Catholic Thinker

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 8:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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!

Posted by Lavergne at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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

Posted by Lavergne at 5:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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!

Posted by Lavergne at 2:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Posted by Lavergne at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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.

Continue reading "Media salivating over Vatican statement on condoms" »

Posted by Lavergne at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | Blog Reaction

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.

Continue reading "Botswana priest buys into "safe sex"" »

Posted by Lavergne at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | Blog Reaction

I'm a pretty hard-and-fast, black-and-white, straight-and-narrow kind of a guy. I don't believe in excuse-making or gray areas. I believe in the teachings of the Church, just about all of them, and if I disagree with the teachings of the Church in some area I usually try to assume for my own sake that the Church is wiser than I am.

It's often the hardest teachings of the Church that I endorse most whole-heartedly, the kind that some folks don't necessarily want to talk about or know about. I believe that the teachings of the Church point the way concretely to love, and oftentimes those teachings can appear counterintuitive or even mean to us, but that just means we have to be "transformed by the renewal of our minds," to try to come as close as we can to understanding and believing these difficult teachings. I am a firm believer in these doctrines in their entirety and if anyone in the room voices a disagreement with the Church that teaches them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I say nothing, it's because I'm keeping my mouth shut.

All of the above describes my belief in my head and in my heart. But there's a third factor, and that's the one that is the most difficult for any Christian, at least, Christians like me, to corral into the stable of faith. And that's my will. No matter how strongly I believe in my head and in my heart what the Church teaches about how to do the right thing, time and time again I fail to do it. Sometimes I feel like on a good day all that happens is I fail to do the right thing. The bad days are when not only do I fail to do what's right, but I end up doing what's wrong. And like I said, I don't make excuses, at least not for myself.

People, especially priests, tell me all the time that I shouldn't beat up on myself and they're probably right, but it's frustrating. I've at times even felt like it's a form of schizophrenia. Think about it. You're up, you're down, you're good, you're bad, you're faithful, but then you're doubting. As your will goes, so goes your body, and so goes your mind: you're changing it all the time. It's like two different persons. The single greatest source of doubt for me in my spiritual life is my sinfulness. If all of this is true, if everything that Christ and His Church teach about love is true, if it's true that I'm supposed to live this way, then why can't I? Of course the answer is that I can, but I simply choose not to. But that just changes the question. If it is true that this is the best way to live, then why do I choose time and time again not to?

St Paul wrote about this situation in Romans 7, and we see it throughout the readings coming up this Palm Sunday. In the opening gospel the people are singing Jesus' praises. In the first reading from Isaiah the prophet is absolutely confident in God. "The Lord God is my help, therefore I am not disgraced; I have set my face like flint, knowing that I shall not be put to shame."

But then immediately in the Psalm we are faced with the well-known message, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" We go from iron-clad trust in God to wondering where he's shimmied off to. Then we're presented with the image of Christ himself, the conclusive answer to that question, for he is "Immanuel," "God with us." The reading proclaims that "at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend." Is that what happens?

Our answer comes in the next reading, the Gospel. It is the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ as told by the Evangelist Mark. The people in the gospels read this Sunday go from "Hosanna in the highest!" to "Crucify him!" Sound familiar? The gospels are not merely a historical recounting of the events surrounding the death of Christ. God uses those events to tell the story of the struggle of fallen humanity, the struggle that takes place inside of everyone.

Is it possible to live a life that is really righteous? I have to believe in hope that the answer is yes. And the reason again lies in the gospel to be read this Sunday. One phrase I hear often but wholly disagree with is the phrase, "I can't help it; I'm human." The fact that we are human is not a sufficient explanation for our sinfulness, in fact it is our humanity that is the very reason we ought not to be sinful. For Jesus was human par excellence. All a human person is is a psychosomatic union created in the image and likeness of God possessing intellect and free will. That's all a human is. Sinfulness is in no way a constitutive element of humanity. Sinfulness did not enter the human picture until Genesis 3. All else already existed in Genesis 1. It is not that in Genesis 1 human beings were not human. It is that they were not fallen.

The problem today is that we are fallen. How do we get back up? The answer again comes from the gospel. It is through Jesus that we are raised out of our sinful nature. And it is not that we become superhuman. It is that we are raised from corruption to the pure humanity that God fashioned from "the beginning." For by "dying he destroyed our death, rising he restored our life." Jesus' death and resurrection makes it really possible for us to live as he lived, if we are baptized into his death and resurrection.

But then again I am confronted with my experience of life. With the fact that I have tried to grab hold of that grace for myself and have never been able to. For all the tricks I have ever tried, all the prayers I have ever prayed, all the penances I have ever made, I have never found that ultimate righteousness. The kind of righteousness that never exhausts itself. How can one really live this way?

It's a question I can't answer fully at this stage in life. But if there's anything I can say now, I think part of the answer lies in recognizing that grace is only given and received. It cannot be taken. So we as receivers of grace have to allow God to give the grace himself. Put another way, we have to surrender the struggle for righteousness to him. It's kind of like the "Happy Place." Before we can begin to do better we have to stop beating up on ourselves. And in order to stop beating up on ourselves, we have to allow Jesus to love us.

