| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Manhattan Project
Friday, April 30, 2010
Piux XII, Jews and Catholics
Borrowing from Zenit this morning! God Bless
Catholics and Jews Renew Dialogue on Pius XII
Affirm Solidarity With Benedict XVI
By Jesús Colina
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 29, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Catholic and Jewish representatives have re-launched a dialogue, interrupted in 2001, on the figure of Pope Pius XII and his relationship with the people of Israel, particularly during the Holocaust.
At the end of Wednesday's general audience Benedict XVI greeted representatives who are in Rome for a meeting organized by the Pave the Way Foundation.
The founder of this organization, New York Jew Gary Krupp, explained to ZENIT that the audience with the Pope was attended by rabbis and representatives of Jewish communities from the United States, Israel, Australia and Switzerland "who wished to stand in solidarity shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church and the Holy Father" during "the attacks against the Church and His Holiness by an over-zealous media."
The meeting, which continued with the questions that the International Catholic-Jewish Historical intended to address in 2001, had an academic character with the participation of several rabbis, but was not an official representation.
The commission was originally appointed in 1999 by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, and consisted of three Jewish and three Catholic scholars.
They reviewed the Vatican documents concerning Pope Pius XII and submitted a report in 2000 with 47 questions regarding the Holy See's response to the Holocaust.
However, due to disagreement and conflicting viewpoints, the group was disbanded in 2001.
Now, in a two-day debate session that began April 23, answers were given to those 47 questions posed in 2000.
Those who responded to the questions were Jesuit Father Peter Gumpel, historian and relator to the cause of beatification of Pius XII; Matteo Napolitano, professor of the history of international relations (University of Molise, Italy); Andrea Tornielli, Vatican expert from the daily "Il Giornale;" Ronald Rychlak, law professor at Mississippi State University; and Michael Hesemann, German historian and writer.
All the answers were fully recorded by H2O News and will be given to the Yad Vashem Commission, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, and will be available on the Pave the Way Foundation Web site.
Initiatives
Krupp reported to ZENIT: "We also discussed the Holy See endorsing a family-based initiative of dedicating Friday night dinner with the family. Here two hours will be dedicated to the children. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Pave the Way Foundation are promoting this initiative dedicated to the family."
Moreover, the group met with Monsignor Peter Wells, assessor for the Secretariat of State's Section for General Affairs, and discussed with him the Vatican's efforts to aid victims of abuses.
Krupp acknowledged that "the media has not reported the efforts of the Church to repair these terrible past events."
"Even one is too much," he said, "but this tragedy is not as widespread as the media has led all to believe."
"Monsignor Wells stated that the Holy See considers the original breaking news of these terrible events as a blessing," Krupp reported, because "the Church was alerted then to act quickly to root out these criminals and the errors by some bishops."
"He said that there was too much reliance on outdated psychological and inept legal advisors who advised some bishops that these offenders could be cured," said Krupp.
At the Papal audience David Victor, the chairman of AIPAC, an American Israeli organization, spoke to the Holy Father and asked him to issue remarks condemning the Iranian regime's denial of the Holocaust and its efforts to develop an atomic bomb. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared, during a 2005 speech, that Israel must be "wiped off the map."
The representatives also met with Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which oversees the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
In that meeting, Krupp spoke about the loud and dedicated condemnation of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism by Pope Pius XII from the very beginning, noting that it should serve as an example of how the Holy See can respond to a modern day Hitler.
Krupp concluded, "This was a very important day in Rome for our group."
--- --- ---
On the Net:
Pave the Way Foundation: http://www.ptwf.org
email this article
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 29, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Catholic and Jewish representatives have re-launched a dialogue, interrupted in 2001, on the figure of Pope Pius XII and his relationship with the people of Israel, particularly during the Holocaust.
At the end of Wednesday's general audience Benedict XVI greeted representatives who are in Rome for a meeting organized by the Pave the Way Foundation.
The founder of this organization, New York Jew Gary Krupp, explained to ZENIT that the audience with the Pope was attended by rabbis and representatives of Jewish communities from the United States, Israel, Australia and Switzerland "who wished to stand in solidarity shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church and the Holy Father" during "the attacks against the Church and His Holiness by an over-zealous media."
The meeting, which continued with the questions that the International Catholic-Jewish Historical intended to address in 2001, had an academic character with the participation of several rabbis, but was not an official representation.
The commission was originally appointed in 1999 by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, and consisted of three Jewish and three Catholic scholars.
They reviewed the Vatican documents concerning Pope Pius XII and submitted a report in 2000 with 47 questions regarding the Holy See's response to the Holocaust.
However, due to disagreement and conflicting viewpoints, the group was disbanded in 2001.
Now, in a two-day debate session that began April 23, answers were given to those 47 questions posed in 2000.
Those who responded to the questions were Jesuit Father Peter Gumpel, historian and relator to the cause of beatification of Pius XII; Matteo Napolitano, professor of the history of international relations (University of Molise, Italy); Andrea Tornielli, Vatican expert from the daily "Il Giornale;" Ronald Rychlak, law professor at Mississippi State University; and Michael Hesemann, German historian and writer.
All the answers were fully recorded by H2O News and will be given to the Yad Vashem Commission, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, and will be available on the Pave the Way Foundation Web site.
Initiatives
Krupp reported to ZENIT: "We also discussed the Holy See endorsing a family-based initiative of dedicating Friday night dinner with the family. Here two hours will be dedicated to the children. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Pave the Way Foundation are promoting this initiative dedicated to the family."
Moreover, the group met with Monsignor Peter Wells, assessor for the Secretariat of State's Section for General Affairs, and discussed with him the Vatican's efforts to aid victims of abuses.
Krupp acknowledged that "the media has not reported the efforts of the Church to repair these terrible past events."
"Even one is too much," he said, "but this tragedy is not as widespread as the media has led all to believe."
"Monsignor Wells stated that the Holy See considers the original breaking news of these terrible events as a blessing," Krupp reported, because "the Church was alerted then to act quickly to root out these criminals and the errors by some bishops."
"He said that there was too much reliance on outdated psychological and inept legal advisors who advised some bishops that these offenders could be cured," said Krupp.
At the Papal audience David Victor, the chairman of AIPAC, an American Israeli organization, spoke to the Holy Father and asked him to issue remarks condemning the Iranian regime's denial of the Holocaust and its efforts to develop an atomic bomb. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared, during a 2005 speech, that Israel must be "wiped off the map."
The representatives also met with Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which oversees the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
In that meeting, Krupp spoke about the loud and dedicated condemnation of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism by Pope Pius XII from the very beginning, noting that it should serve as an example of how the Holy See can respond to a modern day Hitler.
Krupp concluded, "This was a very important day in Rome for our group."
--- --- ---
On the Net:
Pave the Way Foundation: http://www.ptwf.org
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Praise Be!
Good Evening;
(Just a note that this is an older post that I just finished. The liturgical reference is out of date!)
Today at Mass, I cantored the psalm, which was part of psalm 19.
After Mass, a member of our clergy came up to me and clasped my hand and told me I'd made his day.
"How?" I asked.
He told me that the psalm was well done and what he needed to hear.
I thanked him. Later I realized that God had ministered to this man through me, and I was totally unaware.
My lack of awareness would prevent my interference, no doubt.
Wow. What a gift this was! Something rather mundane (I have cantored a lot over the past 10 years) had been turned into something very special for at least one person.
I wonder how often we effortlessly and unwittingly extend God's touch?
Is it not wonderful that God can use people this way?
Now I must remember that God can work whenever and however and through whichever means He desires.
The story of Balaam's Ass is humbling. I like the way singer Don Francisco put it in his song Balaam:
" When the Lord starts usin' you, don't you pay it any mind. He could have used the dog next door if He'd been so inclined."
I'm still thankful that I was there...
(Just a note that this is an older post that I just finished. The liturgical reference is out of date!)
Today at Mass, I cantored the psalm, which was part of psalm 19.
After Mass, a member of our clergy came up to me and clasped my hand and told me I'd made his day.
"How?" I asked.
He told me that the psalm was well done and what he needed to hear.
I thanked him. Later I realized that God had ministered to this man through me, and I was totally unaware.
My lack of awareness would prevent my interference, no doubt.
Wow. What a gift this was! Something rather mundane (I have cantored a lot over the past 10 years) had been turned into something very special for at least one person.
I wonder how often we effortlessly and unwittingly extend God's touch?
Is it not wonderful that God can use people this way?
Now I must remember that God can work whenever and however and through whichever means He desires.
The story of Balaam's Ass is humbling. I like the way singer Don Francisco put it in his song Balaam:
" When the Lord starts usin' you, don't you pay it any mind. He could have used the dog next door if He'd been so inclined."
I'm still thankful that I was there...
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Importance of the Easter Vigil
The Easter Vigil can quite safely be called THE Mass of the Christian Liturgical year. It is the Vigil which is the main Mass of Easter. Easter Sunday Mass seems to be the one that most attend, particularly in places where the congregation has not been catechized as to the importance of the Vigil.
If people know anything about the Vigil, it is usually that it is a long Mass. If all the readings are proclaimed, there are seven Old Testament readings, seven psalms and seven corresponding prayers. Then, we have an Epistle reading and the Gospel reading. These readings trace out our salvation history, culminating in Jesus' resurrection. The liturgy of the Mass is not layed out willy-nilly. Each of those readings is there for a reason. Often though, the Vigil is shortened by eliminating some of the Old Testament readings.
At the Vigil Mass the water that will be used throughout the rest of the year is blessed to become Holy Water. Those who have been going through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults are received into the Church at this time. There may also be other baptisms and confirmations.
The Vigil can be three hours long.
What is three hours in the course of eternity? People will spend three hours shopping, at a hockey game, or even viewing a movie. A priest I know would tell people at the beginning of Mass to take off their watches. He would remind them that they were moving from chronos time to kairos time. They were taking a peek at eternity.
He had no problem with the long Mass.
Some will complain about the length. I think they need to be reminded of perspective. When I say this, I am assuming a healthy priest and a healthy congregation. Of course allowances must be made for infirmity. But if a person can sit at a hockey game for three hours? I think that blaming the length of the Mass for a small congregation is wrong-headed. We share the Mass with myriads of myriads each and every time we attend.
In a sense, the Vigil is a family reunion. At any Mass, we gather together with the Body of Christ, with Christ at the head. We join with Christians around the world, and throughout eternity. Those who have gone before us are there.
Removing readings (and the corresponding psalms and prayers) from the Vigil is like telling someone that we don't want to hear their family story. Sorry Uncle Isaiah, or Auntie Miriam, we don't want to hear from you this year.
And really, just how much time is saved by taking readings out?
Through this Mass, we are not spectators. There are Psalms and hymns to sing and prayers and a litany (assuming there is someone being baptized) to join in with, along with the responses common to any Mass. The Mass may actually start outdoors, so there is a procession into the church.
Hearing a Bishop complain about the length of the Vigil reminded me of two very enthusiastic members of the congregation one year; two small children aged 6 and about 4. They sang, they danced, they took turns 'directing' the choir, and had a lovely time. Their enthusiasm was quite an example. Over the years, I've seen many children at the Vigil. Rarely have they been disruptive or complaining.
All that said, I fully believe that people should be encouraged to be comfortable at what really is a long Mass. Dress nicely and modestly, but don't wear clothing that scratches or shoes that pinch. Bring a cushion or back support and a lap blanket if you think you'll need it (I know personally what a chill can do to arthritic knees and backs). Bring books or quiet toys for them, but expect children to fall asleep.
And a point of etiquette. When a parish has been assisting in an Easter Vigil Mass that uses all the readings provided, and has been doing so for several years, I would be very very cautious about suggesting change. While no one, not even the Bishop or the Pope 'owns' the Mass, people can become accustomed to practices. When these practices are in line with what the liturgy spells out, I believe that reducing the Mass is a poor choice.
God Bless
If people know anything about the Vigil, it is usually that it is a long Mass. If all the readings are proclaimed, there are seven Old Testament readings, seven psalms and seven corresponding prayers. Then, we have an Epistle reading and the Gospel reading. These readings trace out our salvation history, culminating in Jesus' resurrection. The liturgy of the Mass is not layed out willy-nilly. Each of those readings is there for a reason. Often though, the Vigil is shortened by eliminating some of the Old Testament readings.
At the Vigil Mass the water that will be used throughout the rest of the year is blessed to become Holy Water. Those who have been going through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults are received into the Church at this time. There may also be other baptisms and confirmations.
The Vigil can be three hours long.
What is three hours in the course of eternity? People will spend three hours shopping, at a hockey game, or even viewing a movie. A priest I know would tell people at the beginning of Mass to take off their watches. He would remind them that they were moving from chronos time to kairos time. They were taking a peek at eternity.
He had no problem with the long Mass.
Some will complain about the length. I think they need to be reminded of perspective. When I say this, I am assuming a healthy priest and a healthy congregation. Of course allowances must be made for infirmity. But if a person can sit at a hockey game for three hours? I think that blaming the length of the Mass for a small congregation is wrong-headed. We share the Mass with myriads of myriads each and every time we attend.
In a sense, the Vigil is a family reunion. At any Mass, we gather together with the Body of Christ, with Christ at the head. We join with Christians around the world, and throughout eternity. Those who have gone before us are there.
Removing readings (and the corresponding psalms and prayers) from the Vigil is like telling someone that we don't want to hear their family story. Sorry Uncle Isaiah, or Auntie Miriam, we don't want to hear from you this year.
And really, just how much time is saved by taking readings out?
Through this Mass, we are not spectators. There are Psalms and hymns to sing and prayers and a litany (assuming there is someone being baptized) to join in with, along with the responses common to any Mass. The Mass may actually start outdoors, so there is a procession into the church.
Hearing a Bishop complain about the length of the Vigil reminded me of two very enthusiastic members of the congregation one year; two small children aged 6 and about 4. They sang, they danced, they took turns 'directing' the choir, and had a lovely time. Their enthusiasm was quite an example. Over the years, I've seen many children at the Vigil. Rarely have they been disruptive or complaining.
All that said, I fully believe that people should be encouraged to be comfortable at what really is a long Mass. Dress nicely and modestly, but don't wear clothing that scratches or shoes that pinch. Bring a cushion or back support and a lap blanket if you think you'll need it (I know personally what a chill can do to arthritic knees and backs). Bring books or quiet toys for them, but expect children to fall asleep.
And a point of etiquette. When a parish has been assisting in an Easter Vigil Mass that uses all the readings provided, and has been doing so for several years, I would be very very cautious about suggesting change. While no one, not even the Bishop or the Pope 'owns' the Mass, people can become accustomed to practices. When these practices are in line with what the liturgy spells out, I believe that reducing the Mass is a poor choice.
God Bless
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
WWII and the Church
A recent comment left with me has fired a few shots at the record of the Church's activities (or inactivities, according to the writer) during WWII.
He maintains that even opening up the archives to many more documents will not change the record of the Church, which he maintains was "largely inactive in the face of genocide"
I'm not certain, Mr. Wilensky, which inactivity you are referring to.
In 1937, Pope Pius XI issued a statement in German (almost unheard of to this day. The Pope really was doing his best to make sure that his target audience heard him) called Mit Brennender Sorge which came down very hard on the Nazi Party.
The man who became Pope XII on the death of Pope Pius XI had already been speaking out against the Nazis in word and in print, as evidenced in the archives of Osservatore Romano, since the mid-1930s.
Some Jews were hidden in the Vatican itself. Others were hidden in other Church buildings, such as Castel Gandolfo, and convents and monasteries.
"The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to ... 860,000." (Pinchas E. Lapide, 'Three Popes and the Jews', pp 227-228).
Rabbi Israel Anton Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war and took the baptismal name of Eugenio, name of Pius XII. While his conversion may have been 'encouraged' by other events, he did express his deep appreciation for Pius XII in his memoirs.
I am, for now (as Holy Week events are picking up speed, and I have much to do) going to leave you with this interview which spells out quite a bit and refers to a book you may be interested in.
I have no fear at all with the opening of the archives. Heck, if contemporary New York Times could sing PXII's praises over his war efforts, and if can be declared a 'Righteous Gentile" then I'm sure it's all good.
But the Truth will bear out.
He maintains that even opening up the archives to many more documents will not change the record of the Church, which he maintains was "largely inactive in the face of genocide"
I'm not certain, Mr. Wilensky, which inactivity you are referring to.
In 1937, Pope Pius XI issued a statement in German (almost unheard of to this day. The Pope really was doing his best to make sure that his target audience heard him) called Mit Brennender Sorge which came down very hard on the Nazi Party.
The man who became Pope XII on the death of Pope Pius XI had already been speaking out against the Nazis in word and in print, as evidenced in the archives of Osservatore Romano, since the mid-1930s.
Some Jews were hidden in the Vatican itself. Others were hidden in other Church buildings, such as Castel Gandolfo, and convents and monasteries.
"The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to ... 860,000." (Pinchas E. Lapide, 'Three Popes and the Jews', pp 227-228).
Rabbi Israel Anton Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war and took the baptismal name of Eugenio, name of Pius XII. While his conversion may have been 'encouraged' by other events, he did express his deep appreciation for Pius XII in his memoirs.
I am, for now (as Holy Week events are picking up speed, and I have much to do) going to leave you with this interview which spells out quite a bit and refers to a book you may be interested in.
I have no fear at all with the opening of the archives. Heck, if contemporary New York Times could sing PXII's praises over his war efforts, and if can be declared a 'Righteous Gentile" then I'm sure it's all good.
But the Truth will bear out.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
More on Father Lawrence Murphy
Borrowing from Catholic Culture.org
Canadian bishop defends Pope, criticizes Archbishop Weakland, New York Times
Canadian bishop defends Pope, criticizes Archbishop Weakland, New York Times
March 30, 2010
Denouncing “attempts to personally embroil Benedict XVI in the sex abuse scandals,” Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has written a pastoral letter in which he criticizes the inaccurate reporting of The New York Times and notes that retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee “did nothing” about the notorious Father Lawrence Murphy between 1977 and 1996.
“The New York Times on March 25, and parroted by other newspapers, accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of intervening to prevent a Wisconsin priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors. The story is not even supported by the evidence of the Times,” Bishop Henry writes.
He continues:
Cardinal Ratzinger does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop (Tarcisio) Bertone, agreed that there should be a full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.
Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop (Rembert) Weakland had from 1977 onward the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger's office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.
In August 1998, Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry. That same month, Father Murphy dies.
The New York Times flatly got the story wrong. Readers may want to speculate on why.
Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Days of Darkness
Hi Folks
As I was trying to fall asleep last night, I was reflecting on current 'events' in the Church. Maybe not so current...and maybe not really events. Depends on who you talk to, I think.
There is another newscast, this one from Rome (as if that lends it some sort of legitimacy. No one from Vatican 'officialdom' had any part in the clip). More on Benedict's involvement (so they say) in the abuse scandals. "People" are demanding transparency from the Pope.
Sure. They will likely get it. As a matter of fact, if they read Church sources instead of what's in the media, the light might already be dawning. Transparency will not help. People will not believe what does not fit into their pre-conceived notions...at least not without some sort of revelation.
One need only look at the 'case' (so they say) surrounding Pius XII's supposed non-aid toward the Jews. SO much of what was done by the Vatican is part of the public record, and has been for years, if one really wanted to find it. Now, the Vatican has released a pile more of their documents surrounding the time of WWII. I will be very surprised if this quiets the chattering classes. I will be grateful...but surprised. There really was enough evidence already available to show the good works of Pius XII.
Jesus had the same problem. People asked Him for miracles to prove that he was the Messiah. They'd had plenty. Jesus recognized that more miracles would not change their minds.
The Pope is under attack. No question. He needs our prayers. Even if you're not convinced of his lack of involvement in alleged scandal cover-ups, please pray that the Truth will be borne out...and that we'll all listen.
As I was trying to fall asleep last night, I was reflecting on current 'events' in the Church. Maybe not so current...and maybe not really events. Depends on who you talk to, I think.
There is another newscast, this one from Rome (as if that lends it some sort of legitimacy. No one from Vatican 'officialdom' had any part in the clip). More on Benedict's involvement (so they say) in the abuse scandals. "People" are demanding transparency from the Pope.
Sure. They will likely get it. As a matter of fact, if they read Church sources instead of what's in the media, the light might already be dawning. Transparency will not help. People will not believe what does not fit into their pre-conceived notions...at least not without some sort of revelation.
One need only look at the 'case' (so they say) surrounding Pius XII's supposed non-aid toward the Jews. SO much of what was done by the Vatican is part of the public record, and has been for years, if one really wanted to find it. Now, the Vatican has released a pile more of their documents surrounding the time of WWII. I will be very surprised if this quiets the chattering classes. I will be grateful...but surprised. There really was enough evidence already available to show the good works of Pius XII.
Jesus had the same problem. People asked Him for miracles to prove that he was the Messiah. They'd had plenty. Jesus recognized that more miracles would not change their minds.
The Pope is under attack. No question. He needs our prayers. Even if you're not convinced of his lack of involvement in alleged scandal cover-ups, please pray that the Truth will be borne out...and that we'll all listen.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Ecology of Salvation
Hi Folks
As today is the day during which the ecology types would have us turn off our lights for an hour and think we're doing something useful, I got thinking of something...
First, something important. Today is also the day in which Christians commemorate the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. It is the only day in the liturgical calendar in which there are two gospels.
In the first gospel, we hear of the triumphant entrance. The second gospel is a reading of the passion and death of Jesus. We call this Palm, or Passion Sunday.
Why two gospels?
Catholics do not have an obligation to attend Mass where there isn't one. On Good Friday, nowhere in the world is a Mass celebrated, yet this is the liturgy where the passion and death of Jesus is traditionally read. For all the people who cannot attend the Good Friday liturgy, we have a reading of the passion on the preceding, obligatory Sunday.
There is a term in the Catholic world...Economy of Salvation. Try as I might, I cannot get my head around that term. When I hear economy, I think of money. I'll try another run at understanding it another day. Please do not ask me to explain!
I have invented a phrase of my own. The Ecology of Salvation.
There is a lot of yakking going on about the environment. Much of it makes no sense if you think about it for a minute or two. People are, however, making a really big deal about our need to 'save the Earth'. I probably didn't need to tell you this.
It is rare that you hear anyone talk of the need to save ourselves. That is, to do our best to ensure that we and those we love, make it to heaven, through the grace of God.
The environment in which we subsist, here in the First World, is not really conducive to sainthood. I probably don't need to tell you that, either.
We need to have a movement to rouse environmental awareness of those things that endanger our souls. We need to fight soul pollution.
Let our pulpits ring! Shout it from the rooftops! Do not worship the Earth or the 'environment' (where that means exclusively the land on which we live, and the air that we breath).
And for Earth Hour, we must remember that instead of living in darkness, we must be children of Light.
Coming into Holy Week, I just this second thought of something else. When was the last time you heard of fasting as a cause for good? It makes at least as much sense as turning out the lights for an hour!
Fasting is a regular and required part of the Catholic liturgical calendar. WE do it as a small way of reminding ourselves of Christ's sacrifice for us.
May be the green-types could take it up as a way of reducing their ecological foot print. Yeah. I won't hold my breath.
Jesus is the Light of the World! Have a blessed Holy Week!
As today is the day during which the ecology types would have us turn off our lights for an hour and think we're doing something useful, I got thinking of something...
First, something important. Today is also the day in which Christians commemorate the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. It is the only day in the liturgical calendar in which there are two gospels.
In the first gospel, we hear of the triumphant entrance. The second gospel is a reading of the passion and death of Jesus. We call this Palm, or Passion Sunday.
Why two gospels?
Catholics do not have an obligation to attend Mass where there isn't one. On Good Friday, nowhere in the world is a Mass celebrated, yet this is the liturgy where the passion and death of Jesus is traditionally read. For all the people who cannot attend the Good Friday liturgy, we have a reading of the passion on the preceding, obligatory Sunday.
There is a term in the Catholic world...Economy of Salvation. Try as I might, I cannot get my head around that term. When I hear economy, I think of money. I'll try another run at understanding it another day. Please do not ask me to explain!
I have invented a phrase of my own. The Ecology of Salvation.
There is a lot of yakking going on about the environment. Much of it makes no sense if you think about it for a minute or two. People are, however, making a really big deal about our need to 'save the Earth'. I probably didn't need to tell you this.
It is rare that you hear anyone talk of the need to save ourselves. That is, to do our best to ensure that we and those we love, make it to heaven, through the grace of God.
The environment in which we subsist, here in the First World, is not really conducive to sainthood. I probably don't need to tell you that, either.
We need to have a movement to rouse environmental awareness of those things that endanger our souls. We need to fight soul pollution.
Let our pulpits ring! Shout it from the rooftops! Do not worship the Earth or the 'environment' (where that means exclusively the land on which we live, and the air that we breath).
And for Earth Hour, we must remember that instead of living in darkness, we must be children of Light.
Coming into Holy Week, I just this second thought of something else. When was the last time you heard of fasting as a cause for good? It makes at least as much sense as turning out the lights for an hour!
Fasting is a regular and required part of the Catholic liturgical calendar. WE do it as a small way of reminding ourselves of Christ's sacrifice for us.
May be the green-types could take it up as a way of reducing their ecological foot print. Yeah. I won't hold my breath.
Jesus is the Light of the World! Have a blessed Holy Week!
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis
Today I'm borrowing someone else's work.
I will pose a rhetorical question of my own, though. If people are really concerned about the welfare of the victims, why is it that only the Catholic Church comes under this much scrutiny?
Have a blessed Holy Week.
Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis
By John L Allen Jr
Mar 26, 2010
Intense scrutiny is being devoted these days to Pope Benedict XVI's history on the sex abuse crisis. Revelations from Germany have put his five years as a diocesan bishop under a spotlight, and a piece on Thursday in The New York Times, on the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy of Milwaukee, also called into question his Vatican years as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Despite complaints in some quarters that all this is about wounding the pope and/or the church, raising these questions is entirely legitimate. Anyone involved in church leadership at the most senior levels for as long as Benedict XVI inevitably bears some responsibility for the present mess. My newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, today called editorially for full disclosure [1] about the pope's record, and it now seems abundantly clear that only such transparency can resolve the hard questions facing Benedict.
Yet as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are.
The following, therefore, are three footnotes to understanding Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis.
1. Not the 'Point Man'
First, some media reports have suggested that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger presided over the Vatican office with responsibility for the sex abuse crisis for almost a quarter-century, from 1981 until his election to the papacy in April 2005, and therefore that he's responsible for whatever the Vatican did or didn't do during that entire stretch of time. That's not correct.
In truth, Ratzinger did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001, four years before he became pope.
Bishops were not required to send cases of priests accused of sexual abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2001, when they were directed to do so by Pope John Paul II's motu proprio titled Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Prior to that, most cases involving sex abuse never got to Rome. In the rare instance when a bishop wanted to laicize an abuser priest against his will, the canonical process involved would be handled by one of the Vatican courts, not by Ratzinger's office.
Prior to 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got involved only in the exceedingly rare instances when the sex abuse occurred in the context of the confessional, since a canonical tribunal within the congregation handled cases involving abuse of the sacrament of penance. That, for example, is how the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, ended up in the congregation, and it's also why officials in the Milwaukee archdiocese directed the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy there.
One certainly can question how Ratzinger's office handled those exceptional cases, and the record seems painfully slow and ambivalent in comparison with how similar accusations would be dealt with today. Moreover, Ratzinger was a senior Vatican official from 1981 forward, and therefore he shares in the corporate failure in Rome to appreciate the magnitude of the crisis until terribly late in the game.
To suggest, however, that Ratzinger was the Vatican's "point man" on sex abuse for almost twenty-five years, and to fault him for the mishandling of every case that arose between 1981 and 2001, is misleading. Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome.
2. The 2001 letter
In some reporting and commentary, a May 2001 letter from Ratzinger to the bishops of the world, titled De delictis gravioribus, is being touted as a "smoking gun" proving that Ratzinger attempted to thwart reporting priestly sex abuse to the police or other civil authorities by ordering the bishops to keep it secret.
That letter indicates that certain grave crimes, including the sexual abuse of a minor, are to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that they are "subject to the pontifical secret." The Vatican insists, however, that this secrecy applied only to the church's internal disciplinary procedures, and was not intended to prevent anyone from also reporting these cases to the police or other civil authorities. Technically they're correct, since nowhere in the 2001 letter is there any prohibition on reporting sex abuse to police or civil prosecutors.
In reality, few bishops needed a legal edict from Rome ordering them not to talk publicly about sexual abuse. That was simply the culture of the church at the time, which makes the hunt for a "smoking gun" something of a red herring right out of the gate. Fixing a culture -- one in which the Vatican, to be sure, was as complicit as anyone else, but one which was widespread and deeply rooted well beyond Rome -- is never as simple as abrogating one law and issuing another.
That aside, here's the key point about Ratzinger's 2001 letter: Far from being seen as part of the problem, at the time it was widely hailed as a watershed moment towards a solution. It marked recognition in Rome, really for the first time, of how serious the problem of sex abuse really is, and it committed the Vatican to getting directly involved. Prior to that 2001 motu proprio and Ratzinger's letter, it wasn't clear that anyone in Rome acknowledged responsibility for managing the crisis; from that moment forward, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would play the lead role.
Beginning in 2001, Ratzinger was forced to review all the files on every priest credibly accused of sexual abuse anywhere in the world, giving him a sense of the contours of the problem that virtually no one else in the Catholic church can claim. In a recent article, I outlined the "conversion experience" Ratzinger and his staff went through after 2001. Beforehand, he came off as just another Roman cardinal in denial; after his experience of reviewing the files, he began to talk openly about the "filth" in the church, and his staff became far more energetic about prosecuting abusers.
For those who have followed the church's response to the crisis, Ratzinger's 2001 letter is therefore seen as a long overdue assumption of responsibility by the Vatican, and the beginning of a far more aggressive response. Whether that response is sufficient is, of course, a matter for fair debate, but to construe Ratzinger's 2001 letter as no more than the last gasp of old attempts at denial and cover-up misreads the record.
3. Canonical Trials
Ratzinger's top deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sex abuse cases, Maltese Monsignor Charles Scicluna, recently gave an interview to an Italian Catholic paper in which he said that of the more than 3,000 cases eventually referred to Rome, only 20 percent were subjected to a full canonical trial. In some reporting, including the Thursday piece in The New York Times, this figure has been cited as evidence of Vatican "inaction."
Once again, however, those who have followed the story closely have almost exactly the opposite impression.
Back in June 2002, when the American bishops first proposed a set of new canonical norms to Rome, the heart of which was the "one strike and you're out" policy, they initially wanted to avoid canonical trials altogether. Instead, they wanted to rely on a bishop's administrative power to permanently remove a priest from ministry. That's because their experience of Roman tribunals over the years was that they were often slow, cumbersome, and the outcome was rarely certain.
Most famously, bishops and experts would point to the case of Fr. Anthony Cipolla in Pittsburgh, during the time that Donald Wuerl, now the Archbishop of Washington, was the local bishop. Wuerl had removed Cipolla from ministry in 1988 following allegations of sexual abuse. Cipolla appealed to Rome, where the Apostolic Signatura, in effect the Vatican's supreme court, ordered him reinstated. Wuerl then took the case to Rome himself, and eventually prevailed. The experience left many American bishops, however, with the impression that lengthy canonical trials were not the way to handle these cases.
When the new American norms reached Rome, they ran into opposition precisely on the grounds that everyone deserves their day in court -- another instance, in the eyes of critics, of the Vatican being more concerned about the rights of abuser priests than victims. A special commission of American bishops and senior Vatican officials brokered a compromise, in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would sort through the cases one-by-one and decide which ones would be sent back for full trials.
The fear at the time was that the congregation would insist on trials in almost every case, thereby dragging out the administration of justice, and closure for the victims, almost indefinitely. In the end, however, only 20 percent were sent back for trials, while for the bulk of the cases, 60 percent, bishops were authorized to take immediate administrative action, because the proof was held to be overwhelming.
The fact that only 20 percent of the cases were subjected to full canonical trial has been hailed as a belated grasp in Rome of the need for swift and sure justice, and a victory for the more aggressive American approach to the crisis. It should be noted, too, that bypassing trials has been roundly criticized by some canon lawyers and Vatican officials as a betrayal of the due process safeguards in church law.
Hence to describe that 20 percent figure as a sign of "inaction" cannot help but seem, to anyone who's been paying attention, rather ironic. In truth, handling 60 percent of the cases through the stroke of a bishop's pen has, up to now, more often been cited as evidence of exaggerated and draconian action by Ratzinger and his deputies.
Obviously, none of this is to suggest that Benedict's handling of the crisis -- in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope -- is somehow exemplary. An accounting needs to be offered if this pope, and the church he leads, hopes to move forward. For that analysis to be constructive, however, as opposed to fueling polarization and confusion, it's important to keep the record straight.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
I will pose a rhetorical question of my own, though. If people are really concerned about the welfare of the victims, why is it that only the Catholic Church comes under this much scrutiny?
Have a blessed Holy Week.
Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis
By John L Allen Jr
Mar 26, 2010
Intense scrutiny is being devoted these days to Pope Benedict XVI's history on the sex abuse crisis. Revelations from Germany have put his five years as a diocesan bishop under a spotlight, and a piece on Thursday in The New York Times, on the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy of Milwaukee, also called into question his Vatican years as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Despite complaints in some quarters that all this is about wounding the pope and/or the church, raising these questions is entirely legitimate. Anyone involved in church leadership at the most senior levels for as long as Benedict XVI inevitably bears some responsibility for the present mess. My newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, today called editorially for full disclosure [1] about the pope's record, and it now seems abundantly clear that only such transparency can resolve the hard questions facing Benedict.
Yet as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are.
The following, therefore, are three footnotes to understanding Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis.
1. Not the 'Point Man'
First, some media reports have suggested that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger presided over the Vatican office with responsibility for the sex abuse crisis for almost a quarter-century, from 1981 until his election to the papacy in April 2005, and therefore that he's responsible for whatever the Vatican did or didn't do during that entire stretch of time. That's not correct.
In truth, Ratzinger did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001, four years before he became pope.
Bishops were not required to send cases of priests accused of sexual abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2001, when they were directed to do so by Pope John Paul II's motu proprio titled Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Prior to that, most cases involving sex abuse never got to Rome. In the rare instance when a bishop wanted to laicize an abuser priest against his will, the canonical process involved would be handled by one of the Vatican courts, not by Ratzinger's office.
Prior to 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got involved only in the exceedingly rare instances when the sex abuse occurred in the context of the confessional, since a canonical tribunal within the congregation handled cases involving abuse of the sacrament of penance. That, for example, is how the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, ended up in the congregation, and it's also why officials in the Milwaukee archdiocese directed the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy there.
One certainly can question how Ratzinger's office handled those exceptional cases, and the record seems painfully slow and ambivalent in comparison with how similar accusations would be dealt with today. Moreover, Ratzinger was a senior Vatican official from 1981 forward, and therefore he shares in the corporate failure in Rome to appreciate the magnitude of the crisis until terribly late in the game.
To suggest, however, that Ratzinger was the Vatican's "point man" on sex abuse for almost twenty-five years, and to fault him for the mishandling of every case that arose between 1981 and 2001, is misleading. Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome.
2. The 2001 letter
In some reporting and commentary, a May 2001 letter from Ratzinger to the bishops of the world, titled De delictis gravioribus, is being touted as a "smoking gun" proving that Ratzinger attempted to thwart reporting priestly sex abuse to the police or other civil authorities by ordering the bishops to keep it secret.
That letter indicates that certain grave crimes, including the sexual abuse of a minor, are to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that they are "subject to the pontifical secret." The Vatican insists, however, that this secrecy applied only to the church's internal disciplinary procedures, and was not intended to prevent anyone from also reporting these cases to the police or other civil authorities. Technically they're correct, since nowhere in the 2001 letter is there any prohibition on reporting sex abuse to police or civil prosecutors.
In reality, few bishops needed a legal edict from Rome ordering them not to talk publicly about sexual abuse. That was simply the culture of the church at the time, which makes the hunt for a "smoking gun" something of a red herring right out of the gate. Fixing a culture -- one in which the Vatican, to be sure, was as complicit as anyone else, but one which was widespread and deeply rooted well beyond Rome -- is never as simple as abrogating one law and issuing another.
That aside, here's the key point about Ratzinger's 2001 letter: Far from being seen as part of the problem, at the time it was widely hailed as a watershed moment towards a solution. It marked recognition in Rome, really for the first time, of how serious the problem of sex abuse really is, and it committed the Vatican to getting directly involved. Prior to that 2001 motu proprio and Ratzinger's letter, it wasn't clear that anyone in Rome acknowledged responsibility for managing the crisis; from that moment forward, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would play the lead role.
Beginning in 2001, Ratzinger was forced to review all the files on every priest credibly accused of sexual abuse anywhere in the world, giving him a sense of the contours of the problem that virtually no one else in the Catholic church can claim. In a recent article, I outlined the "conversion experience" Ratzinger and his staff went through after 2001. Beforehand, he came off as just another Roman cardinal in denial; after his experience of reviewing the files, he began to talk openly about the "filth" in the church, and his staff became far more energetic about prosecuting abusers.
For those who have followed the church's response to the crisis, Ratzinger's 2001 letter is therefore seen as a long overdue assumption of responsibility by the Vatican, and the beginning of a far more aggressive response. Whether that response is sufficient is, of course, a matter for fair debate, but to construe Ratzinger's 2001 letter as no more than the last gasp of old attempts at denial and cover-up misreads the record.
3. Canonical Trials
Ratzinger's top deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sex abuse cases, Maltese Monsignor Charles Scicluna, recently gave an interview to an Italian Catholic paper in which he said that of the more than 3,000 cases eventually referred to Rome, only 20 percent were subjected to a full canonical trial. In some reporting, including the Thursday piece in The New York Times, this figure has been cited as evidence of Vatican "inaction."
Once again, however, those who have followed the story closely have almost exactly the opposite impression.
Back in June 2002, when the American bishops first proposed a set of new canonical norms to Rome, the heart of which was the "one strike and you're out" policy, they initially wanted to avoid canonical trials altogether. Instead, they wanted to rely on a bishop's administrative power to permanently remove a priest from ministry. That's because their experience of Roman tribunals over the years was that they were often slow, cumbersome, and the outcome was rarely certain.
Most famously, bishops and experts would point to the case of Fr. Anthony Cipolla in Pittsburgh, during the time that Donald Wuerl, now the Archbishop of Washington, was the local bishop. Wuerl had removed Cipolla from ministry in 1988 following allegations of sexual abuse. Cipolla appealed to Rome, where the Apostolic Signatura, in effect the Vatican's supreme court, ordered him reinstated. Wuerl then took the case to Rome himself, and eventually prevailed. The experience left many American bishops, however, with the impression that lengthy canonical trials were not the way to handle these cases.
When the new American norms reached Rome, they ran into opposition precisely on the grounds that everyone deserves their day in court -- another instance, in the eyes of critics, of the Vatican being more concerned about the rights of abuser priests than victims. A special commission of American bishops and senior Vatican officials brokered a compromise, in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would sort through the cases one-by-one and decide which ones would be sent back for full trials.
The fear at the time was that the congregation would insist on trials in almost every case, thereby dragging out the administration of justice, and closure for the victims, almost indefinitely. In the end, however, only 20 percent were sent back for trials, while for the bulk of the cases, 60 percent, bishops were authorized to take immediate administrative action, because the proof was held to be overwhelming.
The fact that only 20 percent of the cases were subjected to full canonical trial has been hailed as a belated grasp in Rome of the need for swift and sure justice, and a victory for the more aggressive American approach to the crisis. It should be noted, too, that bypassing trials has been roundly criticized by some canon lawyers and Vatican officials as a betrayal of the due process safeguards in church law.
Hence to describe that 20 percent figure as a sign of "inaction" cannot help but seem, to anyone who's been paying attention, rather ironic. In truth, handling 60 percent of the cases through the stroke of a bishop's pen has, up to now, more often been cited as evidence of exaggerated and draconian action by Ratzinger and his deputies.
Obviously, none of this is to suggest that Benedict's handling of the crisis -- in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope -- is somehow exemplary. An accounting needs to be offered if this pope, and the church he leads, hopes to move forward. For that analysis to be constructive, however, as opposed to fueling polarization and confusion, it's important to keep the record straight.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Friday, March 19, 2010
Approaching the Media Critically...VERY Critically
I am sharing with you this article which appeared on the Ignatius Scoop weblog.
It gives a good perspective on the current sexual scandals within the Church as well as being a lesson about critically reading (viewing, listening to) the mainstream media.
A long time ago, I developed a habit which has never steered me badly. When I first hear something shocking in the news, particularly where it involves the Church, I completely ignore the first report. It is rarely accurate.
Actually I cannot recall an instance where a first report about something to do with the Church has been accurate.
If what they are saying is not outright incorrect, it is only partially incorrect, or has weasel words incorporated to make the 'news' appear to say something quite different than the actual events. Sometimes it is just that religious terminology is not understood, and no effort has been made to understand on the part of the reporter. An example of this would be the references to "immaculate conception" that sometimes appears in media. These references nearly always refer, usually with an implied sneer, to virgin births; like "That was no immaculate conception!". In fact, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary...who was conceived in the usual human fashion...but the result of that conception was a being who was sinless from the very beginning of her existence.
So, here you are! Click on the Blog entry title to read the article.
It gives a good perspective on the current sexual scandals within the Church as well as being a lesson about critically reading (viewing, listening to) the mainstream media.
A long time ago, I developed a habit which has never steered me badly. When I first hear something shocking in the news, particularly where it involves the Church, I completely ignore the first report. It is rarely accurate.
Actually I cannot recall an instance where a first report about something to do with the Church has been accurate.
If what they are saying is not outright incorrect, it is only partially incorrect, or has weasel words incorporated to make the 'news' appear to say something quite different than the actual events. Sometimes it is just that religious terminology is not understood, and no effort has been made to understand on the part of the reporter. An example of this would be the references to "immaculate conception" that sometimes appears in media. These references nearly always refer, usually with an implied sneer, to virgin births; like "That was no immaculate conception!". In fact, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary...who was conceived in the usual human fashion...but the result of that conception was a being who was sinless from the very beginning of her existence.
So, here you are! Click on the Blog entry title to read the article.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Roots of Christianity
Over the past couple of months, I have been receiving emails explaining the Parsha which I understand is the weekly Sabbath reading for the Jews.
Aside from giving me more knowledge of the Torah (the Pentateuch, the first five books in the Old Testament, often referred to in Scripture simply as "Moses"), I am being introduced to the Talmud, for which I don't think a Christian counterpart exists. Maybe the Catholic Catechism and the Code of Canon Law, but don't quote me on that!
It is very interesting.
What is most evident to me is just how rooted in history are the liturgical practices of Christianity, at least as found in Catholicism (of which I have the most experience). Communal study of Scripture on the Sabbath is to be made available to Jewish communities. They are restricted from many activities. Catholics are reasonably required to attend Mass (which is a type of Scripture study...plus so much more!) on all Sundays and Days of Obligation. They are also to refrain from unnecessary labour. Jews have restrictions on what they may or may not eat. Catholics are asked to fast and abstain from time to time, and the elements that go into the confection of the Eucharist, are very clearly defined.
From another source I learn that the materials to be used in Jewish worship, such as the garments the rabbi wears, are to be of the best materials. A similar admonishment is found in Catholic liturgical documentation, as well, with regards to the materials used in the Sanctuary and during Mass
It amazes me that some are so quick to dismiss some practices of Catholicism as being wasteful, elitist, imperialistic, impractical, extravagant etc. when there is such base for these practices in Judaism, from which we sprout.
Aside from giving me more knowledge of the Torah (the Pentateuch, the first five books in the Old Testament, often referred to in Scripture simply as "Moses"), I am being introduced to the Talmud, for which I don't think a Christian counterpart exists. Maybe the Catholic Catechism and the Code of Canon Law, but don't quote me on that!
It is very interesting.
What is most evident to me is just how rooted in history are the liturgical practices of Christianity, at least as found in Catholicism (of which I have the most experience). Communal study of Scripture on the Sabbath is to be made available to Jewish communities. They are restricted from many activities. Catholics are reasonably required to attend Mass (which is a type of Scripture study...plus so much more!) on all Sundays and Days of Obligation. They are also to refrain from unnecessary labour. Jews have restrictions on what they may or may not eat. Catholics are asked to fast and abstain from time to time, and the elements that go into the confection of the Eucharist, are very clearly defined.
From another source I learn that the materials to be used in Jewish worship, such as the garments the rabbi wears, are to be of the best materials. A similar admonishment is found in Catholic liturgical documentation, as well, with regards to the materials used in the Sanctuary and during Mass
It amazes me that some are so quick to dismiss some practices of Catholicism as being wasteful, elitist, imperialistic, impractical, extravagant etc. when there is such base for these practices in Judaism, from which we sprout.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Spiritual Irresponsibility
A fellow blogger said something which inspired this entry. I am not sure if she'll recognize the relationship!
I have done a lot of work with adults in the parishes where I have attended Mass over the years. I have met some interesting and challenging (sometimes in the same person) people.
I've noticed that the Holy Spirit's name is often invoked, but not given much legitimate credit. Or I've seen enough to make me a bit suspicious when I hear someone frequently speak of the Holy Spirit.
I worked with an adult choir that nearly brought me to a nervous breakdown. The musicians (guitarists) were not well trained in music, never mind liturgy. And I don't think most of the vocalists knew what liturgical ministry was about. Or for that matter, what being in a choir was about. And some made it abundantly clear that they didn't really wish to learn.
In this group, there were some lovely people I really enjoyed working with most of the time. And there were a few who I enjoyed working with very little of the time. It was sad and scary. But it was one of the most prayerful times of my life.
In this context, I often heard that we (and usually the speaker meant ME) needed to let the Holy Spirit be in charge.
This meant: 1) That we didn't really need to practice much, as the Holy Spirit would take us through.
2) That musical training (ie. reading music) wasn't really important because it made the music less spirit-led. This translated into "We don't like your insistance on following the timing, key, etc. in which the song was written. Sometimes this even sanctioned lyric changes! It was made clear that reading music was actually a handicap to Spirit-led music.
3) That planning was unnecessary. I was called to task by someone who I know tried hard to live by the Spirit, but who was, I think, hampered by pride (and I say this without malice as pride is also my greatest challenge). I was told that I should not be scheduling music 6 weeks ahead (as was my practice, but I was never intransigent on choices) but should allow the Holy Spirit to make the choices. To this I replied that I prayed a lot over my music choices, and was the Holy Spirit incapable of working 6 weeks ahead?
The criticism was not pursued.
It irritates me greatly when people use one of our manifestations of God as an excuse for laziness, sloppiness, and poor planning!
This is not to say that the Holy Spirit cannot step in and call a change at short notice. I also know that the Holy Spirit can work far ahead of our finite knowledge.
Again in the context of choir...
Occasionally, as I sat planning the music, I would be called on to choose a piece that did not seem to have any connection with the readings or Gospel of a particular Sunday. Or a selection for one of the hymns needed would simply not come to me. Invariably, the odd choice for a given week would end up being very appropriate in that it responded to an event that had just occurred and for which I had no prior knowledge, or that it responded to something Father said or quoted in his homily.
The missing hymn also frequently allowed for a choice needed for a particular occurrence. Or it would provide the choir members a chance to choose something they wanted.
During this prayerful and challenging time, I eventually heard loud and clear that I was no longer to lead this group. It was like someone lifted a window-blind and let the light in. I do believe that the 'someone' was the Holy Spirit.
I acted immediately. It was so strange. Lent had already begun. We were planning for a Chrism Mass. It was not like me to 'just stop' doing anything. People noticed. I was sent flowers. I friend from the choir (who was well aware of what I'd been dealing with) stopped by that evening to see if I was okay. People phoned. It was as if someone had died.
But it was the right decision. Many lessons were learned. I learned that the parish did not need me quite as much as I seemed to think they did (Did I say I had pride issues?), but others learned how much I did in the parish. Over all, life went on. I had a quiet and prayerful Lent. More ora and less labora. I needed that.
I rested for a year. Almost to the day, a year later, the same friend who knew what I'd been dealing with, and who was now in charge of liturgy preparation, called and asked if I'd form a children's choir. I did, in fact, pray about it. And I did it. It was wonderful.
When we speak of following the Holy Spirit, we must make sure it is, in fact, the Holy Spirit we're listening to, and not a baser or even evil source for our "inspiration"
I have done a lot of work with adults in the parishes where I have attended Mass over the years. I have met some interesting and challenging (sometimes in the same person) people.
I've noticed that the Holy Spirit's name is often invoked, but not given much legitimate credit. Or I've seen enough to make me a bit suspicious when I hear someone frequently speak of the Holy Spirit.
I worked with an adult choir that nearly brought me to a nervous breakdown. The musicians (guitarists) were not well trained in music, never mind liturgy. And I don't think most of the vocalists knew what liturgical ministry was about. Or for that matter, what being in a choir was about. And some made it abundantly clear that they didn't really wish to learn.
In this group, there were some lovely people I really enjoyed working with most of the time. And there were a few who I enjoyed working with very little of the time. It was sad and scary. But it was one of the most prayerful times of my life.
In this context, I often heard that we (and usually the speaker meant ME) needed to let the Holy Spirit be in charge.
This meant: 1) That we didn't really need to practice much, as the Holy Spirit would take us through.
2) That musical training (ie. reading music) wasn't really important because it made the music less spirit-led. This translated into "We don't like your insistance on following the timing, key, etc. in which the song was written. Sometimes this even sanctioned lyric changes! It was made clear that reading music was actually a handicap to Spirit-led music.
3) That planning was unnecessary. I was called to task by someone who I know tried hard to live by the Spirit, but who was, I think, hampered by pride (and I say this without malice as pride is also my greatest challenge). I was told that I should not be scheduling music 6 weeks ahead (as was my practice, but I was never intransigent on choices) but should allow the Holy Spirit to make the choices. To this I replied that I prayed a lot over my music choices, and was the Holy Spirit incapable of working 6 weeks ahead?
The criticism was not pursued.
It irritates me greatly when people use one of our manifestations of God as an excuse for laziness, sloppiness, and poor planning!
This is not to say that the Holy Spirit cannot step in and call a change at short notice. I also know that the Holy Spirit can work far ahead of our finite knowledge.
Again in the context of choir...
Occasionally, as I sat planning the music, I would be called on to choose a piece that did not seem to have any connection with the readings or Gospel of a particular Sunday. Or a selection for one of the hymns needed would simply not come to me. Invariably, the odd choice for a given week would end up being very appropriate in that it responded to an event that had just occurred and for which I had no prior knowledge, or that it responded to something Father said or quoted in his homily.
The missing hymn also frequently allowed for a choice needed for a particular occurrence. Or it would provide the choir members a chance to choose something they wanted.
During this prayerful and challenging time, I eventually heard loud and clear that I was no longer to lead this group. It was like someone lifted a window-blind and let the light in. I do believe that the 'someone' was the Holy Spirit.
I acted immediately. It was so strange. Lent had already begun. We were planning for a Chrism Mass. It was not like me to 'just stop' doing anything. People noticed. I was sent flowers. I friend from the choir (who was well aware of what I'd been dealing with) stopped by that evening to see if I was okay. People phoned. It was as if someone had died.
But it was the right decision. Many lessons were learned. I learned that the parish did not need me quite as much as I seemed to think they did (Did I say I had pride issues?), but others learned how much I did in the parish. Over all, life went on. I had a quiet and prayerful Lent. More ora and less labora. I needed that.
I rested for a year. Almost to the day, a year later, the same friend who knew what I'd been dealing with, and who was now in charge of liturgy preparation, called and asked if I'd form a children's choir. I did, in fact, pray about it. And I did it. It was wonderful.
When we speak of following the Holy Spirit, we must make sure it is, in fact, the Holy Spirit we're listening to, and not a baser or even evil source for our "inspiration"
Friday, March 05, 2010
Ahhh...Lent
Hi Folks
I haven't been around much. I see it was St. Valentine's feast last time I wrote. So much has happened.
I do not know if God sees me as dissolute or what, but every Lent seems to come as a kit...ready made with Lenten sacrifices.
This year, a large part of my sacrifice seems to be driving. I don't really like driving, and as I deal with Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue I find driving very tiring...even when I'm a passenger. As the driver, it's worse. Especially at night.
In some ways I'm better than I used to be. Larger centres no longer terrify me, although driving through Montreal or Toronto is not anything I would look forward to. Having a newer car has really helped my confidence.
Confidence is a good thing. I never thought I would be driving so much. And the rush started on Ash Wednesday, wouldn't you know!
I have made so many trips into our nearest Big City in the past three weeks. For family's health issues... And it's not over yet. I even have one day where two people have appointments in two different cities! And the appointments can't really be changed due to the nature of the conditions. Fortunately, the timings are such that meeting both appointments is physically possible...but what a day it will be!
It doesn't look like it's going to settle down until...well...just before Palm Sunday. Imagine that.
In the midst of this, God has chosen to answer a heartfelt prayer I've been working on for months. A very good thing, but change is stressful...and I don't 'do' stress well. I keep trying...
So, offering all this up seems like a natural thing to do. But I can't really say I CHOSE it!
If you can send up a prayer for us, I'd really appreciate it!
I haven't been around much. I see it was St. Valentine's feast last time I wrote. So much has happened.
I do not know if God sees me as dissolute or what, but every Lent seems to come as a kit...ready made with Lenten sacrifices.
This year, a large part of my sacrifice seems to be driving. I don't really like driving, and as I deal with Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue I find driving very tiring...even when I'm a passenger. As the driver, it's worse. Especially at night.
In some ways I'm better than I used to be. Larger centres no longer terrify me, although driving through Montreal or Toronto is not anything I would look forward to. Having a newer car has really helped my confidence.
Confidence is a good thing. I never thought I would be driving so much. And the rush started on Ash Wednesday, wouldn't you know!
I have made so many trips into our nearest Big City in the past three weeks. For family's health issues... And it's not over yet. I even have one day where two people have appointments in two different cities! And the appointments can't really be changed due to the nature of the conditions. Fortunately, the timings are such that meeting both appointments is physically possible...but what a day it will be!
It doesn't look like it's going to settle down until...well...just before Palm Sunday. Imagine that.
In the midst of this, God has chosen to answer a heartfelt prayer I've been working on for months. A very good thing, but change is stressful...and I don't 'do' stress well. I keep trying...
So, offering all this up seems like a natural thing to do. But I can't really say I CHOSE it!
