Recently, Christian Bale tried to visit the home and pro-life activist, Chen Guangcheng. Chen has been jailed for his efforts to document forced abortions of women in China. He was released, however he is under house arrest. Some reports state some of the charges may be trumped up.
Christian was roughed up by Chinese security guards who hold Chen under lockdown. Christian was inspired by Chen, and wanted to "shake his hand." Christian could not understand why the Chinese security guards would prevent him from seeing Chen, however, it is clear from China's human rights abuses why they would not allow such a thing.
This should be no surprise to anyone who follows China, that they have little respect for the human person. They have their own version of Gulags, and frequently lock up "dissidents" like Catholic bishops.
His Visit Will Not Go Unheard
Frequently the person under house arrest will hear of the attempted visit, and will take heart from it. Isolation is a big problem for the persecuted. To think that no one knows your plight can cause depression. This was the case with Nelson Mandela, who was allowed visitors only once every six months (Nelson Mandela, Memoirs).
For trying to visit a pro-life activist, Christian Bale showed civic heroism, though he has denied this. China is not your friendly neighborhood. It is far from it. So despite his protests, he demonstrated civic virtue in his visit, even if he may have been a bit impatient at times...but so have many.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Latin Mass Onliers
A schismatic tendency in Latin Mass Onliers has been a denigration of the Vernacular Mass. They present this argument as if it is objectively true that the Latin Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo. They get snarky, as one canon lawyer contemplated about himself, about the Latin Mass, as if it is obviously better.
This is fundamental disobedience. As the canon lawyer in this link, stated, as quoted by Fr. Z., the bishop can issue a decree forbidding the Latin Mass. However, even though he has recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship, he has to stop the Mass (my comment). If he wins his recourse, he can continue it. This shows the Latin Mass is not objectively superior, since they Church would never stop such a good.
Moral Law
Unlike Canon Law, which in most part can be changed, Moral Law cannot. We are always obligated to follow the Moral Law (including the Ten Commandments) even should our death be the result. If this were true about the Latin Mass, we would be obliged to always attend it regardless of the circumstances or a bishops' decree.
As attributed, this Canonist says:
Extremism
Of course, these are extreme examples of disobedience of Vatican Norms. However, they are very present, and people are being unduly influenced by them.
If this is the disobedience that the Latin Mass brings about in people, perhaps we should be done with it [ficetiously said]. We should abandon the Latin Mass because it causes disobedience [more facetiousness].
Or perhaps, we should respect the laity's desire to hear the Mass in their own language. Jesus did with his first Mass.
This is fundamental disobedience. As the canon lawyer in this link, stated, as quoted by Fr. Z., the bishop can issue a decree forbidding the Latin Mass. However, even though he has recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship, he has to stop the Mass (my comment). If he wins his recourse, he can continue it. This shows the Latin Mass is not objectively superior, since they Church would never stop such a good.
Moral Law
Unlike Canon Law, which in most part can be changed, Moral Law cannot. We are always obligated to follow the Moral Law (including the Ten Commandments) even should our death be the result. If this were true about the Latin Mass, we would be obliged to always attend it regardless of the circumstances or a bishops' decree.
As attributed, this Canonist says:
Perhaps at 3:00 p.m. [sic] in the afternoon, in a sidel chapel, after the heat in the church ahs been turned off, and while a janitor is cleaning the rest of the church with a loud buffer. (a bit too snarky?) [sic]Yes, very snarky. Yet, a Bishop's Conference is obliged to consider:
The pastoral care of the faithful requires from every bishops' conference that their physical health is also taken into account (Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care Migrants and Intinerant Peoples).The canonist above would not care for their physical health. What about the elderly? So Fr. Z. and the canonist would have the elderly suffering during Mass, possibly get pneumonia, since they want to attend the Mass in English. This, of course would be a violation of papal teaching against the fourth commandment (i.e. doing harm).
Extremism
Of course, these are extreme examples of disobedience of Vatican Norms. However, they are very present, and people are being unduly influenced by them.
If this is the disobedience that the Latin Mass brings about in people, perhaps we should be done with it [ficetiously said]. We should abandon the Latin Mass because it causes disobedience [more facetiousness].
Or perhaps, we should respect the laity's desire to hear the Mass in their own language. Jesus did with his first Mass.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The Case of Schismatic Apologists
In case you did not know, several apologists seem to have stepped on the line of schism over the years. Some seemed to have stepped over. Gerry Matatics (see below) comes to mind, a fervent Catholic apologist who defended the faith, yet fell into schismatic traditionalism.
Schismatic Apologists Online
There are several schismatics (calling themselves Catholics) who perform apologetics online. This blog is not intended to be a laundry list of them, but to generally examine a couple of their positions.
Dimond Brothers
Michael and Peter Dimond have taken to debating with the Vatican, taking to attacking Vatican II, Current and past Post-Vatican II popes and other unpopular positions (to Sedes) such as the Novus Ordo (Post-Vatican II Mass).
Robert Sungenis
Currently Robert disagrees with the beatification of Pope John Paul II. He points to errors of judgement in his pontificate, saying they had to separate his pontificate from his cause for the first time in history.
Gerry Matatics
Gerry Matatics states that he believes in no salvation outside the Church. A strict position of "No Salvation Outside the Church" has been condemned by the Holy Office in condeming Fr. Feeney, who said Catholics cannot be saved:
I have address the Issue of Sede Vacantism in another blog. I will not get into it here.
I know Better
Sola Scriptura (using Scripture alone to interpret) and Sola Traditio (interpreting Tradition by personal judgement) cause these errors. In reading pontifical and papal-approved conciliar documents, we are not privately interpret them. We are rather to refer to other papal documents in interpreting such documents. This is because we individually have not been given infallibility, but it has been given to the pope, the bishops in union with the pope, or the Catholic Faithful as a whole.
No one knows better. Even the pope in his personal judgement does not know better. Rather, in view of his office as the successor of Peter, do we have a reliable interpretation.
Schismatic Apologists Online
There are several schismatics (calling themselves Catholics) who perform apologetics online. This blog is not intended to be a laundry list of them, but to generally examine a couple of their positions.
Dimond Brothers
Michael and Peter Dimond have taken to debating with the Vatican, taking to attacking Vatican II, Current and past Post-Vatican II popes and other unpopular positions (to Sedes) such as the Novus Ordo (Post-Vatican II Mass).
Robert Sungenis
Currently Robert disagrees with the beatification of Pope John Paul II. He points to errors of judgement in his pontificate, saying they had to separate his pontificate from his cause for the first time in history.
Gerry Matatics
Gerry Matatics states that he believes in no salvation outside the Church. A strict position of "No Salvation Outside the Church" has been condemned by the Holy Office in condeming Fr. Feeney, who said Catholics cannot be saved:
“These things are clearly taught [in the Encyclical on the Mystical Body], in it the Supreme Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who actually are incorporated into the Church as members, and those who adhere to the Church only by way of votum (will)...” (The Holy Office).Sede Vacantism
I have address the Issue of Sede Vacantism in another blog. I will not get into it here.
I know Better
Sola Scriptura (using Scripture alone to interpret) and Sola Traditio (interpreting Tradition by personal judgement) cause these errors. In reading pontifical and papal-approved conciliar documents, we are not privately interpret them. We are rather to refer to other papal documents in interpreting such documents. This is because we individually have not been given infallibility, but it has been given to the pope, the bishops in union with the pope, or the Catholic Faithful as a whole.
No one knows better. Even the pope in his personal judgement does not know better. Rather, in view of his office as the successor of Peter, do we have a reliable interpretation.
Monday, November 28, 2011
The Beauty of the Norvus Ordo
Much ado has been made by Traditionalists about the words of the Mass; "...and be with your Spirit," "It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins…”
These are more accurate and precise meanings, the traditionalists say. Some infer, that the changes in the Mass led to the corruption of souls.
Much Ado About Nothing?
While it is true that a more precise translation it useful, there is another problem. The Traditionalists argue a more exact translation will make Catholics more Orthodox in their belief. Some even argue they will be more faithful Catholics. However, the statistics do not really bear this out. Mass attendance was at about 45%, in the United States, before Vatican II. Currently it is about 45% (after going above 60% after Vatican II).
In other Countries, Mass attendance has risen, including in Brazil. These Countries have the Novus Ordo (Mass in their native languages).
And Be With Your Spirit
While the new changes say "be with your spirit" the priest himself says "the Lord by with you." What is the point of "be with your spirit?" Is it to emphasize the primacy of the soul in Salvation? If this is the case, fine.
Are we also saying to the minister that we do not care about the welfare of his body? This is not fine. I will not belabor this point, however.
For Many
The phrase "will be shed for many, in the Greek ("sozo") can also mean "some" or "all." So the Greek language does not make a big deal about the translation.
It is a more faithful translation to the Latin, but the Greek, in which language we have the New Testament written, makes no such distinction. This seems a bit of a moot point to me.
Sure, be faithful to the Latin. However, know the Greek does not support scrupulosity.
The Beauty of the Novus Ordo
Several major apologists and theologians have been converted by the Novus Ordo Mass, including Scott Hahn. Scott attended a Novus Ordo Mass and saw (through the use of the English language) how the Mass is Scripture from beginning to end. If the Mass was in Latin, this would not have been possible unless Scott was fluent in Latin.
The First Mass
The first mass was in a common language of the Jewish people - Hebrew. First Century Jews in Palestine, celebrated Jewish ceremonies in Hebrew. Thus it is most likely that the first Mass was spoken in Hebrew. Hebrew was the English of its day in Israel, it was a common tongue.
Now, some traditionalists think that there is a magical power to Latin. I do not say this facetiously, however. They have attributed to Latin almost god-like powers. They say things such as: Ending the latin Mass caused the corruption of the Church, The Church was not ready for the changes, the changes were not natural, etc.
So the changes are now natural? After 40 years of the Novus Ordo we are to revert back to Latin?
I am sure this is what the traditionalists want.
Disobedience, Disobedience, Disobedience
I have talked to many people, including relatives, who would not attend Mass in the 90s because it was not in latin. Many people have been away from the Catholic Church for decades because of this. Mel Gibson is a person who is a Latin Mass onlier. As if the words in Latin alone, will save anyone.
This is, in large part, why we have the indult Latin Mass. Because Catholics have their affectations they may put before Christ. It seems sometimes Latin is their God, not the Hebrew-ceremony-performing Christ.
Obedience, Obedience, Obedience
Regardless of the translation, obedience to the current form of the Mass is paramount. Your heart is tested by your obedience. You desire what is good, when you have holiness within you. You desire what is bad, when you have sin dwelling within. Are you obedient, regardless?
Questions for Consideration:
+Blessed by the Lord, in his angels, Novus Ordo Mass, Latin Mass and his Saints.
These are more accurate and precise meanings, the traditionalists say. Some infer, that the changes in the Mass led to the corruption of souls.
Much Ado About Nothing?
While it is true that a more precise translation it useful, there is another problem. The Traditionalists argue a more exact translation will make Catholics more Orthodox in their belief. Some even argue they will be more faithful Catholics. However, the statistics do not really bear this out. Mass attendance was at about 45%, in the United States, before Vatican II. Currently it is about 45% (after going above 60% after Vatican II).
In other Countries, Mass attendance has risen, including in Brazil. These Countries have the Novus Ordo (Mass in their native languages).
And Be With Your Spirit
While the new changes say "be with your spirit" the priest himself says "the Lord by with you." What is the point of "be with your spirit?" Is it to emphasize the primacy of the soul in Salvation? If this is the case, fine.
Are we also saying to the minister that we do not care about the welfare of his body? This is not fine. I will not belabor this point, however.
For Many
The phrase "will be shed for many, in the Greek ("sozo") can also mean "some" or "all." So the Greek language does not make a big deal about the translation.
It is a more faithful translation to the Latin, but the Greek, in which language we have the New Testament written, makes no such distinction. This seems a bit of a moot point to me.
Sure, be faithful to the Latin. However, know the Greek does not support scrupulosity.
The Beauty of the Novus Ordo
Several major apologists and theologians have been converted by the Novus Ordo Mass, including Scott Hahn. Scott attended a Novus Ordo Mass and saw (through the use of the English language) how the Mass is Scripture from beginning to end. If the Mass was in Latin, this would not have been possible unless Scott was fluent in Latin.
The First Mass
The first mass was in a common language of the Jewish people - Hebrew. First Century Jews in Palestine, celebrated Jewish ceremonies in Hebrew. Thus it is most likely that the first Mass was spoken in Hebrew. Hebrew was the English of its day in Israel, it was a common tongue.
Now, some traditionalists think that there is a magical power to Latin. I do not say this facetiously, however. They have attributed to Latin almost god-like powers. They say things such as: Ending the latin Mass caused the corruption of the Church, The Church was not ready for the changes, the changes were not natural, etc.
So the changes are now natural? After 40 years of the Novus Ordo we are to revert back to Latin?
I am sure this is what the traditionalists want.
Disobedience, Disobedience, Disobedience
I have talked to many people, including relatives, who would not attend Mass in the 90s because it was not in latin. Many people have been away from the Catholic Church for decades because of this. Mel Gibson is a person who is a Latin Mass onlier. As if the words in Latin alone, will save anyone.
This is, in large part, why we have the indult Latin Mass. Because Catholics have their affectations they may put before Christ. It seems sometimes Latin is their God, not the Hebrew-ceremony-performing Christ.
Obedience, Obedience, Obedience
Regardless of the translation, obedience to the current form of the Mass is paramount. Your heart is tested by your obedience. You desire what is good, when you have holiness within you. You desire what is bad, when you have sin dwelling within. Are you obedient, regardless?
Questions for Consideration:
- Do I put the Latin or English Mass before obedience to the Church and Christ?
- Do I insist on attending only a Latin Mass and will not attend an English Mass and vice-versa?
- Do I speak my mind about such things are Canon Law commands?
- Can I name five good things about the Novus Ordo (English Mass)?
- Can I name five good things about the Latin Mass?
- Can I resign myself to the will of God as manifested in the good of all peoples, before my preferences?
- Is Christ and his Church first, before all things in my life?
+Blessed by the Lord, in his angels, Novus Ordo Mass, Latin Mass and his Saints.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Crystal Cathedral: A Symbolic Victory
If you have not read the news, the Diocese of Orange has purchased the Crystal Cathedral. It will go through a $50 million renovation which will change the appearance of the Cathedral. Now what is a Cathedral in name only (a Cathedral is the seat of a bishop) will become a Cathedral in truth, since it will not have a bishop in truth.
The Decline of Protestantism
The Crystal Cathedral is a symbol in many ways:
The Decline of Protestantism
The Crystal Cathedral is a symbol in many ways:
- It symbolizes the decline of Protestantism in the United States which is now underway.
- It symbolizes the failure of a false branch of Christianity which has (surprisingly) persisted over five hundred years. Its practice is in major decline.
- It may prophesy the eventual victor of Catholicism.
The Future
What the United States holds for Catholicism is known to the Lord alone. However, in charity, we need to fervently pray for the conversion of Protestants. Objectively, Protestants are in heresy by denying Papal Primacy, a sin which could result in eternal punishment. Receiving communion for Protestants is essential. Along with praying the Rosary, the Eucharist empowers our petitions for others to an incomprehensible degree. Without either, there would be little hope. With both, there is all hope.
Let us pray our separated brothers and sisters may find the peace and victory that comes to them in our Blessed Lord. It seems they have little time left (perhaps 20 years), may they find the path to Holy Mother Church before their brothers and sisters have deserted them completely.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sedevacantism
Sedevacantism is taken from the times between popes, where the "sede" (chair) is "vacante" (vacant). This means we have no pope. Based on the proported immorality of our times, the Sedes believe that there is no pope, because we have immorality among the hierarchy (bishops). This is an interesting theory, because Christ himself said of the Pharisees, the leaders of the time:
Not Me, But What I Say
An often statement by hypocrites is "do what I say, not what I do." This is a true saying, as far as it goes. We are to obey the lawful orders of someone above us, particularly in matters of diocesan discipline and policy, even of they themselves do not obey these orders themselves. Why? Because we look not to them, but to their office. We look not to the man, but to the man-Christ. It is his words where are our bond, not the hierarchy.
If you can follow this axiom, you will not be shaken by the faults of popes, bishops and clergy. But you will look elsewhere for examples of sanctity. My bishop does not have to be my spiritual director or confessor, but he is still the shepherd of my diocese, even if he is a horrible one.
Heresy
Sedes also accuse the pope of heresy. This is interesting since the pope determines of what heresy consists. They are much like dogs chasing their tails, when you step back:
They say the Tridentine Mass is immutable, because Pius V said so, but ignore the fact that the first Mass was likely in Hebrew, because it took place during the Jewish celebration of Passover? Well if the Mass has to be in Latin, Jesus violated this by having the first Mass in Hebrew.
The Mass
They say the words "for many" instead of the words "for all" are essential when stating of what the Mass consists. Actually, these words are a "novum" (new way of thinking). Because St. Paul is quite clear:
Either presentation is valid. Either wording is valid. The Sedes seem to be splitting hairs in this regard.
Valid Popes
The Sedes also argue against the validity of the election of popes John XXIII and succeeding popes. They state these popes are heretics, therefore cannot be validly elected. The fact is, none of these popes taught heresy. In fact, in order to be a heretic you have to deny a dogma (summed up in the Nicene Creed). So which pope denied the divinity of Christ?
Invalid Arguments
Only a pope can determine who is a heretic. If you do not have a pope, who can determine that someone is a heretic? Church Councils! the Sedes argue. Yet Church Councils in the past have been overridden by popes. So how can you determine heresy without a pope, again?
Indefectibility
The dogma of indefectibility states, in summary, that the Church cannot fail to be a means of salvation to the world. She cannot (as a whole) defect in her mission to bring the Gospel to the world. Individual parts (parishes, dioceses) of the Church may defect, but the Church as a whole can never defect.
Who safeguards us from defection? The Pope.
The pope strengthens his brothers (Luke 22:32), has the power to bind and loosen by himself (Matt 16:18), and mission to feed and tend Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17). This means that in order not to defect, we need the pope. If we cannot elect a pope, then we have defected. If John XXIII was not a valid pope, all the cardinals who elected him are dead. Thus, there can never be a valid pope, since there is no one to elect him.
Nice try, Sedes.
In Closing
The real problem is the problem of evil. The problem of evils is stated as, "If there is an all-good God, how can evil exist [in the Church]." The Sedes have no problem with the defection of Judas and his punishment, but somehow when it comes to the modern Church, there is a different standard.
Judas was an Apostle, and therefore had the authority to teach new Revelation. The pope is not an Apostle, therefore cannot teach new Revelation. Therefore, there is less offense to the failure of a bishop, than that of an Apostle. Even Peter failed in his mission when he denied Jesus three times. So what is the problem?
We will have bishops who fail in their duties, however the Gospel message is still spread. We will have times where heretics plagued the Church, like Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ. However, the Church keeps going on.
Perhaps the Sedes need to learn an old lesson over again:
Make your concerns known to your bishop. But dividing from the Church over non-essential words in the Mass? I think we can be grownups now, and not divide over the non-essentials.
The Essentials of the Mass
The words "This is my body," "This is my blood." Bread and wine. A validly ordained priest. The intention of the priest to confect the Eucharist. Not Latin, not the Tridentine Mass, not English, not the raising of the host (Jesus did not do any of these). None of these are essentials. Not standing, not kneeling (Jesus and his Apostles were reclining, by the way). None of these are essential, thus, none of the Sedes arguments are valid.
Special Note: I removed ads from my webpage, as Google was feeding in advertisements for Mormons among other non-Catholic denominations. That is kinda weird for a Catholic blog...
"Do whatever they tell you, but do not imitate them" (Matthew 23:2).This means we have to obey, although the bishops themselves might not obey their own teaching (i.e. hypocrisy). Regardless of their hypocrisy, Jesus still said to obey them. This means they have authority, regardless of their state of holiness. Why? Because of office is holy, even if the man occupying it is not.
Not Me, But What I Say
An often statement by hypocrites is "do what I say, not what I do." This is a true saying, as far as it goes. We are to obey the lawful orders of someone above us, particularly in matters of diocesan discipline and policy, even of they themselves do not obey these orders themselves. Why? Because we look not to them, but to their office. We look not to the man, but to the man-Christ. It is his words where are our bond, not the hierarchy.
If you can follow this axiom, you will not be shaken by the faults of popes, bishops and clergy. But you will look elsewhere for examples of sanctity. My bishop does not have to be my spiritual director or confessor, but he is still the shepherd of my diocese, even if he is a horrible one.
Heresy
Sedes also accuse the pope of heresy. This is interesting since the pope determines of what heresy consists. They are much like dogs chasing their tails, when you step back:
"The pope taught heresy, yet the pope determines heresy, yet he taught heresy, but he is the supreme Pontiff."Excuse me? They affirm Catholic teaching while denying it? They state the immutability of the Mass, while denying the authority of the pope to determine the rite of the Mass.
They say the Tridentine Mass is immutable, because Pius V said so, but ignore the fact that the first Mass was likely in Hebrew, because it took place during the Jewish celebration of Passover? Well if the Mass has to be in Latin, Jesus violated this by having the first Mass in Hebrew.
The Mass
They say the words "for many" instead of the words "for all" are essential when stating of what the Mass consists. Actually, these words are a "novum" (new way of thinking). Because St. Paul is quite clear:
"Christ died for all..." (2 Cor 5:15).and...
"[Christ Jesus] who gave himself for the redemption of all" (1 Tim 2:6).It seems a moot point. The Church can emphasize the actualized redemption (prime justification) of those who are in a state of grace, or emphasize the first action of God (condign merit) in which Christ merited the redemption of all mankind. God brings about prime justification (justificatio prima) in which God is the first cause (prima causa) to move the soul toward justification.