That's the key. We have to allow Jesus to love us. For any sin we commit is effectively a decision not to allow Jesus to love us. Therefore in order for actions to really bear fruit, in order for us to be able to perform them in a tireless way and to avoid sin in a tireless way as Jesus did, then all we do must spring from the desire to allow Jesus to love us. To surrender the struggle for righteousness to him. It is the key not only to sanctity, but at an even more basic level, to sanity.

Posted by Lavergne at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But as Wait points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Lavergne at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Lavergne at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Blog Reaction

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

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

Posted by Lavergne at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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

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

Continue reading "The US Bishops to Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians" »

Posted by Lavergne at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

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

Continue reading "Benedict on embryonic life" »

Posted by Lavergne at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Anthony Esolen, Professor of English at Providence College in Rhode Island, has written a great piece for the March 2006 issue of Touchstone Magazine: a Journal of Mere Christianity. It's bascially about the neutering of liturgical language, particularly in the singing hymns to the Lord. The article is appropriately titled, "No More Hims of Praise."

Reading the article I was several times reminded of a time when I opened up a worship hymnal at my church, and turning to the appropriate song, found that someone had crossed out the word "his" and replaced it with "God's." This frazzled me. It's a worship hymnal, not a seventh grade research paper. But this is the attitude that many today have taken to language which has been around for hundreds and even thousands of years, that if something bothers our modern egalitarian sensibilities, we may simply cross it out and substitute our own linguistic whims.

These recent controversies in the Catholic Church and in others have led me to recognize a fundamental hallmark of the type of Christian orthodoxy that CS Lewis and others like GK Chesterton endorsed. Basically, they take seriously the sexual symbolism used by the Church and by Christ before her. For example, the notion that God is Father and the Church is Mother, therefore in referring to God in the third person singular pronoun the proper terminology is "he," and in referring to the Church as such the proper terminology is not "it," but "she."

That sexual symbolism is fundamental to Catholic and to orthodox Christian teaching not just in systematics and creeds but in areas of morality and indeed liturgy. It is in ceasing to take that symbolism seriously that the decline begins from orthodoxy into apostasy and ultimately into the kind of anarchy that we're beginning to see in some non-Catholic corners of Christendom. And when I open a hymnal where that symbolism is downplayed or dismissed outright, it worries me.

Posted by Lavergne at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The BBC and the San Diego Union-Tribune are reporting on the recent conversations taking place in the Anglican Church on the possibility of allowing for female bishops. At this point it seems pretty much like a foregone conclusion that women bishops is going to happen simply because of turns that have already taken place in the Church of England, which is a point now being made by Anglican liberals.

Says the BBC: "Many Anglicans believe the argument over women bishops was settled more than a decade ago when women were first ordained as priests." And then:

Many liberal Anglicans say it's anomalous to have women priests but not bishops, and say the damage to fraternal relations with opponents of women's ordination - such as the Roman Catholic Church - was done long ago when the first women were ordained as women priests.

The Union-Tribune observed that many Anglicans left the Church of England in 1992 when the decision was first made to allow the ordination of women, who now make up about a sixth of the Anglican priesthood.

The most insightful explication and defense of the Catholic position on women's ordination that I've encountered comes from Peter Kreeft, philosophy of religion professor at Boston College. Among his insights is the observation that often (though not always) people who favor women's ordination also favor abortion "rights." I would suggest that this makes sense, as both issues seem to be fueled by the same motive: empowerment.

Sure enough, as the Anglican Church is now discussing the possibility of woman bishops, Virtue Online: the Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism reported January 17 that "the Episcopal Church recently reaffirmed its membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice." The Episcopal Church is only the American extension of the Anglican Communion, but such catastrophes are bound to happen when the agenda of empowerment, either of women or of men, or of any particular interest, is permitted to advance undiscerned.

Indeed, these issues are connected, as is the question of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the Episcopal Bishopric. Most recently the controversy over appointing an openly and practicing homosexual priest as a bishop created deep division in the Episcopal Church. But it was a natural next step. It makes sense that appointing women priests would soon destroy any pretense of sexual orthodoxy in general on the part of the Episcopal Church. The shared premise in this case is egalitarianism--i.e. sexual sameness under the guise of equality. The argument goes that if man and woman are equal in dignity and worth, they must be the same.

The Catholic Church has never bought this line of thinking. In fact, John Paul II pretty well smacked it down. The Anglican Church took it hook line and sinker, 14 years ago. They had to in order to justify women's ordination.

But once sexual differences--that make men and women distinct and thus provide for the authentic complementarity of conjugal love--are discarded, then that complementarity becomes a red herring, and homosexual practice becomes a valid option. Men and women both lose in the egalitarian mindset, because masculinity and feminity are both destroyed. And in this case, it may divide the Anglican Church to the point of complete disintegration.

Let it never be said, then, that commitment to orthodox or traditional positions is less desirable because such positions would be "divisive." We are seeing on display before us how the abandonment of the traditions started by Christ himself lead not to greater unity but to disastrous division.

We talk of the "seamless garment" of the Catholic faith and particularly Catholic moral and social teaching. It appears that there could also be a seamless garment of error. Error (under the guise of "compromise") in one area can lead to quite catastrophic mistakes in others. It's all connected.

Posted by Lavergne at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction