Mayonnaise Sandwiches...a Fate Worse than Death

Meant to get this sent out much earlier, but the fog rolled in...so here it is now!  God Bless!


We have had a great deal of bad news, in one form or other, over the past couple of months.

Planned Parent advocates in the United States have called those who would restrict their public funding stupid, while themselves saying brilliant things like not having them (PP) would result in mothers having to feed their children mayonnaise sandwiches and Ramen noodles at the end of the month to "fill their little bellies".   I respectfully ask PP what alternative they would suggest...to rip those little bellies wide open and kill the children?  Goodness knows PP does not offer material assistance to those who have their children, instead of aborting them.

In Canada, LifeSite News is being sued by Father Raymond Gravel because they've said fairly clearly that he is not a good example of a Catholic priest.

In a National Post article  on the subject of Father Gravel, Father Thomas Rosica from Salt and Light Television weighs in in Father Gravel's defence against LifeSite, although he says he doesn't agree with him.  Father Rosica has his own ax to grind with LifeSite, who took him to task when he labelled as "Taliban Catholics" those who took issue with the flashy Catholic funeral of pro-abortion Senator Ted. Kennedy.

In that interview, Father Rosica felt compelled to mention that Father Gravel had counselled women against abortion.  It is utterly remarkable to me that Father Gravel's public record is so spotty that his counselling against abortion is worthy of mention.  Counselling against abortion is only what any faithful Catholic priest would do!

This week, Michael Voris issued a Youtube segment regarding the accusations leveled at Taliban Catholics

You know, this is not how I like the Canadian Church to show up in the media...

So I think this is official?


Your Eminences, Your Excellencies,

Our Conference has now received recognitio for all sections of the English translation of the revised Roman Missal for use in Canada. The Executive Committee, in consultation with the Permanent Council, has selected the first Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011, as the date for the official implementation of the English translation of the Missal. The official decree for this date has not yet been published, because our Conference is still involved in discussions with the Congregation for Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments about the exact wording of one of the requested adaptations for Canada.

These discussions with the Congregation will not in any way slow down the preparation of the English translation of the revised Missal. Both the National Liturgy Office and the CCCB Publications Department are busy preparing the new book and their work is proceeding on schedule.

As well, the English Sector National Liturgy Office is preparing to start the launching of the catechetical material it has already prepared. The resource Celebrate and Song, which contains the parts of the Mass spoken by the people, as well as three newly composed Mass settings and the ICEL chants, is now finished and will be available for distribution during the first half of April. This resource also contains the texts of Eucharistic Prayers I-IV and 40 hymns not currently found in the Catholic Book of Worship III.

Starting the first week of April, the National Liturgy Office will begin posting texts and power-point slides to be used for workshops at the local level – including workshops dealing with the theology of Eucharist, the process of translation and revision, and the history of the Eucharist.

We had not been able to proceed with the production of the DVDs with Salt and Light TV until the matter of Canadian adaptations was resolved andrecognitio received. We can now proceed with the DVDs. National Liturgy Office Director Father Bill Burke and CCCB Publications Director Dr. Glenn Byer have met with Salt and Light CEO Father Thomas Rosica, C.S.B. The scripts to be used are completed. Salt and Light will do filming in May and June and then, after editing and production, the two DVDs will be ready for distribution by the end of August. The first will be a two-hour presentation on the theological emphases of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The second will be an hour-long presentation with a teaching DVD on the structure of the Mass and the meaning of each part of the Mass. The National Liturgy Office will provide a packet of material including suggested workshop formats and questions for discussion at the parish level.

Finally, early in September, we will have CDs ready with a cantor singing a dozen or so of the new prefaces to assist priests who do not read music but would like to sing the prefaces.

If you have any questions or concerns about the implementation of the English translation of the revised Missal for use in Canada, or about the catechetical materials being planned for its implementation, please do not hesitate to call me.

With every good and prayerful wish on our Lenten journey, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ Our Lord,

(Rev. Msgr.) Patrick Powers, P.H.
General Secretary

An Airport Encounter

My heart aches for the many many good priests. Abp Timothy Dolan shares a (very well-handled, in my opinion) soul-shaking meeing he had recently, regarding the accusations of sexual abuse by priests

An Airport Encounter

Tickled Pink!

Breadgirl from Last Welsh Martyr has just passed an award to me (several months ago) .  I am thrilled and thankful!