Either presentation is valid. Either wording is valid. The Sedes seem to be splitting hairs in this regard.
Valid Popes
The Sedes also argue against the validity of the election of popes John XXIII and succeeding popes. They state these popes are heretics, therefore cannot be validly elected. The fact is, none of these popes taught heresy. In fact, in order to be a heretic you have to deny a dogma (summed up in the Nicene Creed). So which pope denied the divinity of Christ?
Invalid Arguments
Only a pope can determine who is a heretic. If you do not have a pope, who can determine that someone is a heretic? Church Councils! the Sedes argue. Yet Church Councils in the past have been overridden by popes. So how can you determine heresy without a pope, again?
Indefectibility
The dogma of indefectibility states, in summary, that the Church cannot fail to be a means of salvation to the world. She cannot (as a whole) defect in her mission to bring the Gospel to the world. Individual parts (parishes, dioceses) of the Church may defect, but the Church as a whole can never defect.
Who safeguards us from defection? The Pope.
The pope strengthens his brothers (Luke 22:32), has the power to bind and loosen by himself (Matt 16:18), and mission to feed and tend Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17). This means that in order not to defect, we need the pope. If we cannot elect a pope, then we have defected. If John XXIII was not a valid pope, all the cardinals who elected him are dead. Thus, there can never be a valid pope, since there is no one to elect him.
Nice try, Sedes.
In Closing
The real problem is the problem of evil. The problem of evils is stated as, "If there is an all-good God, how can evil exist [in the Church]." The Sedes have no problem with the defection of Judas and his punishment, but somehow when it comes to the modern Church, there is a different standard.
Judas was an Apostle, and therefore had the authority to teach new Revelation. The pope is not an Apostle, therefore cannot teach new Revelation. Therefore, there is less offense to the failure of a bishop, than that of an Apostle. Even Peter failed in his mission when he denied Jesus three times. So what is the problem?
We will have bishops who fail in their duties, however the Gospel message is still spread. We will have times where heretics plagued the Church, like Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ. However, the Church keeps going on.
Perhaps the Sedes need to learn an old lesson over again:
"Let (weeds and wheat] grow together until harvest, then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters. "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn...if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them" (Matt 13:25 et. al.).There will always be thistles among the wheat. They will grow together. They will be burned in due time. Do not let the weeds strangle you. If a bishop is not doing what he should, send your donations to Rome. You have to give to the mission of the Church, but the Church does not say in which way you must give.
Make your concerns known to your bishop. But dividing from the Church over non-essential words in the Mass? I think we can be grownups now, and not divide over the non-essentials.
The Essentials of the Mass
The words "This is my body," "This is my blood." Bread and wine. A validly ordained priest. The intention of the priest to confect the Eucharist. Not Latin, not the Tridentine Mass, not English, not the raising of the host (Jesus did not do any of these). None of these are essentials. Not standing, not kneeling (Jesus and his Apostles were reclining, by the way). None of these are essential, thus, none of the Sedes arguments are valid.
Special Note: I removed ads from my webpage, as Google was feeding in advertisements for Mormons among other non-Catholic denominations. That is kinda weird for a Catholic blog...
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Growing Secularism
In case you didn't know, Secularism is growing in the United States. The Pew Forum estimates it at about 12%. This means it has grown from under 1% in the 1990s to about 12% today. This is very disconcerting.
While Catholicism continues to grow, it also has a 76% approval rating among Evangelicals. This is while Evangelicalism continues to shrink. Only 20% of evangelical leaders think Catholics need to be converted. This is much lower from the times of the Westminster Confession, which called the pope the "antichrist."
Secularism
Secularism is divorcing religious life from public life. Even Christians may, wrongly, be secularists. Former Presidential candidate John Kerry is a prime example of a professed Catholic who is "privately against abortion" but would not vote against it.
An atheist is a secularist, he just divorces religion from public life altogether. He just wants to divorce other people's faith from public life, because he has no faith himself.
The Challenge
The Challenge is to convert secularists. How is this best accomplished? Certainly science is foremost in secularists minds. From my experience, to be a Catholic apologist scientist, either a social scientist or physical scientist, often leaves secularists silent at our arguments. To be able to argue the scientific method and link it with examples from doctrines from the Catholic faith is invaluable.
I have converted a few atheists in my day, even though atheism is not my specialty. I continue to increase my knowledge of the physical sciences. However, a social scientist is not what an atheist expects. He expects a fundamentalist who hates science, not one who understands its methods. Knowledge of science is key to facing secularism down, and winning the culture to Christ.
The Sacraments and Prayer
Without the Sacraments and prayer, especially with the rosary, all our efforts are for naught. Grace must permeate our evangelical efforts. Prayer first, evangelism second is my axiom. Without the action of God, beseeched in prayer, there will be no evangelization.
Patience, Patience, Patience
Even for someone who has done evangelization for years, patience can be in short supply. It is important to limit your evangelization time. Every evangelist needs time for himself or herself. I limit my time to 2 hours a day, maximum. On some occassions I go on for 5 hours, but this is rare. We all need time for relaxation and play. Patience will grow, when self-care and self-nurture are part of our daily life.
Final Word
To overcome secularism, we need to start with first principles. God wants the salvation of all mankind (1 Tim 2:4). We must have a foundational trust in this. When we speak in a spirit of humility, good things follow. Even if the intended convert converts years later, we may plant that invincible and irreplaceable seed that was key their conversion.
While Catholicism continues to grow, it also has a 76% approval rating among Evangelicals. This is while Evangelicalism continues to shrink. Only 20% of evangelical leaders think Catholics need to be converted. This is much lower from the times of the Westminster Confession, which called the pope the "antichrist."
Secularism
Secularism is divorcing religious life from public life. Even Christians may, wrongly, be secularists. Former Presidential candidate John Kerry is a prime example of a professed Catholic who is "privately against abortion" but would not vote against it.
An atheist is a secularist, he just divorces religion from public life altogether. He just wants to divorce other people's faith from public life, because he has no faith himself.
The Challenge
The Challenge is to convert secularists. How is this best accomplished? Certainly science is foremost in secularists minds. From my experience, to be a Catholic apologist scientist, either a social scientist or physical scientist, often leaves secularists silent at our arguments. To be able to argue the scientific method and link it with examples from doctrines from the Catholic faith is invaluable.
I have converted a few atheists in my day, even though atheism is not my specialty. I continue to increase my knowledge of the physical sciences. However, a social scientist is not what an atheist expects. He expects a fundamentalist who hates science, not one who understands its methods. Knowledge of science is key to facing secularism down, and winning the culture to Christ.
The Sacraments and Prayer
Without the Sacraments and prayer, especially with the rosary, all our efforts are for naught. Grace must permeate our evangelical efforts. Prayer first, evangelism second is my axiom. Without the action of God, beseeched in prayer, there will be no evangelization.
Patience, Patience, Patience
Even for someone who has done evangelization for years, patience can be in short supply. It is important to limit your evangelization time. Every evangelist needs time for himself or herself. I limit my time to 2 hours a day, maximum. On some occassions I go on for 5 hours, but this is rare. We all need time for relaxation and play. Patience will grow, when self-care and self-nurture are part of our daily life.