If you can send up a prayer for us, I'd really appreciate it!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Mercenary Christians
Good Afternoon
Our small corner of the world has caught the fad (and I hope it's a passing one!) of the backlit signs upon which a business, church or whatever can post thought-provoking, or even idiotic messages, and sometimes their business or worship service schedules. I really think they may be traffic hazards as one is tempted to read them while driving.
Anyway...
I managed to read the sign posted outside of one of our local denominations, and it is sitting like a burr under the saddle.
"Respect people. It comes back"
We are made, all of us, in the image and likeness of God. We are all due respect for that, if for nothing else. As Christians, we are to remember this even if the person being respected does not recognize their own value as human beings.
We are to see Christ in everyone. Sometimes it will be Christ suffering we see, but we still must see Him somehow.
While it may be true that respecting people will 'come back' in the sense that we will be respected for the respect we pay others, this should never be the reason we do it.
It should be for Christ that we do it. Remember "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me".
Matthew 5:43-47 tells us that if we love only those who love us back, we are no better than a pagan, or a publican (depends which bible you're reading). Anyone can love someone who loves (or respects) him back.
We are called to more. Mother Teresa was, in my thoughts, a good example. She cared for those who could offer her little or nothing in return. These people were often very close to death when coming into her care. Yet she and her sisters worked joyfully with them. In fact reading some of Mother Teresa's writings and writings about her one gets the impression that she found a lot of the recognition she received to be a nuisance.
Yes, respect may come back to us as we cast it out, but to a Christian, whether or not respect comes back is irrelevant.
God Bless
Our small corner of the world has caught the fad (and I hope it's a passing one!) of the backlit signs upon which a business, church or whatever can post thought-provoking, or even idiotic messages, and sometimes their business or worship service schedules. I really think they may be traffic hazards as one is tempted to read them while driving.
Anyway...
I managed to read the sign posted outside of one of our local denominations, and it is sitting like a burr under the saddle.
"Respect people. It comes back"
We are made, all of us, in the image and likeness of God. We are all due respect for that, if for nothing else. As Christians, we are to remember this even if the person being respected does not recognize their own value as human beings.
We are to see Christ in everyone. Sometimes it will be Christ suffering we see, but we still must see Him somehow.
While it may be true that respecting people will 'come back' in the sense that we will be respected for the respect we pay others, this should never be the reason we do it.
It should be for Christ that we do it. Remember "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me".
Matthew 5:43-47 tells us that if we love only those who love us back, we are no better than a pagan, or a publican (depends which bible you're reading). Anyone can love someone who loves (or respects) him back.
We are called to more. Mother Teresa was, in my thoughts, a good example. She cared for those who could offer her little or nothing in return. These people were often very close to death when coming into her care. Yet she and her sisters worked joyfully with them. In fact reading some of Mother Teresa's writings and writings about her one gets the impression that she found a lot of the recognition she received to be a nuisance.
Yes, respect may come back to us as we cast it out, but to a Christian, whether or not respect comes back is irrelevant.
God Bless
Monday, February 08, 2010
Christian Life: A Study in Plaster
Several years back, Someone passed on to me a very battered statue of Jesus. The thought was "She'll know what to do with it". This poor thing had no hands, and was chipped all over
When blessed objects (and I assumed that this statue was blessed) outlive their usefullness and/or are damaged, the correct disposal method is to burn or bury them.
I'm not always quick to get things done. This poor statue sat on the piano for quite some time.
Then I heard the story about another hands-free statue. It was said that this statue was a reminder to Christians that we are Christ's hands and feet in the world. Very neat!
I kept the statue. Then it occurred to me that the chips might be a symbol too. As we are out and about being Christ's hands in the world, we are probably going to get rather battered. No one said Christian life is easy.
We need to remember to offer up those dings and bruises to God so he can use our sufferings for the good of others.
I love being Catholic.
When blessed objects (and I assumed that this statue was blessed) outlive their usefullness and/or are damaged, the correct disposal method is to burn or bury them.
I'm not always quick to get things done. This poor statue sat on the piano for quite some time.
Then I heard the story about another hands-free statue. It was said that this statue was a reminder to Christians that we are Christ's hands and feet in the world. Very neat!
I kept the statue. Then it occurred to me that the chips might be a symbol too. As we are out and about being Christ's hands in the world, we are probably going to get rather battered. No one said Christian life is easy.
We need to remember to offer up those dings and bruises to God so he can use our sufferings for the good of others.
I love being Catholic.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Monday, February 01, 2010
Food for Thought
The other day I was unwrapping a stringy cheese snack. I noticed that the wrapper had instructions for making a little craft-thing with the cheese before one ate it.
Didn't your mother ever tell you not to play with your food?
I couldn't help but think of this teaching! Perhaps I date myself.
At any rate, I can't escape the mental image of grimy little midday hands playing with the magnet-like cheese stick to "peel" it into various creatures.
Have the rules changed?
I realized that this is very much like what Jesus suggested to his followers. I think He was warming people up when He chastised the Pharisees for complaining that Jesus' followers did not wash their hands in the ritual way before they ate their meals. (This, btw, was not saying it was okay to eat with dirty hands. It had to do with the role of tradition in ones life. I suppose the makers of stringy cheese are not saying it's okay to eat with dirty hands, either)
Jesus eventually went on to declare that unless His followers eat his flesh and drink his blood they will not have life within them.
Jews are prohibited from drinking blood, any blood. And to eat human flesh? Unthinkable.
But we are commanded to do this in memory of Jesus.
It is necessary to examine rules from time to time. Do they still fulfill the need for which they were instituted? Which authority is placing the rule? Is it legitimate?
God's rules, as presented through the Catholic Church and Scripture, are legitimate. In things like hand-washing and playing with your food, your mother is a legitimate authority, too!
Didn't your mother ever tell you not to play with your food?
I couldn't help but think of this teaching! Perhaps I date myself.
At any rate, I can't escape the mental image of grimy little midday hands playing with the magnet-like cheese stick to "peel" it into various creatures.
Have the rules changed?
I realized that this is very much like what Jesus suggested to his followers. I think He was warming people up when He chastised the Pharisees for complaining that Jesus' followers did not wash their hands in the ritual way before they ate their meals. (This, btw, was not saying it was okay to eat with dirty hands. It had to do with the role of tradition in ones life. I suppose the makers of stringy cheese are not saying it's okay to eat with dirty hands, either)
Jesus eventually went on to declare that unless His followers eat his flesh and drink his blood they will not have life within them.
Jews are prohibited from drinking blood, any blood. And to eat human flesh? Unthinkable.
But we are commanded to do this in memory of Jesus.
It is necessary to examine rules from time to time. Do they still fulfill the need for which they were instituted? Which authority is placing the rule? Is it legitimate?
God's rules, as presented through the Catholic Church and Scripture, are legitimate. In things like hand-washing and playing with your food, your mother is a legitimate authority, too!
Friday, January 29, 2010
Book Review: Abbess of Andalusia
The Abbess of Andalusia: Flannery O'Connor's Spiritual Journey by Lorraine V MurrayMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
I enjoyed this book immensely. It has really encouraged me to read more of Miss O'Connor's work.
There were some unfortunate editorial gaffs in the book which surprised me: A sentence repeated twice on the same page, a couple of other sentences which, try as I might, I couldn't make sense from.
There was also what seemed to be a spell-check error (a correctly spelled word that should have been another word entirely), although it may have been a local term I was not familiar with. There is some dialectic use of language in the book.
I also thought there was a bit of preachiness in the presentation of Miss O'Connor's Catholicism. That may simply be that as a Catholic myself, I saw on my own what was being pointed out by the author.
Still, this did not take away from the fascinating personality and life of Flannery O'Connor. I recommend this book.
View all my reviews >>
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Faith and Reason
I've been doing a bit of surfing while I've been ill and I've noticed that those who believe faith incompatible with reason frequently seem to be operating with neither.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Charity and Love
Hi Folks
Those who have not yet gone to Mass please say a prayer for me? I missed Mass today as I am sick. Yuck.
I did a little research recently and confirmed that the words "charity" and "love" come from the same Latin root word "caritas".
I clarify that word 'love' in this case would also be translated in Greek 'agape' to distinguish it from filial love or erotic love.
Agape love, caritas, is the sort of love that is unconditional. It's a general sort of love that can be directed to people you don't know. Caritas fuels charity.
I remember from my youth, an episode of "The Waltons" on the TV where Ma Walton (I'm pretty sure it was her) said that they wouldn't accept charity. Times were hard, and they were hurting. There were people who wanted to help.
I've been thinking of this and wondering if refusing charity is also refusing love?
Pope Benedict's book "Deus Caritas Est " means "God is Love". That is certainly not an unknown phrase.
Why would one refuse charity, if one was truly in need? Is it pride? By refusing appropriate charity, one is refusing someone the opportunity to show love...the spirit of charity.
God is Love...Caritas. This phrase has been abused to the point of being meaningless. So often it seems to be the license to be politically correct. We refuse to call sin what it is (sin) for fear of offending someone.
How loving is it, really, to see one who may well be on the road to Hell, but not to counsel them of the risk they're taking?
But we're not to judge, right? Yep. Right. We are not to judge. We are not to tell someone they ARE going to Hell. It is absolutely not our place, but God's place to judge.
Confirmed Catholics, are commanded to admonish the sinner! That one seems to get forgotten. We are SUPPOSED to call sin, sin. Are we perfect? Not likely, but no one ever made that a requirement for performing the Works of Mercy!
As we admonish, we must be very aware that people who love us will admonish us from time to time, as well.
That is a charitable act of a loving person!
Those who have not yet gone to Mass please say a prayer for me? I missed Mass today as I am sick. Yuck.
I did a little research recently and confirmed that the words "charity" and "love" come from the same Latin root word "caritas".
I clarify that word 'love' in this case would also be translated in Greek 'agape' to distinguish it from filial love or erotic love.
Agape love, caritas, is the sort of love that is unconditional. It's a general sort of love that can be directed to people you don't know. Caritas fuels charity.
I remember from my youth, an episode of "The Waltons" on the TV where Ma Walton (I'm pretty sure it was her) said that they wouldn't accept charity. Times were hard, and they were hurting. There were people who wanted to help.
I've been thinking of this and wondering if refusing charity is also refusing love?
Pope Benedict's book "Deus Caritas Est " means "God is Love". That is certainly not an unknown phrase.
Why would one refuse charity, if one was truly in need? Is it pride? By refusing appropriate charity, one is refusing someone the opportunity to show love...the spirit of charity.
God is Love...Caritas. This phrase has been abused to the point of being meaningless. So often it seems to be the license to be politically correct. We refuse to call sin what it is (sin) for fear of offending someone.
How loving is it, really, to see one who may well be on the road to Hell, but not to counsel them of the risk they're taking?
But we're not to judge, right? Yep. Right. We are not to judge. We are not to tell someone they ARE going to Hell. It is absolutely not our place, but God's place to judge.
Confirmed Catholics, are commanded to admonish the sinner! That one seems to get forgotten. We are SUPPOSED to call sin, sin. Are we perfect? Not likely, but no one ever made that a requirement for performing the Works of Mercy!
As we admonish, we must be very aware that people who love us will admonish us from time to time, as well.
That is a charitable act of a loving person!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Keeping Christ in Christmas
Hi Folks!
Happy Ordinary Time!
Now that the Christmas Season is over, I have time to think a bit more about it.
A priest friend of mine related a story that happened to him one Advent. Shortly before Christmas Eve, he received a call from an older woman, asking if he celebrated Midnight Mass. He said he did not, but celebrated an earlier Mass, as a nearby parish celebrated Midnight Mass.
She told him that she was an old-fashioned Catholic, and really thought that Midnight Mass should be celebrated everywhere.
He asked her where she regularly attended Mass, and she replied that she didn't regularly attend Mass.
Uh-huh. So just how does she call herself an "old-fashioned" Catholic, when attending Sunday Mass is one of the basics?
This made me think of the catchy phrase "Keep Christ in Christmas", which I believe is promoted by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's organization I greatly admire.
I think that in the struggle to recognize Christ as "The Reason for the Season" as another phrase goes, some fall into the trap of ONLY keeping Christ in Christmas, and at no other time of the year...except maybe Easter.
This is not a sustainable relationship with Christ or His Church.
To be Christians, we must not only recognize that Christ came...as we do at Christmas when we envision the Manger and listen to readings from Luke's gospel, but we must remember that He will also come again at the end of time (parousia).
Will He recognize those who think they know Him? Do 'they' really know Him, when they do not regularly recieve Him, in the Word, or in the Flesh?
Reading Scripture on ones own, while an admirable practice, does not suffice. We need to also read Scripture through the lense of the Church. As it says in Acts 8:31; "How can I understand if no one explains it to me?"
To read scripture only through ones own interpretation, or through another person's interpretation leads to the embarassment which all Christians should feel at the disunity of Christian denominations.
So where do we find Christ, if not only in Christmas? In the hearts of believing Christians. In the Word (Holy Scripture). In the Eucharist, where we have Christ; Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. And finally in the validly ordained Priest or Bishop when he celebrates the Mass where Christ comes to us in the Eucharist.
The Church Jesus founded becomes Him. He remains at the head of the Church. If you doubt this, remember the words spoken by Christ to Saul, on the road to Damascus "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Saul, later to become St. Paul, was not persecuting Christ, to all appearances. He was persecuting Christians. Christ in His question to Saul, verified that we are Christ's Church, and therefore part of Himself.
Keep Christ in Christmas...but don't leave him there!
Happy Ordinary Time!
Now that the Christmas Season is over, I have time to think a bit more about it.
A priest friend of mine related a story that happened to him one Advent. Shortly before Christmas Eve, he received a call from an older woman, asking if he celebrated Midnight Mass. He said he did not, but celebrated an earlier Mass, as a nearby parish celebrated Midnight Mass.
She told him that she was an old-fashioned Catholic, and really thought that Midnight Mass should be celebrated everywhere.
He asked her where she regularly attended Mass, and she replied that she didn't regularly attend Mass.
Uh-huh. So just how does she call herself an "old-fashioned" Catholic, when attending Sunday Mass is one of the basics?
This made me think of the catchy phrase "Keep Christ in Christmas", which I believe is promoted by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's organization I greatly admire.
I think that in the struggle to recognize Christ as "The Reason for the Season" as another phrase goes, some fall into the trap of ONLY keeping Christ in Christmas, and at no other time of the year...except maybe Easter.
This is not a sustainable relationship with Christ or His Church.
To be Christians, we must not only recognize that Christ came...as we do at Christmas when we envision the Manger and listen to readings from Luke's gospel, but we must remember that He will also come again at the end of time (parousia).
Will He recognize those who think they know Him? Do 'they' really know Him, when they do not regularly recieve Him, in the Word, or in the Flesh?
Reading Scripture on ones own, while an admirable practice, does not suffice. We need to also read Scripture through the lense of the Church. As it says in Acts 8:31; "How can I understand if no one explains it to me?"
To read scripture only through ones own interpretation, or through another person's interpretation leads to the embarassment which all Christians should feel at the disunity of Christian denominations.
So where do we find Christ, if not only in Christmas? In the hearts of believing Christians. In the Word (Holy Scripture). In the Eucharist, where we have Christ; Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. And finally in the validly ordained Priest or Bishop when he celebrates the Mass where Christ comes to us in the Eucharist.
The Church Jesus founded becomes Him. He remains at the head of the Church. If you doubt this, remember the words spoken by Christ to Saul, on the road to Damascus "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Saul, later to become St. Paul, was not persecuting Christ, to all appearances. He was persecuting Christians. Christ in His question to Saul, verified that we are Christ's Church, and therefore part of Himself.
Keep Christ in Christmas...but don't leave him there!
Monday, January 04, 2010
Where two or three are gathered...
Merry Christmas!
I would just like to point out a little feature of my blog which you may not have noticed.
On the right hand side, about 4 inches down, there is a 'follow' button. If you are a visitor to my blog and like what you read, you may opt to follow it, by clicking on the button and following the instructions.
It would be lovely to have you!
God Bless
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Merry Christmas?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Yes, it is still Christmas. According to the Catholic liturgical calendar, Christmas does not actually end until the Baptism of the Lord, which this year falls on January 10th, in Canada anyway.
I have been pondering the phrase "Merry Christmas". It really surprises me that this is the default Christmas greeting. It seems that every year there is some disaster or other that ensures that Christmas will be difficult for a lot of people.
I'm sure each and every one of us knows someone who is having a rough time during this season.
I can think of at least a couple of Christmas tunes that make reference to mixed feelings for the Christmastide...'Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas', 'I'll be home for Christmas'...'Blue Christmas'...that one from the movie Polar Express for which I cannot figure out a title...
The Movie "A Christmas Carol" had a very nice ending, but the situations that were portrayed were very likely someone's reality. At that point in England, they were probably many people's reality.
And the reason for the season?
Our Saviour began His earthly life born in a manger...a rack for animal food! This after a long, forced trip for His pregnant mother. They were far from their home, and living in a stable! Were this anything but the entrance of eternity into time, I think this could be classed as a rather inconvenient set-up to say the least. Not really a merry picture.
The pictures we are given as an example of a merry Christmas usually include snow, candles, fireplaces, wrapped gifts in abundance, groups of people enjoying each other's company...
Why is this considered the norm? It occurred to me, as I watched an old cartoon of a very jolly Santa Claus providing a profuse number of toys to a house that contained many more than three children, that this was almost cruel, especially given that the cartoon dated from the early 1930s. That would be during the Depression, no?
Whence the merriment?
We should all be joyous when we think of Christmas. This is when Christ came to humanity. Emmanuel means "God with Us".
Did joy somehow become confused with merriment? I do not see anything wrong with being merry at Christmas, if we can manage it. I do think that joy and thankfulness should be what we strive for first.
Yes, it is still Christmas. According to the Catholic liturgical calendar, Christmas does not actually end until the Baptism of the Lord, which this year falls on January 10th, in Canada anyway.
I have been pondering the phrase "Merry Christmas". It really surprises me that this is the default Christmas greeting. It seems that every year there is some disaster or other that ensures that Christmas will be difficult for a lot of people.
I'm sure each and every one of us knows someone who is having a rough time during this season.
I can think of at least a couple of Christmas tunes that make reference to mixed feelings for the Christmastide...'Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas', 'I'll be home for Christmas'...'Blue Christmas'...that one from the movie Polar Express for which I cannot figure out a title...
The Movie "A Christmas Carol" had a very nice ending, but the situations that were portrayed were very likely someone's reality. At that point in England, they were probably many people's reality.
And the reason for the season?
Our Saviour began His earthly life born in a manger...a rack for animal food! This after a long, forced trip for His pregnant mother. They were far from their home, and living in a stable! Were this anything but the entrance of eternity into time, I think this could be classed as a rather inconvenient set-up to say the least. Not really a merry picture.
The pictures we are given as an example of a merry Christmas usually include snow, candles, fireplaces, wrapped gifts in abundance, groups of people enjoying each other's company...
Why is this considered the norm? It occurred to me, as I watched an old cartoon of a very jolly Santa Claus providing a profuse number of toys to a house that contained many more than three children, that this was almost cruel, especially given that the cartoon dated from the early 1930s. That would be during the Depression, no?
Whence the merriment?
We should all be joyous when we think of Christmas. This is when Christ came to humanity. Emmanuel means "God with Us".
Did joy somehow become confused with merriment? I do not see anything wrong with being merry at Christmas, if we can manage it. I do think that joy and thankfulness should be what we strive for first.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Leaving the Lexicon
Happy Advent!
Advent, the time leading up to Christmas, has become a bit of a hazard these past few years. All the talk about Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays or someother such tripe, Nativity Scene or Nativity Unseen, to shop or not to shop...the list goes on.
Recently, I have been searching out Youtube clips of classic cartoons. These are the ones I remember watching on TV as a child, but would have been seen by a previous generation, or two, on the Big Screen...Steamboat Willy, Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig and many others. I am collecting these for my little fellow to watch, instead of the mind-numbing fare that passes for entertainment these days. Actually, he no longer sees much of that anyway as we disconnected our satellite service last summer.
These cartoons are generally not politically correct on many levels, but some of them are just fun, without attempting social engineering, or some deliberate teaching. So I am weeding out the most violent of the lot, as our son gets rather overstimulated, and letting him enjoy the variety of music, characters, animation (some of which is in...horrors!...black and white!) and energy levels.
One thing I have noticed is how common were religious references in these cartoons whether it is a character saying grace before a meal, or such adaptations as referring to a character "casting his shortnin' bread upon the water" (from "The Whale Who Sang at the Met" pt. 1). The Christmas cartoons often had pictures of people attending church services, and singing real Christmas carols (ie. religious carols!).
Television is nearly devoid of any respectful and/or accurate religious references anymore. Thus goes society. But I think that's been said before.
A couple of years ago, I met a young woman who came to my booth at a local market. She saw my display of Catholic books and came in to share a divine intervention (as she saw it) and ask about prayer.
In talking to this gal, I realized she had no idea what I was referring when I spoke. At all. I asked if she knew the Our Father? Nope. Did she know who Mary was? Nope. I went more basic, and she was still lost. This was a challenge indeed!
My husband and I went to speak to her at her home a short time later. I'm afraid we left them bored and befuddled. We did, however answer her one direct request. When I first met her at my booth, she pointed to a Rosary and said "I want to learn to pray THAT."
I think of her often when I hear about efforts to expunge the last vestiges of public Christianity. I believe that we are developing a language that will have no common reference points, if we haven't already.
Will anyone understand if someone refers to shaking the dust from ones sandals? Going up a mountain? Meeting ones Maker? Casting bread upon the water? The Pearly Gates? Going to Hell? Pearls before swine?
I know there are many others, too.
I think this is posing a huge challenge with regards to evangelisation.
I'm not sure I'm ready!
Advent, the time leading up to Christmas, has become a bit of a hazard these past few years. All the talk about Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays or someother such tripe, Nativity Scene or Nativity Unseen, to shop or not to shop...the list goes on.
Recently, I have been searching out Youtube clips of classic cartoons. These are the ones I remember watching on TV as a child, but would have been seen by a previous generation, or two, on the Big Screen...Steamboat Willy, Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig and many others. I am collecting these for my little fellow to watch, instead of the mind-numbing fare that passes for entertainment these days. Actually, he no longer sees much of that anyway as we disconnected our satellite service last summer.
These cartoons are generally not politically correct on many levels, but some of them are just fun, without attempting social engineering, or some deliberate teaching. So I am weeding out the most violent of the lot, as our son gets rather overstimulated, and letting him enjoy the variety of music, characters, animation (some of which is in...horrors!...black and white!) and energy levels.
One thing I have noticed is how common were religious references in these cartoons whether it is a character saying grace before a meal, or such adaptations as referring to a character "casting his shortnin' bread upon the water" (from "The Whale Who Sang at the Met" pt. 1). The Christmas cartoons often had pictures of people attending church services, and singing real Christmas carols (ie. religious carols!).
Television is nearly devoid of any respectful and/or accurate religious references anymore. Thus goes society. But I think that's been said before.
A couple of years ago, I met a young woman who came to my booth at a local market. She saw my display of Catholic books and came in to share a divine intervention (as she saw it) and ask about prayer.
In talking to this gal, I realized she had no idea what I was referring when I spoke. At all. I asked if she knew the Our Father? Nope. Did she know who Mary was? Nope. I went more basic, and she was still lost. This was a challenge indeed!
My husband and I went to speak to her at her home a short time later. I'm afraid we left them bored and befuddled. We did, however answer her one direct request. When I first met her at my booth, she pointed to a Rosary and said "I want to learn to pray THAT."
I think of her often when I hear about efforts to expunge the last vestiges of public Christianity. I believe that we are developing a language that will have no common reference points, if we haven't already.
Will anyone understand if someone refers to shaking the dust from ones sandals? Going up a mountain? Meeting ones Maker? Casting bread upon the water? The Pearly Gates? Going to Hell? Pearls before swine?
I know there are many others, too.
I think this is posing a huge challenge with regards to evangelisation.
I'm not sure I'm ready!
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Projected Blog Improvement!
Happy Advent!
I am working on finishing a book I started several years ago.
I am hoping that the work I do on this blog is practice for larger projects. One of the problems I have been having, and I'm sure my astute readers have picked up on this but have been too polite to say anything, is knowing when to (or not to) capitalize religious terms like baptism, sacrament, mass...
I know I am not consistent in this. I have had nothing to refer to.
I think I have made a discovery which will help me tighten this up. It is called the CNS Stylebook on Religion.
It looks like a gem that should be in every Catholic resource library.
It contains Catholic terms as well as other religious terms and organizations, historical notes.
The only thing holding me back from ordering it right now is my inquiry regarding a Canadian equivalent.
So maybe someday I'll know if it's Mass or mass...
God Bless
I am working on finishing a book I started several years ago.
I am hoping that the work I do on this blog is practice for larger projects. One of the problems I have been having, and I'm sure my astute readers have picked up on this but have been too polite to say anything, is knowing when to (or not to) capitalize religious terms like baptism, sacrament, mass...
I know I am not consistent in this. I have had nothing to refer to.
I think I have made a discovery which will help me tighten this up. It is called the CNS Stylebook on Religion.
It looks like a gem that should be in every Catholic resource library.
It contains Catholic terms as well as other religious terms and organizations, historical notes.
The only thing holding me back from ordering it right now is my inquiry regarding a Canadian equivalent.
So maybe someday I'll know if it's Mass or mass...
God Bless
Thursday, November 19, 2009
How are we Valuable?
Hi Folks
Over this past summer, we changed our telephone and internet carrier to a local company who could also save us a considerable amount of money.
The company we jilted (or at least that seems to be how they see it) has sent lovely cards telling me how much they miss me. We have also been getting phone calls.
I received another one today. As soon as the caller got to "We have a special offer..." I cut him off and told him I was not interested. He asked me why.
I told him that if they valued my patronage so much, they should have given me these fabulous offers while I was still their customer. He actually admitted I had a point. No kidding.
It is not like that with God.
God loves all His creation. He loves us more than we can imagine. We are made, after all, in His image and likeness. He also loves us enough to let us go, if that is what we choose. Look what happened to the Angels who proclaimed that they would not serve. They went to Hell.
Jesus shows us this in the Gospel of John. When He proclaimed that it was necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood, many of his followers said that He was speaking harshly and that they would no longer follow Him. Jesus let them go.
We can also be confident that if we wish to repent, while we are alive, and come back to God, He will take us back. We see this expressed in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in the Gospel of Luke.
In the latter case, we are told that a party was held to celebrate the return of the lost son. Would this actually make up for what is lost during our time without God's grace?
I am fairly certain that God longs for us, if we choose to be away from him. Parents long for children. The woman who loses the gold coin, again in the Gospel of Luke, turns the house upside down until she finds it. So does the shepherd search for the lost sheep.
God will not usually hound us though. Or perhaps He IS hounding us...but sin clouds our perceptions and we do not hear. Hmmm.
I told the telephone company to leave us alone. I cannot imagine that I would want to do that to God...ever. But if I did, I think He would honour my bad choice and leave me to my own devices.
Fortunately, when I changed phone companies, most of the devices stayed exactly the same.
God Bless
Over this past summer, we changed our telephone and internet carrier to a local company who could also save us a considerable amount of money.
The company we jilted (or at least that seems to be how they see it) has sent lovely cards telling me how much they miss me. We have also been getting phone calls.
I received another one today. As soon as the caller got to "We have a special offer..." I cut him off and told him I was not interested. He asked me why.
I told him that if they valued my patronage so much, they should have given me these fabulous offers while I was still their customer. He actually admitted I had a point. No kidding.
It is not like that with God.
God loves all His creation. He loves us more than we can imagine. We are made, after all, in His image and likeness. He also loves us enough to let us go, if that is what we choose. Look what happened to the Angels who proclaimed that they would not serve. They went to Hell.
Jesus shows us this in the Gospel of John. When He proclaimed that it was necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood, many of his followers said that He was speaking harshly and that they would no longer follow Him. Jesus let them go.
We can also be confident that if we wish to repent, while we are alive, and come back to God, He will take us back. We see this expressed in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in the Gospel of Luke.
In the latter case, we are told that a party was held to celebrate the return of the lost son. Would this actually make up for what is lost during our time without God's grace?
I am fairly certain that God longs for us, if we choose to be away from him. Parents long for children. The woman who loses the gold coin, again in the Gospel of Luke, turns the house upside down until she finds it. So does the shepherd search for the lost sheep.
God will not usually hound us though. Or perhaps He IS hounding us...but sin clouds our perceptions and we do not hear. Hmmm.
I told the telephone company to leave us alone. I cannot imagine that I would want to do that to God...ever. But if I did, I think He would honour my bad choice and leave me to my own devices.
Fortunately, when I changed phone companies, most of the devices stayed exactly the same.
God Bless
Saturday, October 31, 2009
All Hallow's Eve
My Friend S sent this to me, I think it appeared in their church bulletin.
I hope the authors don't mind me borrowing it. I thought it was very good.
(In this weekly column, Tom and April Hoopes share family-friendly ways of
observing the liturgical year and celebrating the Sunday readings.)
Halloween and All Souls
Last year, we attended our Connecticut parish’s “Holyween” party,
where the kids dressed as saints and Dominican Father Bernard Confer guessed
with astonishing accuracy who each was. This year we’re in Atchison, Kan.,
a town that has a cottage industry of promoting haunted houses.
Catholic parents often debate the merits of Halloween as it’s celebrated
in America today. Is it too macabre? What message does it send?
We will remind the kids that “All Hallows Eve” — the vigil of All
Saints’ Day — dates back to the time the Church took over the Pantheon
in Rome in the 600s. The “gods” were removed from altars which were
reconsecrated to the martyrs. So, on the first “All Hallows Eve,” the
streets of Rome were literally lined with carts of bones — martyrs’
relics. Yes, other pagan practices have been mixed in, but we will focus on
that first mix of skeletons and saints.
We’ll pray to the folks in heaven and celebrate their victory with fun and
candy. And on All Souls’ Day, Nov. 2, we will round out the experience by
visiting a cemetery to start the month of prayer for the dead.
Readings
Revelation 7:2-4, 9-14; Psalm 24:1-6; 1 John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12
Our Take
The beatitudes — today’s Gospel — are more relevant than ever. Let us
count the ways.
1. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of
heaven.”
Those who aren’t poor in spirit — those whose hopes are in wealth,
health or material pleasures — have had a tough year. But those who look
to spiritual realities for fulfillment needn’t be fundamentally disturbed
by market crashes or tough times. Their investments are in good hands.
2. “Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.”
In order to mourn, you have to be sensitive to the value of life. In a world
with 42 million elective abortions each year, this beatitude is as needed as
ever — and as powerful as ever. The most effective new voices in the
pro-life movement are the mothers of aborted children.
3. “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
To be meek means to allow God’s will to dominate your own will. The meek
don’t abuse the earth; and the meek don’t see mankind as a blight on the
earth, either. The meek take God’s creation on God’s terms, and truly
inherit the earth by appreciating the beauty of nature and the dignity of
human life.
4. “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
will be satisfied.”
“Be nice” is a fine philosophy of life, as far as it goes, but it
doesn’t go far enough. To “hunger and thirst for righteousness” means
to refuse to tolerate the destruction of social values. Such a hunger
won’t stand for the destruction of marriage and the family, pornography,
embryo-killing research, or other intrinsic evils. However …
5. “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”
“Not tolerating evil” can’t mean “rejecting those we disagree
with.” Christ said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We
can have that same merciful attitude toward sinners — especially since
we’re sinners, too — and seek to better them, not just denounce them.
6. “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God.”
Pope John Paul II said to be “pure of heart” is to see the true value of
other people, and not make them objects. People describe how a glance from a
John Paul or Mother Teresa made them feel like they were in the presence of
something great. If we are pure of heart, we’ll see Christ in those we
meet — and that will help them see God, too.
7. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Ours is an age where escalating violence is seen as an answer to problems.
Though self-defense is sometimes necessary, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John
Paul II both pointed out that even that necessary and noble war, World War
II, left Europe on a path to secularization and the culture of death.
Solidarity, not war, is the path to peace.
8. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for
theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”
There are today more persecuted Christians than ever before — Christians
are being harassed and killed in India, Africa, the Philippines, China,
Myanmar, Iraq, the Middle East, and on and on. We can pray for the
persecuted — and pray to the martyrs of our time for the building of the
Kingdom of heaven on earth.
—This article originally appeared in our sister publication, the National
Catholic Register.
I hope the authors don't mind me borrowing it. I thought it was very good.
(In this weekly column, Tom and April Hoopes share family-friendly ways of
observing the liturgical year and celebrating the Sunday readings.)
Halloween and All Souls
Last year, we attended our Connecticut parish’s “Holyween” party,
where the kids dressed as saints and Dominican Father Bernard Confer guessed
with astonishing accuracy who each was. This year we’re in Atchison, Kan.,
a town that has a cottage industry of promoting haunted houses.
Catholic parents often debate the merits of Halloween as it’s celebrated
in America today. Is it too macabre? What message does it send?
We will remind the kids that “All Hallows Eve” — the vigil of All
Saints’ Day — dates back to the time the Church took over the Pantheon
in Rome in the 600s. The “gods” were removed from altars which were
reconsecrated to the martyrs. So, on the first “All Hallows Eve,” the
streets of Rome were literally lined with carts of bones — martyrs’
relics. Yes, other pagan practices have been mixed in, but we will focus on
that first mix of skeletons and saints.
We’ll pray to the folks in heaven and celebrate their victory with fun and
candy. And on All Souls’ Day, Nov. 2, we will round out the experience by
visiting a cemetery to start the month of prayer for the dead.
Readings
Revelation 7:2-4, 9-14; Psalm 24:1-6; 1 John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12
Our Take
The beatitudes — today’s Gospel — are more relevant than ever. Let us
count the ways.
1. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of
heaven.”
Those who aren’t poor in spirit — those whose hopes are in wealth,
health or material pleasures — have had a tough year. But those who look
to spiritual realities for fulfillment needn’t be fundamentally disturbed
by market crashes or tough times. Their investments are in good hands.
2. “Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.”
In order to mourn, you have to be sensitive to the value of life. In a world
with 42 million elective abortions each year, this beatitude is as needed as
ever — and as powerful as ever. The most effective new voices in the
pro-life movement are the mothers of aborted children.
3. “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
To be meek means to allow God’s will to dominate your own will. The meek
don’t abuse the earth; and the meek don’t see mankind as a blight on the
earth, either. The meek take God’s creation on God’s terms, and truly
inherit the earth by appreciating the beauty of nature and the dignity of
human life.
4. “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
will be satisfied.”
“Be nice” is a fine philosophy of life, as far as it goes, but it
doesn’t go far enough. To “hunger and thirst for righteousness” means
to refuse to tolerate the destruction of social values. Such a hunger
won’t stand for the destruction of marriage and the family, pornography,
embryo-killing research, or other intrinsic evils. However …
5. “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”
“Not tolerating evil” can’t mean “rejecting those we disagree
with.” Christ said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We
can have that same merciful attitude toward sinners — especially since
we’re sinners, too — and seek to better them, not just denounce them.
6. “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God.”
Pope John Paul II said to be “pure of heart” is to see the true value of
other people, and not make them objects. People describe how a glance from a
John Paul or Mother Teresa made them feel like they were in the presence of
something great. If we are pure of heart, we’ll see Christ in those we
meet — and that will help them see God, too.
7. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Ours is an age where escalating violence is seen as an answer to problems.
Though self-defense is sometimes necessary, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John
Paul II both pointed out that even that necessary and noble war, World War
II, left Europe on a path to secularization and the culture of death.
Solidarity, not war, is the path to peace.
8. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for
theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”
There are today more persecuted Christians than ever before — Christians
are being harassed and killed in India, Africa, the Philippines, China,
Myanmar, Iraq, the Middle East, and on and on. We can pray for the
persecuted — and pray to the martyrs of our time for the building of the
Kingdom of heaven on earth.
—This article originally appeared in our sister publication, the National
Catholic Register.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Natural Family Planning Misunderstanding?
Hi Folks
Pondering again.
The issue came up in one of Danielle Bean's blog articles...in the comments at least. More recently it has come up in an email group to which I belong.
Are 'poor' (as in financially challenged) people being irresponsible if they do not actively use NFP to limit their family's size, as opposed to leaving the whole thing up to God?
First, I will define a couple of terms:
Natural Family Planning is a method of fertility awareness by which a couple may choose to space, or to avoid, a pregnancy, by avoiding sexual relations during the woman's fertile period. This method is approved by the Roman Catholic Church for married couples who for serious reasons (ie not to be able to afford a bigger boat) wish to space children. The method properly used is sort of like saying to God "We'd rather not have a child (right now) but we're open to your will."
Another licit option for Catholics in family planning is to simply let God decide when and whether babies arrive. By inference, I call this 'hands off' family planning. Which is not to be confused with complete abstainance.
Complete abstainance can also be practiced by a couple who feel they must not have any children.
What I have read is what I previously stated: if a family is materially poor, they are being irresponsible if they do not actively avoid pregnancy, and just allow God to decide if and when they become pregnant.
I do not understand this line of thinking. If the proper mindset for the use of NFP is to be open to life, even if it should begin when we would rather it did not, we are leaving it, ultimately, up to God.
If a couple chooses to leave it entirely up to God, who knows everything, how is this being less responsible than if they signalled God that be co-creators at this time is not desireable, but ultimately agreed to follow his will?
I think that the irresponsibility argument is removing credit from God to be able to decide when and where he wishes to begin a life. God has been known to work around contraception when he's forced to. There was even a case of a Virgin becoming pregnant...but God asked permission of her to do this!
A life begun is always a blessed event, regardless of the circumstances of conception.
I do not disagree with the use of NFP. I wonder though that those who demand its use from certain sectors of the population are not really wanting to demand abstainance? This seems to me to be one step away from demanding sterilization.
No one has been able to explain the irresponsibility argument to me in a way that does not end up sounding like "I don't wish to care for the children of poor people". Okay, but what if God decides that these poor people should have children? Is it not possible that we are being called to assist these people?
So, explain it to me, please!
God Bless
Pondering again.
The issue came up in one of Danielle Bean's blog articles...in the comments at least. More recently it has come up in an email group to which I belong.
Are 'poor' (as in financially challenged) people being irresponsible if they do not actively use NFP to limit their family's size, as opposed to leaving the whole thing up to God?
First, I will define a couple of terms:
Natural Family Planning is a method of fertility awareness by which a couple may choose to space, or to avoid, a pregnancy, by avoiding sexual relations during the woman's fertile period. This method is approved by the Roman Catholic Church for married couples who for serious reasons (ie not to be able to afford a bigger boat) wish to space children. The method properly used is sort of like saying to God "We'd rather not have a child (right now) but we're open to your will."
Another licit option for Catholics in family planning is to simply let God decide when and whether babies arrive. By inference, I call this 'hands off' family planning. Which is not to be confused with complete abstainance.
Complete abstainance can also be practiced by a couple who feel they must not have any children.
What I have read is what I previously stated: if a family is materially poor, they are being irresponsible if they do not actively avoid pregnancy, and just allow God to decide if and when they become pregnant.
I do not understand this line of thinking. If the proper mindset for the use of NFP is to be open to life, even if it should begin when we would rather it did not, we are leaving it, ultimately, up to God.
If a couple chooses to leave it entirely up to God, who knows everything, how is this being less responsible than if they signalled God that be co-creators at this time is not desireable, but ultimately agreed to follow his will?
I think that the irresponsibility argument is removing credit from God to be able to decide when and where he wishes to begin a life. God has been known to work around contraception when he's forced to. There was even a case of a Virgin becoming pregnant...but God asked permission of her to do this!
A life begun is always a blessed event, regardless of the circumstances of conception.
I do not disagree with the use of NFP. I wonder though that those who demand its use from certain sectors of the population are not really wanting to demand abstainance? This seems to me to be one step away from demanding sterilization.
No one has been able to explain the irresponsibility argument to me in a way that does not end up sounding like "I don't wish to care for the children of poor people". Okay, but what if God decides that these poor people should have children? Is it not possible that we are being called to assist these people?
So, explain it to me, please!
God Bless
Monday, October 19, 2009
St. Teresa, Pray for Us
Hello again
I've had one of those weeks where I feel God is trying to send a message.
Early in the week, I picked up a copy of St. Teresa of Avila's "Vida", her autobiography. I am not so sure about the translation, as it seems to have some 'new age' potential...but I've paid for it, so I'll read it.
I neglected to remember that her feast day was October 15, which coincides quite well with my starting the book!
I have read some of this Doctor of the Church's work before. I think I may have an affinity with Carmelite spirituality.
This Sunday's homily brought a mention of St. Teresa, which I think is the first time I've heard her mentioned at Mass. Apparently Father is a fan of hers as well. I was pleased to find this out.
During Mass, I noticed the presence of a friend whom I have not seen in several years, as she moved away. Four years back, she borrowed a book from me, St. Teresa's "Interior Castle". When I went to give her a hug after Mass, she said "I have something for you!" It was my book!
So I've come to the conclusion that it is time for me to do some more reading of Saint Teresa. I don't think it could be more obvious.
God Bless
I've had one of those weeks where I feel God is trying to send a message.
Early in the week, I picked up a copy of St. Teresa of Avila's "Vida", her autobiography. I am not so sure about the translation, as it seems to have some 'new age' potential...but I've paid for it, so I'll read it.
I neglected to remember that her feast day was October 15, which coincides quite well with my starting the book!
I have read some of this Doctor of the Church's work before. I think I may have an affinity with Carmelite spirituality.
This Sunday's homily brought a mention of St. Teresa, which I think is the first time I've heard her mentioned at Mass. Apparently Father is a fan of hers as well. I was pleased to find this out.
During Mass, I noticed the presence of a friend whom I have not seen in several years, as she moved away. Four years back, she borrowed a book from me, St. Teresa's "Interior Castle". When I went to give her a hug after Mass, she said "I have something for you!" It was my book!
So I've come to the conclusion that it is time for me to do some more reading of Saint Teresa. I don't think it could be more obvious.
God Bless
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Reflections on the Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Good Morning
As I was lying in bed last night, not sleeping (if anyone cares to say a prayer for me regarding this vicious worsening of my chronic insomnia troubles, I would be greatly appreciative) I was thinking about children.
Last Sunday's Gospel, Mark 9:30-37 was about people receiving a child in Jesus' name, also receiving Jesus.
Father delivered a delightful homily which was a bit of a variation on what is often presented as the message of this Gospel passage.
One often hears that this reading is talking about being open and welcoming as a child is in order to receive Jesus. Father's perspective was that it might also mean having a good sense of humility. After all, welcoming a child is not always convenient...his illustration of this was humourous and, to me, familiar. Parents go into the room of a child who was sleeping only to discover that the child has been quietly creating a disaster which can sometimes be unsanitary. Think: paint by numbers, where the only number is "2". Having to deal with child disasters can happen when one is all set to go out for an evening. I envision an old "Family Circus" cartoon which shows the mum, dressed up in a long elegant evening gown, plunging out a plugged toilet and opining "For this, I went to college?". Parents must be willing to change plans at a moment's notice.
I suppose that welcoming a child could also go back to the child's very birth...or conception.
I had another thought about children and faith. We who have been involved in religious education have often heard, or said ourselves, the importance of "understanding" in preparation for sacraments. This is particularly said for First Communion. The implication is that a child shouldn't be too young.
I would first ask if any of us really understand what it is that happens during the confection of the Eucharist (Communion). By some God-powered miracle, Jesus becomes the bread which we later consume.
But, to a young child, everything is a miracle and most things are hard to explain. How does a car work? Why does rain fall from the sky... sometimes even when the sun is shining?
Might it not be that a child is actually more likely to "understand" what is happening when Jesus gives His body to us in the Eucharist? After all, a youngster's mind may not yet be bound by the rules life imposes...laws of nature and all that.
As I think a little more, I realize that my thoughts also focus on humility. We grown-ups often do not like be taught. We think we know it all already. It can be hard for us to accept miracles; things we cannot explain or understand. Children are accustomed to not understanding things, so they accept what they are told by people they trust. It is sad if we grow and become jaded to truth. The Gospel of Luke 18:16 comes to mind.
We should become like children, to accept and be accepted by Jesus. For such as these is the Kingdom of Heaven!
As I was lying in bed last night, not sleeping (if anyone cares to say a prayer for me regarding this vicious worsening of my chronic insomnia troubles, I would be greatly appreciative) I was thinking about children.
Last Sunday's Gospel, Mark 9:30-37 was about people receiving a child in Jesus' name, also receiving Jesus.
Father delivered a delightful homily which was a bit of a variation on what is often presented as the message of this Gospel passage.
One often hears that this reading is talking about being open and welcoming as a child is in order to receive Jesus. Father's perspective was that it might also mean having a good sense of humility. After all, welcoming a child is not always convenient...his illustration of this was humourous and, to me, familiar. Parents go into the room of a child who was sleeping only to discover that the child has been quietly creating a disaster which can sometimes be unsanitary. Think: paint by numbers, where the only number is "2". Having to deal with child disasters can happen when one is all set to go out for an evening. I envision an old "Family Circus" cartoon which shows the mum, dressed up in a long elegant evening gown, plunging out a plugged toilet and opining "For this, I went to college?". Parents must be willing to change plans at a moment's notice.
I suppose that welcoming a child could also go back to the child's very birth...or conception.
I had another thought about children and faith. We who have been involved in religious education have often heard, or said ourselves, the importance of "understanding" in preparation for sacraments. This is particularly said for First Communion. The implication is that a child shouldn't be too young.
I would first ask if any of us really understand what it is that happens during the confection of the Eucharist (Communion). By some God-powered miracle, Jesus becomes the bread which we later consume.
But, to a young child, everything is a miracle and most things are hard to explain. How does a car work? Why does rain fall from the sky... sometimes even when the sun is shining?
Might it not be that a child is actually more likely to "understand" what is happening when Jesus gives His body to us in the Eucharist? After all, a youngster's mind may not yet be bound by the rules life imposes...laws of nature and all that.
As I think a little more, I realize that my thoughts also focus on humility. We grown-ups often do not like be taught. We think we know it all already. It can be hard for us to accept miracles; things we cannot explain or understand. Children are accustomed to not understanding things, so they accept what they are told by people they trust. It is sad if we grow and become jaded to truth. The Gospel of Luke 18:16 comes to mind.
We should become like children, to accept and be accepted by Jesus. For such as these is the Kingdom of Heaven!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Comment worthy?
HI Folks
I have recently been informed that I had created no way for people to comment on my blog.
I have attempted to remedy this so please let me know (I know some people have my email address) if you are still not able to comment.
There is a little pencil at the end of the posts...beside the envelope for emails.
Thanks!
I have recently been informed that I had created no way for people to comment on my blog.
I have attempted to remedy this so please let me know (I know some people have my email address) if you are still not able to comment.
There is a little pencil at the end of the posts...beside the envelope for emails.
Thanks!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Behold Your Mother
Well, I've again been reading "Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome" by Richard Littledale.
Some of the arguments (and we still hear this ALL the time) made against the Church are with regards to our veneration of Mary, Mother of God.
I think I've already discussed some of our treatment of Mary, but this time I am going to address our belief that Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but also the mother of all believers.
In the Gospel of John (19: 26-27) Jesus, while dying on the cross, speaks to the Beloved Disciple (John)and tells him that Mary is his mother. He turns to Mary and tells her that John is her son.
This is a practical move. If Mary had children other than Jesus, and the Church states that she did not, Jewish law would insist that she be cared for by them. John was now tasked with her care, in lieu of other family for her.
The Church also teaches that this gives Mary to all of us as our mother. For me, this is not a hard thing to get my mind around.
We are told that the Church is the Body of Christ. After all, we do Christ's work in the world. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ. We are the Body of Christ. Therefore, is not Mary our mother, too? I do not see where the problem lies.
Mr. Littledale's book is giving me much fodder for research. He mentions names and makes arguments which I have not heard before. Some of his arguments are based on fallacy, which amazes me for someone who was apparently a lawyer. Perhaps saving souls entitles one to fabricate a little? Nah.
I have just found the reply which John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote to the work of Littledale and look forward to reading it.
(edited insertion) The article I linked to above is not actually by Cardinal Newman. Sorry about that. It would seem I have not yet found his article, if it even exists, as other sources indicate it should! (end of insertion)
I am not yet familiar with Newman's works (shame shame!) but from a quick reading of the introduction of the reply, I think I will enjoy his style. Already it reminds me a little of GK Chesterton.
I spoke to my father a couple of weeks ago. He gave me "Plain Reasons" a couple of years ago when I saw it on his bookshelf. I have since found out that this book was from the library of his father, who was never Catholic. This really piqued my interest.
Kinda gives me a connection to the Oxford Movement!
God Bless
Some of the arguments (and we still hear this ALL the time) made against the Church are with regards to our veneration of Mary, Mother of God.
I think I've already discussed some of our treatment of Mary, but this time I am going to address our belief that Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but also the mother of all believers.
In the Gospel of John (19: 26-27) Jesus, while dying on the cross, speaks to the Beloved Disciple (John)and tells him that Mary is his mother. He turns to Mary and tells her that John is her son.
This is a practical move. If Mary had children other than Jesus, and the Church states that she did not, Jewish law would insist that she be cared for by them. John was now tasked with her care, in lieu of other family for her.
The Church also teaches that this gives Mary to all of us as our mother. For me, this is not a hard thing to get my mind around.
We are told that the Church is the Body of Christ. After all, we do Christ's work in the world. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ. We are the Body of Christ. Therefore, is not Mary our mother, too? I do not see where the problem lies.
Mr. Littledale's book is giving me much fodder for research. He mentions names and makes arguments which I have not heard before. Some of his arguments are based on fallacy, which amazes me for someone who was apparently a lawyer. Perhaps saving souls entitles one to fabricate a little? Nah.
I have just found the reply which John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote to the work of Littledale and look forward to reading it.
(edited insertion) The article I linked to above is not actually by Cardinal Newman. Sorry about that. It would seem I have not yet found his article, if it even exists, as other sources indicate it should! (end of insertion)
I am not yet familiar with Newman's works (shame shame!) but from a quick reading of the introduction of the reply, I think I will enjoy his style. Already it reminds me a little of GK Chesterton.
I spoke to my father a couple of weeks ago. He gave me "Plain Reasons" a couple of years ago when I saw it on his bookshelf. I have since found out that this book was from the library of his father, who was never Catholic. This really piqued my interest.
Kinda gives me a connection to the Oxford Movement!
God Bless
Friday, September 04, 2009
Motherhood and the Environment
Good Evening
It occurred to me today that stay-at-home motherhood might be beneficial to the environment.
I hope no one goes "Duh" at this personal revelation. Maybe I haven't been paying attention.
So, where has this come from?
Well, I was collecting clothes off the clothesline, which I've been using as much as possible during our wet summer. Why do I do this? Well, it saves money by not using the electricity that the dryer would. I have the time to do this because I do not work outside the home.
We don't have a vegetable garden for a lot of reasons, but next year I would like to try a small one. Maybe we'll get it right this time! I do know that other people have gardens. I do not know anyone who keeps a big garden while also working full-time. Growing our own veggies would save money and also provide produce which would, hopefully, be of better quality than that which we've been invited to purchase this season. If we grow things we can preserve, we can eat some of the produce through the Winter, too, when food is even more expensive.
We will not be able to produce all our own food, but the time I can put into growing our own food will help.
How is this an environmentally sensitive practice? Well, I would not likely be using chemicals, so that footprint would be smaller. There would be no fuel involved in shipping the food. If I preserve, the food will quite possibly end up in glass bottles which have been used and re-used many times.
I can often go days between trips into town. If I worked, I might need another vehicle, and would definitely be burning more fuel getting to work and back.
As an at-home mum, I have the "luxury" of choosing cloth diapers, cloth dinner napkins, and rags instead of paper towels, without having to worry about the increased laundry load.
I also think I can get by with a smaller wardrobe, so fewer resources used there, too.
This would be stewardship, I think. Not only can I care for my family in person, but I can use fewer of the resources God has given us.
That many of these practices also save money, it helps extend the single income on which we rely. Money saved not earned is money not taxed.
I realize that working or not working is not a choice some have the option of making for themselves, and the Church does not, as far as I know, have a position on this. But I think the ideas I present might be new to some people.
God Bless.
It occurred to me today that stay-at-home motherhood might be beneficial to the environment.
I hope no one goes "Duh" at this personal revelation. Maybe I haven't been paying attention.
So, where has this come from?
Well, I was collecting clothes off the clothesline, which I've been using as much as possible during our wet summer. Why do I do this? Well, it saves money by not using the electricity that the dryer would. I have the time to do this because I do not work outside the home.
We don't have a vegetable garden for a lot of reasons, but next year I would like to try a small one. Maybe we'll get it right this time! I do know that other people have gardens. I do not know anyone who keeps a big garden while also working full-time. Growing our own veggies would save money and also provide produce which would, hopefully, be of better quality than that which we've been invited to purchase this season. If we grow things we can preserve, we can eat some of the produce through the Winter, too, when food is even more expensive.
We will not be able to produce all our own food, but the time I can put into growing our own food will help.
How is this an environmentally sensitive practice? Well, I would not likely be using chemicals, so that footprint would be smaller. There would be no fuel involved in shipping the food. If I preserve, the food will quite possibly end up in glass bottles which have been used and re-used many times.
I can often go days between trips into town. If I worked, I might need another vehicle, and would definitely be burning more fuel getting to work and back.
As an at-home mum, I have the "luxury" of choosing cloth diapers, cloth dinner napkins, and rags instead of paper towels, without having to worry about the increased laundry load.
I also think I can get by with a smaller wardrobe, so fewer resources used there, too.
This would be stewardship, I think. Not only can I care for my family in person, but I can use fewer of the resources God has given us.
That many of these practices also save money, it helps extend the single income on which we rely. Money saved not earned is money not taxed.
I realize that working or not working is not a choice some have the option of making for themselves, and the Church does not, as far as I know, have a position on this. But I think the ideas I present might be new to some people.
God Bless.
Friday, August 14, 2009
A Song for Nagasaki by Paul GlynnMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
This book was a rare gem. It is the story of the life of Takashi Nagai, who becomes a Catholic Christian. His faith survives and maintains him through the bombing Nagasaki, which kills his wife, who dies with a rosary in her hand, and ultimately brings about Nagai's death. Aside from Nagai's personal story, we learn of the history of Christians in and around Nagasaki. The first time I read this book, it had been loaned to me with strict admonition for its return. My father had been led to hunt it down (it was out of print) and purchase it after reading a borrowed copy. I ultimately hunted down and purchased a copy myself. I just learned that this book has been reprinted! Thank you Ignatius Press.
Please read an earlier entry on this book here: Catholicanuck: Where did the Summer go?
View all my reviews >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