I am now to offer this award to 15 blogs of my choosing.  Unfortunately I don't follow that many blogs!  So the ones I choose will be 

1. Ask Sister Mary Martha

2. Vivicat

3.  Mary's Anawim

4. Catholic and Enjoying It

5.What are We Waiting For?

6. According to Ruth Ann

7.  I Have to Sit Down 

8. LAST WELSH MARTYR

A deep thought...

"Cute" is not a liturgical term.

Bell Expressvu Plans to drop EWTN Programming

In this link is a suggestion for those who will miss EWTN when it leaves their ExpressVu channel selection.

Don't let Bell push you around.

Key to the situation

It has occurred to me that I do not have anything written here on Papal Succession.  What is it?  Why do we have a Pope?


Certainly, having a Pope is one thing that sets Catholicism apart from other parts of the Christian world.

Papal Succession is the connection between the current Pope and St. Peter, the Apostle to whom Jesus gave the "Keys to the Kingdom".

Although the term "Pope" is not in Scripture (neither is the word "Trinity") the idea of an earthly leader for a Heavenly institution is.

  Matthew 16:18 shows Jesus recognizing Simon/Peter's faith and telling him that that is the rock (petra/petros in Greek, kephas or cephas in Aramiac) on which the Church would be built.  Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom.

The giving of the keys is an allusion to the Hebrew Scripture Isaiah 22:22 where we see the king giving the keys of his kingdom to a minister, who is in charge of running the affairs of the kingdom.  One who holds the keys is in charge.

Peter was in charge of Jesus' earthly kingdom, the Church.

Since apostolic time, every bishop has been ordained by someone who was ordained by a bishop who ultimately was ordained by an apostle.  Popes are chosen from those who are ordained (or who can immediately be ordained) bishops.  Therefore Popes are descended from the Apostles.

This is part of what makes us Apostolic, as stated in the Nicene Creed ("I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"). 

There is a question in some circles as to whether the present Pope is valid.  Some say there hasn't been a valid Pope since the 1960s or thereabouts.

A major problem with this is that the few living bishops who are considered by these folks as validly ordained are very elderly.  They will not live much longer.  IF they are in fact the only validly ordained bishops, and a Pope is not soon chosen from among them (which is unlikely, as the past several popes have actually been cardinals and younger than these few pre-Vatican II bishops) before they die, apostolic succession will have ended.

Unless the world ends first, this cannot happen. We are told that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.  If the Church should run out of eligible candidates for the Papacy, I think it can be safely said that the gates of Hell have prevailed.  One of the four marks of the Church will have been erased.

Why would God allow this to happen? 

Wake Me Up for the Parousia

Happy New Year

It's been a while since I've been here, that's for sure.  I have been busy.  I am still trying to figure out why I'm sick, to try to get myself back into 'fighting trim' as a member of the Church Militant.

Or is it the Church Somnolent?

My faithful followers, and my other friends, will know that I have a 'thing' for liturgy...at one time I described it as a passion.  The past few years have pretty much eliminated the possiblity of my name and 'passion' occurring in the same sentence.  It is hard to get excited about things.  But I'm trying.

I think it's getting better.  Every so often I get flickers of my old self.  Well, my old liturgical zealot self.  Something gets me moving.

Something like listening to people complain about the choir.  Warning...do NOT complain about the choir in my presence!  It is not healthy.

Our esteemed choir leader decided that we should learn to chant the Our Father, according to the Mass setting we've been using for Ordinary Time for several years now.  It's a nice setting, and very easy to learn, as these things go.  She had the support of both Father and the choir in doing this.

But people will talk.  They will grouse and moan.  And they will try to pass opinion off as valid criticism.  Cries of "Liturgically Incorrect" were summarily dealt with.  Education had the effect of silencing most

Life has been made difficult for at least a couple of people in this process.  And that couple of people really have far better things to be doing with their time than trying to entertain those who will not be entertained except by being catered to.

Why DO people do this?  Why does one suppose his taste in anything should be imposed on many, when the many are not doing anything wrong?

The Church needs people to be involved and dedicated and devout.  The Church does NOT need people trying to run the 'show' when they are governed more by their personal thoughts and desires than by the Church's teachings.

The Church does not need people who are there to be entertained.  Hmm.  Perhaps it is this type of Churchgoer who inspired the idea that "religion is the opiate of the masses" (Karl Marx).  Does this mean the Mass is an opiate?  Hah.  There's that "Church Somnolent" thing again.

No.  As was said by Pius XII and many after him, we are called to full active and conscious participation in liturgy.  Nothing sleepy about that.  Nothing sleep-inducing about that, except perhaps the peace that one may come to because of that participation.

