which is why I don't mind talking about it.)

Here's some of what Zenit said about it:

In receiving love "that comes from God, … man's freedom finds its highest realization," the Holy Father continued. "God's law does not attenuate much less eliminate man's freedom; on the contrary, it guarantees and promotes it."

For Benedict XVI, "the moral law, established by God in creation and confirmed in the revelation of the Old Testament, finds in Christ its fulfillment and grandeur."

"Jesus Christ is the way of perfection, the living and personal synthesis of the perfect freedom in the total obedience of the will of God," he said.

Because of this, "the original function of the Ten Commandments is not abolished by the encounter with Christ, but leads it to its plentitude," the Pope added.

Obedience? God's law? The key to freedom? No way!

For my penance today the priest actually told me to pray for freedom (and peace). Kinda neat that the Holy Father comes out with these reflections on the subject today. To pray for freedom is to pray for obedience to the will of God. I actually said to Him in doing my penance, "Keep me close to you, for you are the source of freedom, and of peace."

This is the great secret that the Church has been shouting from the rooftops, that God is the sole source of all real joy and peace and freedom in the universe. To be close to him, is to be at peace, to be happy, and to be free.

I just want to say that the Sacrament of Confession is awesome. What a gift from the Man Upstairs. It's like surgery, or a hot shower. I'm reminded of a talk I once attended by theology professor Douglas Bushman, in which he talked about Martin Luther's concept of God's love. He said:

In the Lutheran concept of God's love, man is a dung heep. And God's love is a snow that descends over the dung heep and covers it up. Now this may sound scandalous, but I have no interest whatsoever in that kind of love. When I walk into a doctor's office with cancerous tumors all up and down my arms, I don't want a doctor who's going to put a sweater over me and tell me problem solved. I want a doctor who's gonna take the pain away.

He then told the story of a visit that he once made to a doctor, for that purpose. When he went in to see the doctor he found out in the course of their small talk that the doctor had a keen interest in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. In fact, the doctor was able to illuminate passages that up to that point Mr Bushman found quite obscure. Upon discovering this, their relationship went from a doctor-patient acquaintance to a mutual friendship.

This is rather like our relationship with God. I know that when I first go to God, I do so because I need someone to take the pain away. And I know he's the only one who can. But when I go to him with my pains and anxieties, I discover that there is really so much more to him than the mere utilitarian function of healer. He is not just our doctor, he is our friend and our Father. The one who gives life to us. We discover that there is so much more love to be experienced, so much more truth to swim around in.

For the last several days, Catholics have been subjected to a flurry of internet and mainstream press innuendo over the possibility that the Catholic Church will alter its heretofore simple and clear teaching on contraception to allow condoms in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. It's a smokescreen, folks. Plain and simple.

Here's one from allAfrica.com about entitled "Botswana: No Condoms, We're Catholic."

Father John Corrigan of the Roman Catholic Church in Gaborone reveals that St. Joseph's clinic is both a mission clinic and a government- aided clinic. He then states that it functions according to the Roman Catholic Holy Act, which does not treat sex lightly.

Father John says that during this era of HV/AIDS pandemic, the church encourages a new message to the youth - "practice safe sex".

"Sex is a secret and holy act that is meant to be a gift from God to husband and wife. However, with young people engaging in pre-marital sex, we encourage safe sex under two conditions. Don't get AIDS. Don't get pregnant," he says.