So, anyway...this has pulled me out of hibernation.

Good liturgy...resistance is futile.

God Bless

Another excellent Christmas article

by someone else!

http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/putting-the-christmas-back-in-christ.html

Have a Blessed Christmas

What Time is Midnight Mass?

This article is not written by me, but it is nonetheless heartfelt.  But what can you expect when not only does 'convenience' reign supreme, but even people who really should know better do not know the difference between a vigil Mass and an 'anticipated' Mass.

I do agree that Saturday night Masses do confuse.

Fr. De Souza's article reminds me of the article I wrote after last year's Easter Vigil Mass.

As it turns out, "Midnight" Mass is at 10 pm at our chapel for the first time in years.

Not impressed.

Advent Memories

Today is the First Sunday of Advent.

This causes me to fondly remember a fellow who helped with the first RCIA series I taught.

He was an RCIA veteran, as well as being a retired firefighter.  He would mildly chastise me if I forgot something important like closing the evenings with a prayer (yikes) or if I cut my baby's amazing mop of hair.

He had a charming sense of humour and loved to be of service.

When Advent came that year, he surprised me and the rest of the RCIA group by showing up with a lovely handmade Advent wreath, and kits he had put together for each of the candidates to take home and complete.

And then he presented me with the wreath he had made to show everyone.

I still have that wreath.  I am not always good about having it out and ready on time, but I do always think of it...and the fellow who made it for my family.

I only taught with him for the one year.  He was diagnosed with cancer over the summer and died very quickly.  I suppose that was a mercy for him and for his dear wife.

Advent always brings his memory back.  Rest in Peace, Ray!

Condoms and Catholicism

The mainstream media has once again gotten all excited about what they've perceived as a weakness in the Church's stance on something.  In this case it's condoms.

The Pope, bless him, made a statement about how the use of a condom by a male prostitute may show that he's developing a moral sense.

No, this does not mean that the Church endorses condom use...ever.

But is the Church against condoms?  Is the Church against guns?  Garden tractors?

A condom is a piece of rubber (or something).  In and of itself it has no morality.

It is its frequent use as a means of birth control that is the problem.  If a male (presumably homosexual) prostitute uses a condom, it is not going to be for birth control.  So the Holy Father can actually see the USE of a condom, with the intent to reduce harm, as a sign of a good development.  That there is a condom involved is rather peripheral.  The user is showing concern for the other party and attempting to prevent further evil from occurring, in the form of disease. 

I've seen this likened to someone seeing that a murderer stops torturing his victims before killing them as a sign of a developing sense of compassion.  The murder is still obviously evil, but it is not compounded evil.

The Holy Father, by making statements such as the latest one public, is showing that he believes we have the intelligence to understand what he is saying.  He is not dumbing things down for us.

Let's respond by showing that we do have the intelligence he knows is there, and thinking with the mind of the Church.

And I do thank the poster at Catholic Answers for being the catalyst for this post.

Borrowed: The Story of Halloween

Halloween: The Real Story! Father Augustine Thompson, O.P., We’ve all heard the allegations. Halloween is a pagan rite dating back to some pre-Christian festival among the Celtic Druids that escaped Church suppression. Even today modern pagans and witches continue to celebrate this ancient festival. If you let your kids go trick-or-treating, they will be worshiping the devil and pagan gods. Nothing could be further from the truth. The origins of Halloween are, in fact, very Christian and rather American. Halloween falls on October 31 because of a pope, and its observances are the result of medieval Catholic piety. It’s true that the ancient Celts of Ireland and Britain celebrated a minor festival on Oct. 31 — as they did on the last day of most other months of the year. However, Halloween falls on the last day of October because the Feast of All Saints or "All Hallows" falls on Nov. 1. The feast in honor of all the saints in heaven used to be celebrated on May 13, but Pope Gregory III (d. 741) moved it to Nov. 1, the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter’s at Rome. Later, in the 840s, Pope Gregory IV commanded that All Saints be observed everywhere. And so the holy day spread to Ireland. The day before was the feast’s evening vigil, "All Hallows Even" or "Hallowe’en." In those days, Halloween didn’t have any special significance for Christians or for long-dead Celtic pagans. In 998, St. Odilo, the abbot of the powerful monastery of Cluny in Southern France, added a celebration on Nov. 2. This was a day of prayer for the souls of all the faithful departed. This feast, called All Souls Day, spread from France to the rest of Europe. So now the Church had feasts for all those in heaven and all those in purgatory? What about those in the other place? It seems Irish Catholic peasants wondered about the unfortunate souls in hell. After all, if the souls in hell are left out when we celebrate those in heaven and purgatory, they might be unhappy enough to cause trouble. So it became customary to bang pots and pans on All Hallows Even to let the damned know they were not forgotten. Thus, in Ireland, at least, all the dead came to be remembered — even if the clergy were not terribly sympathetic to Halloween and never allowed All Damned Day into the Church calendar. But that still isn’t our celebration of Halloween. Our traditions on this holiday centers around dressing up in fanciful costumes, which isn’t Irish at all. Rather, this custom arose in France during the 14th and 15th centuries. Late medieval Europe was hit by repeated outbreaks of the bubonic plague — the Black Death — and she lost about half her population. It is not surprising that Catholics became more concerned about the afterlife. More Masses were said on All Souls’ Day, and artistic representations were devised to remind everyone of their own mortality. We know these representations as the "Dance Macabre" or "Dance of Death," which was commonly painted on the walls of cemeteries and shows the devil leading a daisy chain of people — popes, kings, ladies, knights, monks, peasants, lepers, etc. — into the tomb. Sometimes the dance was presented on All Souls’ Day itself as a living tableau with people dressed up in the garb of various states of life. But the French dressed up on All Souls, not Halloween; and the Irish, who had Halloween, did not dress up. How the two became mingled probably happened first in the British colonies of North America during the 1700s when Irish and French Catholics began to intermarry. The Irish focus on hell gave the French masquerades and even more macabre twist. But, as every young ghoul knows, dressing up isn’t the point; the point is getting as many goodies as possible. Where on earth did "trick or treat" come in? "Trick or treat" is perhaps the oddest and most American addition to Halloween, and is the unwilling contribution of English Catholics. During the penal period of the 1500s to the 1700s in England, Catholics had no legal rights. They could not hold office and were subject to fines, jail and heavy taxes. It was a capital offense to say Mass, and hundreds of priests were martyred. Occasionally, English Catholics resisted, sometimes foolishly. One of the most foolish acts of resistance was a plot to blow up the Protestant King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. This was supposed to trigger a Catholic uprising against their oppressors. The ill-conceived Gunpowder Plot was foiled on Nov. 5, 1605, when the man guarding the gunpowder, a reckless convert named Guy Fawkes, was captured and arrested. He was hanged; the plot fizzled. Nov. 5, Guy Fawkes’ Day, became a great celebration in England, and so it remains. During the penal periods, bands of revelers would put on masks and visit local Catholics in the dead of night, demanding beer and cakes for their celebration: trick or treat! Guy Fawkes’ Day arrived in the American colonies with the first English settlers. But, buy the time of the American Revolution, old King James and Guy Fawkes had pretty much been forgotten. Trick or treat, though, was too much fun to give up, so eventually it moved to Oct. 31, the day of the Irish-French masquerade. And in America, trick or treat wasn’t limited to Catholics. The mixture of various immigrant traditions we know as Halloween had become a fixture in the Unites States by the early 1800s. To this day, it remains unknown in Europe, even in the countries from which some of the customs originated. But what about witches? Well, they are one of the last additions. The greeting card industry added them in the late 1800s. Halloween was already "ghoulish," so why not give witches a place on greeting cards? The Halloween card failed (although it has seen a recent resurgence in popularity), but the witches stayed. So, too, in the late 1800s, ill-informed folklorists introduced the jack-o’-lantern. They thought that Halloween was druidic and pagan in origin. Lamps made from turnips (not pumpkins) had been part of ancient Celtic harvest festivals, so they were translated to the American Halloween celebration. The next time someone claims that Halloween is a cruel trick to lure your children into devil worship, I suggest you tell them the real origin of All Hallows Even and invite them to discover its Christian significance, along with the two greater and more important Catholic festivals that follow it. Be sure to check out - All Saint's Day by Dr. D'Ambrosio All Soul's Day by Dr. D'Ambrosio This article is written by Father Augustine Thompson, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia and reprinted here with his permission.

Who is the Pharisee?

Not long ago, someone used the term Pharisee in my combox.  This term, or its adjective 'Pharisaical' get tossed around quite a bit in the Catholic world.

Its been tossed in my general direction more than once.  I would like to examine what this term seemed to mean when Jesus used it and what it has come to mean today.

In the Gospel of Matthew we hear the term a few times.  It ranks right up there with 'hypocrite' in Jesus' Good Book!  Not a term of endearment then, it is not a term of endearment now, either.

If we are going to toss, or have tossed at us, a term, I think we should know what it means.

The Pharisees were a Jewish sect that arose during the 2nd century BC.  They were not the 'ruling' sect but were known to be keepers of the Law (Torah).  They believed in life after death.  They called to faithfulness to The Law even in the face of potential martyrdom.  They believed in the oral tradition of the Torah, as opposed to the literal view of the Torah held by the Sadducees.  They tried to impose the purity rituals outside of the Temple. They may have had a great effect on the building of the Second Temple.

The Pharisees were the most popular sect among the general Jewish population and we would see their practices today as the most democratic.  We can also see how their beliefs echo in Christianity.  They believed in the resurrection of the dead.  They believed in free will, but they also believed that God knew what would ultimately happen.  They believed that all adults should follow the Law, not just the priests...in order to create a holy nation.

Some Pharisees were certainly stricter with regard to following the Law than were others.  In a Jewish document called the Talmud, seven types of Pharisee are described.  Only one of the seven types can easily be seen in a favourable light.  It would seem that Pharisees knew they were not perfect and were not always loving toward God.

I find it interesting to note that after the destruction of the Second Temple, of all the sects that were in the Temple only the Pharisees emerged in any recognizable form.  They are considered by many to be the precursors to Rabbinic Judaism, which is the most common form today.

So what was it about the Pharisees that Jesus was criticizing so harshly?  They are referred to, in the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 15 gives us a good look) as a 'brood of vipers', a white-washed sepulchre and other un-kind terms.

There seem to be a couple of things going on here.  Jesus seemed pretty clear that he did not like those who were so intent on the Law that they ended up violating God's other laws (Matthew 15:4-5).  In Matthew 16, the Pharisees got it again when Jesus pointed out that they weren't watching the signs.  According to the notes in the New American Bible (NAB), Jesus was indicating that the Pharisees could not see the coming of the new Kingdom.

Later in the same chapter, the disciples are told to reject the leaven of the Pharisees.  Again from the NAB, leaven is seen to mean teaching.  By telling his disciples to reject the teachings of the Pharisees, He is paving the way for the new, messianic Kingdom.

In Matthew 23: 24, we get the gnat/camel reference.  Jesus is telling them that they are ignoring larger laws by getting hung up on little ones. In verses 25-26 the Pharisees are being called to task for showy, outward displays of piety that have little actual devotion behind them.

It goes on...

In my experience, the invective "Pharisee" is usually lobbed by someone who has a problem with a particular teaching of Catholicism, or perhaps has a problem with her authority generally.

Liturgy is a fine example.  Catholic liturgy, particularly the Mass, has a structure to it.  In the Roman Missal are found the rubrics for the Mass.  In the simplist form, a priest is to "Say the black and do the red", black being the spoken parts of the Mass, the red being the actions of the Mass.

People trying to improve liturgical standards (ie. 'follow the rules') are seen as unbending, uncharitable etc.  Sometimes we probably are, and for THAT we can be chastised.  But should we be chastised for following the rules given to us?

In the case of liturgy, I think this is not a valid chastisement.  The Mass is something we share we all participants throughout the world and throughout Christian history.  It is all the same Mass.  In a sense, the Mass is a window to Heaven.  When one, cleric or lay-person enforces changes of his or her own authority, it is as if they get fingerprints on that window to heaven, and cloud the view.  Liturgical law is there to keep that window clear.  We owe it to all mass-goers through time and history.

In the case of someone who seeks to follow non-liturgical Church law, a similar principal applies.  If something being adhered to is a valid Church law (doctrine, dogma...) we are supposed to do our best to adhere to it.  If we do that with pride and showiness, then certainly the pride is to be chastised.  If someone is merely going through the motions to make him or herself appear good, well that is a sin as well.  Calling someone a Pharisee simply because they insist on following the law is making a judgement call on their motives and the state of the soul...and we are NOT supposed to judge that.

The problem is not adherence to the law. Jesus tells us to follow the commandments, to do as he tells us.  Given the the Church is the Body of Christ with Christ as its head, then we are to follow the Church as well.

And those rule-following Pharisees were the ones who survived the destruction of the Temple.  A sort of Jewish 'remnant'.  Hmmm.

I know there are many different references that could be called upon here with regard to obedience, tradition and law and this post could keep me busy for days.  For now, I will end with this:

We must all be mindful of our tendency to sin, including that always sneaky sin of Pride.  Given what I've just learned of Pharisees though, I'd say that they were not necessarily a whole lot worse than the rest of us.  They had a lot of good going for them that is not mentioned in Scripture.  They were however a visible representation in Jesus' time of the Jewish status quo, and I think maybe that's why they were held up as an example of what not to do.

Naming Hope

I deal with at least three chronic conditions.  None are fatal, but they can render life rather challenging.

In trying to improve my health, lately I have been researching my diagnoses.  I have discovered that many people seem to become 'diagnosis collectors'.

I think I might have this tendency, so what I say bears no malice whatsoever!

One has to wonder why people become collectors of diagnoses.  I think I may have it.  It has to do with hope.

It seems people believe that if they find just find the right diagnosis, the illness can be cured, or at least successfully treated. 

In the case of some illnesses, of course this is true.  In the case of far too many others it is not.  At least not now.  There are a host of conditions which the medical community has trouble diagnosing, never mind treating.  Two different conditions may be given the same diagnosis, depending on the practitioner, and many conditions seem to show up together.

I think people find it important to be able to put a name to what is bothering them.  I know I do.

Many times in life I've found myself bothered by something persistently, and it's not until I figure out the source that the problem goes away...often almost immediately!  I have sometimes found myself restless and it's not until days later that I realize that I have somehow been reminded of something unpleasant, which is trying to pull itself out of the dark corners of my mind.

I think this is why some of us go after diagnoses.

In Madeleine L'Engle's books (the Wrinkle in Time series.  It's been so long I cannot remember exactly in which this book this occurred) Meg, the protagonist, ends up embracing and naming the Echthroi.  If memory serves, this removes the evil power of the Echthroi.

I am not, of course, advocating embracing evil for any reason, but Meg's action of naming the evil that had been plaguing her family really struck a chord with me. 

For those who are ill, I think the search for a workable diagnosis gives hope.  When you have hope, you have a reason to keep going.  For those who do not have friends and supportive family (and I am discovering how truly blessed I am to have both!) hope may be all they have.

This Canuck is not so happy today.

Arrest of peaceful Pro-Life protesters 

This happened yesterday at Carleton University in our national capital, Ottawa.

Be proud Canadians. 

Can you think of any other peaceful protest that would be worthy of arrest on a university campus?

I can't.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Socialism

From the Christian point of view material necessities are to be kept at a minimum, and material superfluities as far as possible to be dispensed with altogether. The Christian is a soldier and a pilgrim who requires material things only as a means to fitness and nothing more. In this he has the example of Christ Himself, Who came to earth with a minimum of material advantages and persisted thus even to the Cross. The Christian, then, not only from the individual but also from the social standpoint, has chosen the better part. He does not despise this life, but, just because his material desires are subordinate to his spiritual ones, he lives it much more reasonably, much more unselfishly, much more beneficially to his neighbours. The point, too, which he makes against the Socialist is this. The Socialist wishes to distribute material goods in such a way as to establish a substantial equality, and in order to do this he requires the State to make and keep this distribution compulsory. The Christian replies to him: "You cannot maintain this widespread distribution, for the simple reason that you have no machinery for inducing men to desire it. On the contrary, you do all you can to increase the selfish and accumulative desires of men: you centre and concentrate all their interest on material accumulation, and then expect them to distribute their goods." This ultimate difference between Christian and Socialist teaching must be clearly understood. Socialism appropriates all human desires and centres them on the here-and-now, on material benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more and never feel satisfaction. In this Socialism and Capitalism are at one, for their only quarrel is over the bone upon which is the meat that perisheth. Socialism, of itself and by itself, can do nothing to diminish or discipline the immediate and materialistic lust of men, because Socialism is itself the most exaggerated and universalized expression of this lust yet known to history. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches and practices unselfish distribution of material goods, both according to the law of justice and according to the law of charity.

Food for thought.

This link was sent to me by a friend this morning, and I decided to share it.  At this point I have no idea who produced the clip, so if anyone can enlighten me, please do.

Have a great day!

The Vortex

Hi Folks

I am passing along a link (in the title) to one in an ongoing series of teachings on the Catholic Faith.

Real Catholic TV, so far, has covered many topics of various interest, including current events.  None of these episodes are shy about proclaiming Church teaching as it really is.

Watch and be edified.

Marty Haugen, pre-Vatican II style

Marty Haugen, pre-Vatican II style

Why did they bother? It wasn't great in English.