Final Word
To overcome secularism, we need to start with first principles. God wants the salvation of all mankind (1 Tim 2:4). We must have a foundational trust in this. When we speak in a spirit of humility, good things follow. Even if the intended convert converts years later, we may plant that invincible and irreplaceable seed that was key their conversion.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Catholic Fantasy Fiction
I have heard many criticisms of Fantasy Fiction in Catholic circles. There have been many blogs about Harry Potter and other fiction being immoral because of the magic involved. Even the pope, prior to his papacy, has spoken on Harry Potter, concerned about young readers and that:
An important point to make, is that Pope Benedict has not spoken on the matter. Only Cardinal Ratzinger did. Thus the statements have no binding authority. They consist of a theological opinion, unless it can be shown that Pope John Paul II had approved the letters.
Full Disclosure
I am a Fantasy Fiction author. For those of you who do not know, I am the author of The Hammer of Justice, a fantasy novel with Catholic underpinnings (read deeply to see them, although some are more obvious). I have considered whether fantasy fiction is moral or not. It is very clear to me that it is, since it is fiction. If I were to portray it realistically, endorsing its practice, I would have failed. In fact, in my novel, I portray sorcerers as practicing evil and juxtapose good clerics against them.
Where I Draw the Line
I have a big problem with realistic magic, that was practiced by witches and sorcerers in that past, favorably portrayed. The Church has been clear about its condemnation of sorcery, and to even suggest that such practice is even morally neutral, is immoral in my book.
Tolkien, of course, is talked about on the Vatican website in a positive light. The challenge with sorcery is to make the word sorcery properly characterized as evil. What do you think?
It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.Cardinal Ratzinger's concerns were correct. Having every wish fulfilled by the wave of a wand, is problematic for Christianity. There is no submission to the will of God in these acts. However, the courage and determination of Harry Potter to protect others shows the virtue of fortitude. So Harry Potter can be a mixed bag.
An important point to make, is that Pope Benedict has not spoken on the matter. Only Cardinal Ratzinger did. Thus the statements have no binding authority. They consist of a theological opinion, unless it can be shown that Pope John Paul II had approved the letters.
Full Disclosure
I am a Fantasy Fiction author. For those of you who do not know, I am the author of The Hammer of Justice, a fantasy novel with Catholic underpinnings (read deeply to see them, although some are more obvious). I have considered whether fantasy fiction is moral or not. It is very clear to me that it is, since it is fiction. If I were to portray it realistically, endorsing its practice, I would have failed. In fact, in my novel, I portray sorcerers as practicing evil and juxtapose good clerics against them.
Where I Draw the Line
I have a big problem with realistic magic, that was practiced by witches and sorcerers in that past, favorably portrayed. The Church has been clear about its condemnation of sorcery, and to even suggest that such practice is even morally neutral, is immoral in my book.
Thus Ex 22:18 condemned the sorceress to death without explanation. Lv 19:26 and 31 prohibited magic, astrology, necromancy and divination; Lv 20:27 added the calling up of spirits. Dt 18:10-11 summed this up by proscribing soothsayers, astrologers, magicians, sorcerers, charmers, those who summoned up ghosts or spirits and those who consulted the dead (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Christian Faith and Demonology).Even J.R.R. Tolkien portrayed sorcerers as evil. The stronghold of Sauron, Dol Goldur (Hill of Sorcery), is described as a dark, evil stronghold. Sauron is, of course, the dark lord and archenemy of Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien, of course, is talked about on the Vatican website in a positive light. The challenge with sorcery is to make the word sorcery properly characterized as evil. What do you think?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Is Alabama's New Immigration Law an Immoral Law?
The New York Times would have you think so. However, the pope has already spoken on the matter:
It is not surprising that the New York Times would support liberal, immoral actions regarding violators of the law. The pope, however, has a different view:
In truth, the pope did not need to say this. Respect for the law is ingrained in Catholics who have been in the Church for a while, except for heterodox Catholics.
What do conservative Catholics want? We want Mexicans to change their own Country, not illegally migrate.
If the leaders are corrupt, change them. If the powerful are abusive, jail them. If the drug cartels are murderous, capture or slay them. Do the right thing. Christian love begins at home.
Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity....States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person.While he urges the bishops to support immigrants, he (see above) has also stated that nations have a right to defend their borders. For the simple, this is confusing, for the informed, it is clear. The pope is against illegal immigration. Keep in mind, he said defend the borders, not fling open the doors. However, as the Church has been clear, we should welcome the legal immigrants, while treating the illegal immigrants with dignity and respect while enforcing the law.
It is not surprising that the New York Times would support liberal, immoral actions regarding violators of the law. The pope, however, has a different view:
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things and foreigners....They obey established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws....So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.This includes our Christian brothers and sisters from Mexico. Respect for the boundaries of the United States needs to be ingrained in foreign nationals.
In truth, the pope did not need to say this. Respect for the law is ingrained in Catholics who have been in the Church for a while, except for heterodox Catholics.
What do conservative Catholics want? We want Mexicans to change their own Country, not illegally migrate.
If the leaders are corrupt, change them. If the powerful are abusive, jail them. If the drug cartels are murderous, capture or slay them. Do the right thing. Christian love begins at home.
Sheep-Stealing?
There is a common saying amongst priests and religious today, that I first encountered in the 1990s. I was visiting the Paulist Community in Washington, D.C. when a priest there said that evangelization of Protestants was "sheep stealing."
I was taken aback by this saying and I did not know what to make of it. Later in the car I thought something like "So Protestants are just another [valid] Christian Community who preach the truth? All the talk of Protestants being in heresy is just overblown?"
I did not know what to think. Not having much theological education at the time, I did not have the arguments to refute it, except several so-called Catholic theologians opinions. Some were orthodox (correct) and some where heterodox (incorrect). This left me confused for a couple years, until I formally studied theology and understood the error. This confusion is the reason we must be careful what are the implications of our belief. To say that we are "sheep stealing" is to imply that Protestant Communities are valid Christian Communities, with correct doctrine. This is not true.
There is No Such Thing as Sheep Stealing (Catholic vs. Protestant & Orthodox)
While there have been agreements between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Communities not to proselytize, this does not infer that the Orthodox have 100% valid doctrine. These agreements are simply pastorally prudential decisions to allow dialogue between the two communities to take place in relative peace.
The Catholic Church is not validating all Orthodox Doctrine, including Papal Primacy and The Filioque (The Generation of The Holy Spirit within God) or Sola Scriptura. They are simply trying to keep the waters of discussion from the storms of upset that occur when an Orthodox or Catholic are converting to the converse faith.
This being said, evangelization is supposed to continue:
It runs counter to reason that anyone in Heaven is a non-Catholic. The Church has been clear, dogmatically, that our Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2853). It has also been clear that Jesus Christ is God. When we enter Heaven, we no longer believe. Belief, in a sense, is transformed into knowledge when we will see God "face to face" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #163).
So a muslim in Heaven continues to be muslim? The Koran is clear that it teaches that Jesus is not God: "it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son" (Koran, Surah 5:92). So, we only have former muslims in Heaven, not a current muslims. Why? Because they behold the face of the Son, who is God. This is antithetical to Islamic doctrine.
While the Church is clear that persons of goodwill can enter Heaven. That is, persons who pursue the Truth to the best of their ability, and are in invincibly ignorance (have no chance to know better). It is also clear that:
The danger for not embracing the truth of the Church, is committing the mortal sin of faith by belief in Relativism. Rather the way of righteousness requires a far holier path.
I was taken aback by this saying and I did not know what to make of it. Later in the car I thought something like "So Protestants are just another [valid] Christian Community who preach the truth? All the talk of Protestants being in heresy is just overblown?"
I did not know what to think. Not having much theological education at the time, I did not have the arguments to refute it, except several so-called Catholic theologians opinions. Some were orthodox (correct) and some where heterodox (incorrect). This left me confused for a couple years, until I formally studied theology and understood the error. This confusion is the reason we must be careful what are the implications of our belief. To say that we are "sheep stealing" is to imply that Protestant Communities are valid Christian Communities, with correct doctrine. This is not true.
There is No Such Thing as Sheep Stealing (Catholic vs. Protestant & Orthodox)
While there have been agreements between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Communities not to proselytize, this does not infer that the Orthodox have 100% valid doctrine. These agreements are simply pastorally prudential decisions to allow dialogue between the two communities to take place in relative peace.
The Catholic Church is not validating all Orthodox Doctrine, including Papal Primacy and The Filioque (The Generation of The Holy Spirit within God) or Sola Scriptura. They are simply trying to keep the waters of discussion from the storms of upset that occur when an Orthodox or Catholic are converting to the converse faith.
This being said, evangelization is supposed to continue:
"For that reason, Saint Paul's words are now more relevant than ever: 'Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!' (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium's particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, 2).While we are to respect other faiths, not forcing our views of people of faith (Dominus Iesus) we must present the truth, even to Christians:
"Today the Church must face other challenges and push forward to new frontiers, both in the initial mission ad gentes and in the new evangelization of those peoples who have already heard Christ proclaimed" (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mission, 30).Are Non-Catholics in Heaven?
It runs counter to reason that anyone in Heaven is a non-Catholic. The Church has been clear, dogmatically, that our Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2853). It has also been clear that Jesus Christ is God. When we enter Heaven, we no longer believe. Belief, in a sense, is transformed into knowledge when we will see God "face to face" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #163).
So a muslim in Heaven continues to be muslim? The Koran is clear that it teaches that Jesus is not God: "it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son" (Koran, Surah 5:92). So, we only have former muslims in Heaven, not a current muslims. Why? Because they behold the face of the Son, who is God. This is antithetical to Islamic doctrine.
While the Church is clear that persons of goodwill can enter Heaven. That is, persons who pursue the Truth to the best of their ability, and are in invincibly ignorance (have no chance to know better). It is also clear that:
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II, Paragraph #14, Lumen Gentium).and...
“...it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions...” (Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church).Is it not time that certain individuals killed relativism in their own hearts? Maybe what they might find is a flourishing desire for the conversion of others, not a condemnation of others as some might fear.
The danger for not embracing the truth of the Church, is committing the mortal sin of faith by belief in Relativism. Rather the way of righteousness requires a far holier path.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Government Persecution of Catholics
It is accepted amongst many scholars that persecution of Catholics is on the uprise. Archbishop Dolan of New York and William Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut give good examples.
What the Obama Administration is doing, seems intentional according to Archbishop Dolan. This, after Notre Dame allowed the President to speak on its campus. It seems wisdom is sometimes lacking in Catholics. We are not supposed to give pro-abortionists a platform from which to speak, which makes them look legitimate in Catholic eyes.
Christians Persecute Christians
Perhaps, some Christians do not know the commission that Christ gave us, to preach the Gospel "Preach the Gospel to all Nations" (Matthew 28:19). However, recently, many Christians have tried to silence other Christians from preaching the Gospel. While, for Catholics, this applies only within your field of competency according to Christefidelis Laici. Certainly, any informed Catholic may give a basic Catechesis.
In my experience, some Catholics are trying not to rock the boat, any have silenced other Catholics from preaching the faith. Most often, these are cafeteria Catholics who do not take their faith seriously. Perhaps, many of these Catholics are wanting to preserve their income, over the sake of the Gospel.
Certainly, the virtue of prudence demands that one give due consideration to a proper time, method and place to preach the Gospel as John Paul II had stated:
More Christians have died in the Twentieth Century, due to persecution, than all centuries in the past combined. This often stated statistic seems overlooked by Catholics in the United States. Some Christian Groups have called this the "Age of Martyrs." According to one set of statistics, 26 million Christians died in the 20th Century, compared to 14 million in all centuries before combined.
What would your answer be to deny your faith? Steve Centanni, of Fox News, was captured by Palenstinian Terrorists along with independent cameraman Olaf Wiig. As Olaf recounted it on Fox News, he told Centanni that the terrorists were planning to execute him if he did not take the Shihada, which is the muslim proclamation of faith.
Centanni stated:
This just points to the loss of a sense of holiness in our culture and the growth of secularism. Certainly, sincere Catholics endeavor to be holy. I would hope they would all struggle to be Saints. However, persecution has only one true response: Saintliness.
However, there is someone who gave a different response. Mary of Egypt, "The Little Arab" was coerced to convert to Islam, but she refused. Her uncle wanted to marry her to a muslim. But Mary had a vision from the Blessed Virgin and would not go back on her promise. She suffered so much, in fact, that she was small from malnutrition. Mary, left her abusive uncle and worked for various families, eventually becoming a Discalced Carmelite Nun. Mary, because her holy life, refused to convert to a false faith. Mary's uncle could have killed her, but she did not care. God was her all in all.
Today she is called St. Mary of Egypt. Several miracles are attributed to her. It all started by a simple refusal to submit to the coersion of muslims.
UPDATE
Bishop Aquila of North Dakota, stated that the Church may be persecuted in the future:
What the Obama Administration is doing, seems intentional according to Archbishop Dolan. This, after Notre Dame allowed the President to speak on its campus. It seems wisdom is sometimes lacking in Catholics. We are not supposed to give pro-abortionists a platform from which to speak, which makes them look legitimate in Catholic eyes.
Christians Persecute Christians
Perhaps, some Christians do not know the commission that Christ gave us, to preach the Gospel "Preach the Gospel to all Nations" (Matthew 28:19). However, recently, many Christians have tried to silence other Christians from preaching the Gospel. While, for Catholics, this applies only within your field of competency according to Christefidelis Laici. Certainly, any informed Catholic may give a basic Catechesis.
In my experience, some Catholics are trying not to rock the boat, any have silenced other Catholics from preaching the faith. Most often, these are cafeteria Catholics who do not take their faith seriously. Perhaps, many of these Catholics are wanting to preserve their income, over the sake of the Gospel.
Certainly, the virtue of prudence demands that one give due consideration to a proper time, method and place to preach the Gospel as John Paul II had stated:
This phenomenon [of cultural sensitivity] implies a particularly sensitive response which is entrusted to your own judgement and pastoral prudence.However, total silencing of the preaching of the Gospel, has nothing to do with prudence. Even Pope Benedict XVI has called us to evangelize:
"We cannot keep to ourselves the words of eternal life given to us in our encounter with Jesus Christ: they are meant for everyone, for every man and woman. ... It is our responsibility to pass on what, by God's grace, we ourselves have received" (Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, 2010).Ongoing Persecution
More Christians have died in the Twentieth Century, due to persecution, than all centuries in the past combined. This often stated statistic seems overlooked by Catholics in the United States. Some Christian Groups have called this the "Age of Martyrs." According to one set of statistics, 26 million Christians died in the 20th Century, compared to 14 million in all centuries before combined.
What would your answer be to deny your faith? Steve Centanni, of Fox News, was captured by Palenstinian Terrorists along with independent cameraman Olaf Wiig. As Olaf recounted it on Fox News, he told Centanni that the terrorists were planning to execute him if he did not take the Shihada, which is the muslim proclamation of faith.
Centanni stated:
We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, and don't get me wrong here, I have the highest respect for Islam, and learned a lot of very good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do, because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the h**l was going on.Centanni, if he was a Catholic, had an opportunity for matyrdom. He could have given an alternate Shihada instead of "There is one God and Muhammad is his prophet," he could have said:
There is one God, and He is Jesus Christ.However, he did not. It is a sad dissappointment.
This just points to the loss of a sense of holiness in our culture and the growth of secularism. Certainly, sincere Catholics endeavor to be holy. I would hope they would all struggle to be Saints. However, persecution has only one true response: Saintliness.
However, there is someone who gave a different response. Mary of Egypt, "The Little Arab" was coerced to convert to Islam, but she refused. Her uncle wanted to marry her to a muslim. But Mary had a vision from the Blessed Virgin and would not go back on her promise. She suffered so much, in fact, that she was small from malnutrition. Mary, left her abusive uncle and worked for various families, eventually becoming a Discalced Carmelite Nun. Mary, because her holy life, refused to convert to a false faith. Mary's uncle could have killed her, but she did not care. God was her all in all.
Today she is called St. Mary of Egypt. Several miracles are attributed to her. It all started by a simple refusal to submit to the coersion of muslims.
UPDATE
Bishop Aquila of North Dakota, stated that the Church may be persecuted in the future:
“We could see the possibility of it within the United States where we are no longer free to preach the truth from the pulpit or to present Catholic teaching."
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Defending Your Good Reputation
How many of you have heard of the girl who is "easy" in high school. Many people talk about that girl, and spread that reputation despite the truth. This also applies to adults.
This was the case of Ray Donovan, the former Secretary of Labor who was charged with larceny and fraud in connection with a Government Contract case. After acquitted, Donovan famously said:
Francis de Sales words go unheeded. He also states:
Be not too quick to counsel silence. It may work for a contemplative, but an active priest, or person in the public eye, requires a different discipline all together. Like St. Francis de Sales, we need to recognize a person's reputation counts for something. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
This was the case of Ray Donovan, the former Secretary of Labor who was charged with larceny and fraud in connection with a Government Contract case. After acquitted, Donovan famously said:
"Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"A person's reputation includes his word, character and bond. A person with a good reputation has a right to sustain it under conditions of justice. Yet, within our legal framework, a public figure does not have a right to defend his reputation in the popular mind. We can say anything about a public figure, according to some people's behavior, because there is little such a figure can do when someone says something negative about him. This is not the Catholic standard. St. Francis de Sales, bishop, doctor of the Church said this about a person's reputation:
Humility might make us indifferent even to a good reputation, were it not for charity’s sake; but seeing that it is a groundwork of society, and without it we are not merely useless but positively harmful to the world, because of the scandal given by such a deficiency, therefore charity requires, and humility allows, us to desire and to maintain a good reputation with care.Recently, with the cases of Father Corapi and Father Pavone, certain bloggers have used the St. Pio standard and tried to apply it to all such cases. This advice, of course, runs counter to the "Doctor of the Laity and Secular Priests" St. Francis de Sales. Francis de Sales urges people, in view of the virtue of charity, to defend their good names.
Francis de Sales words go unheeded. He also states:
Of course certain crimes, so grievous that no one who can justify himself should remain silent, must be excepted; as, too, certain persons whose reputation closely affects the edification of others. In this case all theologians say that it is right quietly to seek reparation.So he calls even for reparations. This chapter, Part III, Chapter VII is worth a read. Keep in mind, this applies to secular (diocesan) priests and the laity. Religious priests and contemplatives (like St. Pio) are held to a different standard, as this great doctor of the Church states in other chapters.
Be not too quick to counsel silence. It may work for a contemplative, but an active priest, or person in the public eye, requires a different discipline all together. Like St. Francis de Sales, we need to recognize a person's reputation counts for something. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Respect for the reputation and honor of persons forbids all detraction and calumny in word or attitude (2507).
Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity (2479).
...detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them (2479b).
calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them (2479c).Perhaps, especially on the Internet, people should buy or dust off this book. There is timeless wisdom there.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Catholics in Political Life
One of the thorniest discussion topics among Catholics is politics. Politics is hands-off by many Catholics, especially around Cafeteria Catholics, who pick and choose their doctrine.
Catholics and Politics
This is strange to me, because the bishops of the United States are hands-on when it comes to political policy. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us we have a responsibility (read "sin not to exercise") our duties as citizens:
Should We Discuss Politics Among Catholics?
It is our duty to inform and educate. Of course, we must do such according to our competencies (Christefidelis Laici, 62). Politics is often avoided. When I was studying Speech Communications, one of the key rules they said was "Do not discuss religion and politics at work or a Social." We, however, have a different calling.
We must educate our fellow Catholics on doctrine, and how our faith should inform our voting habits. We should put Catholicism at the head of our list when choosing a candidate. In my opinion, no issue is more important in the upcoming election, except maybe the economy and possible bankruptcy of our Country.
Catholics and Politics
This is strange to me, because the bishops of the United States are hands-on when it comes to political policy. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us we have a responsibility (read "sin not to exercise") our duties as citizens:
The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen"(Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2245).While it is generally a venial sin not to exercise our duty to vote, it can become a mortal sin when, with sufficient knowledge and full consent of the will, a person becomes a deciding vote in an election that has a moral issue at the center of it:
"Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1859).Despite many bishops speaking out about abortion being the most important issue in the 2008 elections, 53% of Catholics voted for Obama. Disregarding the informed opinion of a bishop is a lack of faith in Catholicism. We must give it due consideration.
Should We Discuss Politics Among Catholics?
It is our duty to inform and educate. Of course, we must do such according to our competencies (Christefidelis Laici, 62). Politics is often avoided. When I was studying Speech Communications, one of the key rules they said was "Do not discuss religion and politics at work or a Social." We, however, have a different calling.
We must educate our fellow Catholics on doctrine, and how our faith should inform our voting habits. We should put Catholicism at the head of our list when choosing a candidate. In my opinion, no issue is more important in the upcoming election, except maybe the economy and possible bankruptcy of our Country.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Is Islam Peaceful?
It was often said that Islam is peaceful. Indeed George W. Bush said "Islam means peace."
For Catholics, this is another issue. Does Islam mean peace? A search of the Vatican website shows no such quotation by the Holy Fathers.
Should Catholics Believe Islam Means Peace?
Obviously, given that the Holy Father did not say such a thing, we should not consent to it. Indeed, some muslim translators have said that Islam means submission, not peace. So, based on their analysis, we should not be quick to concede that Islam means peace.
Islam is the Source of 80% of Conflicts in the World?
This is a stretch to say. This often-cited statement, which comes from various websites. The Journal Jewish Political Review says that Islam has an 80% higher violence rate than other religions. Some sources say they are involved in 80% of wars and conflicts. Indeed, in 2010, 100% of terrorism against Americans was committed by muslims according to the Department of Justice. These are not pleasant numbers.
Should We Believe that Islam is Peaceful?
Just because members of an organization are violent, does not mean a religion condones violence. However, in the case of Islam, the Koran and another muslim holy text does condone violence:
Is Islam Peaceful?
While certain muslims advocate peace, they might not be following Koranic doctrine. Indeed a group called the Sufis were strongly influenced by Catholic monasticism. Although they have their own violence.
I would say that Islamic doctrine is not peaceful. It is rather warlike, like the Norse Religion of Thor and Odin. However, certain muslims may be peaceful. However, that does not change the doctrine. The deeper you get into Islam, the more war-like you may become, as Daveed Gartenstein-Ross suggests.
For Catholics, this is another issue. Does Islam mean peace? A search of the Vatican website shows no such quotation by the Holy Fathers.
Should Catholics Believe Islam Means Peace?
Obviously, given that the Holy Father did not say such a thing, we should not consent to it. Indeed, some muslim translators have said that Islam means submission, not peace. So, based on their analysis, we should not be quick to concede that Islam means peace.
Islam is the Source of 80% of Conflicts in the World?
This is a stretch to say. This often-cited statement, which comes from various websites. The Journal Jewish Political Review says that Islam has an 80% higher violence rate than other religions. Some sources say they are involved in 80% of wars and conflicts. Indeed, in 2010, 100% of terrorism against Americans was committed by muslims according to the Department of Justice. These are not pleasant numbers.
Should We Believe that Islam is Peaceful?
Just because members of an organization are violent, does not mean a religion condones violence. However, in the case of Islam, the Koran and another muslim holy text does condone violence:
“They [Christians and Jews] desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved… but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper” (The Koran, Surah 4:89).
“[Believers] [i]f you do not go to war, he [God] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men” (The Koran, Surah 9:39).
While muslims say that Surah 4:89 only applies to the time the Koran was written, muslims throughout history have not taken it as such. Indeed, in a statement about the invasion of Spain, a muslim historian writes:“…according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’” (Sahih Bukhari. 9:84:57).
“Musa Ibn Nosseyr sent his son Merwan to Tangiers, to wage a holy war upon [Spains] coast…” (Ibn Abd-el-Hakem: The Islamic Conquest of Spain).It seems that muslims throughout history have interpreted certain Koranic texts as advocating religious violence against non-muslims.
Is Islam Peaceful?
While certain muslims advocate peace, they might not be following Koranic doctrine. Indeed a group called the Sufis were strongly influenced by Catholic monasticism. Although they have their own violence.
I would say that Islamic doctrine is not peaceful. It is rather warlike, like the Norse Religion of Thor and Odin. However, certain muslims may be peaceful. However, that does not change the doctrine. The deeper you get into Islam, the more war-like you may become, as Daveed Gartenstein-Ross suggests.
The Persecution of Priests?
It is very difficult to discern what is exactly going on within American Catholicism today. We see many cases of popular priests within media having difficulties with their bishops. Fr. John Corapi, Fr. Frank Pravone, and outspoken priests within various dioceses such as Corpus Christi have been transferred, recalled or probably informally disciplined within their dioceses. Either way these events have been very public contentions.
Are Priests Persecuted?
Foremost in my mind is the case of St. Padre Pio, whose was silenced for decades for alleged affair with a woman. It turned out that the bishop was actually the one who was having the affair. This was a grave injustice. I do not want to see a case like St. Pio happen again.
St. Pio's case shows that injustice against priests is not a new dynamic. If you look back into history even further, even St. Jerome was excommunicated, then later canonized. Abuse of power is not a new thing within Catholicism. It is ongoing today, especially by the hierarchy within Christ's Church.
The Case of Fr. Pavone
Fr. Frank Pavone, whose case is still ongoing, has been exonerated by his diocese, although the bishop is currently away. He was accused of not informing his bishop of the finances of Priests For Life, of which Pavone is the President. Even though Priests for Life is a Private Association of the Faithful, which has no accountability to Pavone's Bishop (Canon 321-326). While there are other restrictions on him, the important note to make is that bishops oversee Priests for Life, just not Pavone's ordinary.
Is Persecution of Priests on the Rise in the United States?
Diocesan priests take a vow of obedience to their bishop, while religious priests take a vow of obedience to their religious order superiors (Canon 573, §2). Therefore a religious priest does not need to obey a local bishop. This, however, does not prevent abuse by religious orders as has been the case with some Saints.
While some very public priests seem to have been persecuted, recently, I cannot say persecution of priests is on the rise. However, research should be conducted to examine if such is the case.
Perception Schmerception
We have an obligation to check our perceptions and discern the objective truth. I know from Psychology that perception is a tricky thing. A person cannot hear everything, yet many people think they can. This is why in law there is a process called due diligence: you have to give time and effort to research any undertaking in which you endeavor, before you take action.
Winging it does not cut it. Personal attacks do not cut it. Here is a case in point:
Humility is the virtue of accepting the truth about yourself, including the good. Father Pavone is important. Humility should tell him he is, although this does not call for braggery. It should also drive home his grave duty to finances and his other duties. He should also keep in mind that Christ is the source of all good works.
Yes, There is Persecution
The personal attack leveled by Bishop Zurek, constitutes persecution. Why do Catholics feel the need to engage in them, and not just stick to the facts? Father Pavone's spiritual state is between him, his spiritual director and his confessor. Unless Bishop Zurek is his spiritual director or confessor, he should be silent on this aspect of the case and remember the words of Saint Paul:
Are Priests Persecuted?
Foremost in my mind is the case of St. Padre Pio, whose was silenced for decades for alleged affair with a woman. It turned out that the bishop was actually the one who was having the affair. This was a grave injustice. I do not want to see a case like St. Pio happen again.
St. Pio's case shows that injustice against priests is not a new dynamic. If you look back into history even further, even St. Jerome was excommunicated, then later canonized. Abuse of power is not a new thing within Catholicism. It is ongoing today, especially by the hierarchy within Christ's Church.
The Case of Fr. Pavone
Fr. Frank Pavone, whose case is still ongoing, has been exonerated by his diocese, although the bishop is currently away. He was accused of not informing his bishop of the finances of Priests For Life, of which Pavone is the President. Even though Priests for Life is a Private Association of the Faithful, which has no accountability to Pavone's Bishop (Canon 321-326). While there are other restrictions on him, the important note to make is that bishops oversee Priests for Life, just not Pavone's ordinary.
Is Persecution of Priests on the Rise in the United States?
Diocesan priests take a vow of obedience to their bishop, while religious priests take a vow of obedience to their religious order superiors (Canon 573, §2). Therefore a religious priest does not need to obey a local bishop. This, however, does not prevent abuse by religious orders as has been the case with some Saints.
While some very public priests seem to have been persecuted, recently, I cannot say persecution of priests is on the rise. However, research should be conducted to examine if such is the case.
Perception Schmerception
We have an obligation to check our perceptions and discern the objective truth. I know from Psychology that perception is a tricky thing. A person cannot hear everything, yet many people think they can. This is why in law there is a process called due diligence: you have to give time and effort to research any undertaking in which you endeavor, before you take action.
Winging it does not cut it. Personal attacks do not cut it. Here is a case in point:
"I would venture to say that the supreme importance that he has attributed to his PFL ministry and the reductionist attitude toward the diocesan priesthood has inflated his ego with a sense of self-importance and self-determination." (Bishop Patrick Zurek).Here is a thought for the bishop. Father Pavone is important. Priests for Life is one of the most successful ministries in the American Church today. His ministry with Priests for Life is becoming international in scope. Those are just the facts. Accept it and move on.
Humility is the virtue of accepting the truth about yourself, including the good. Father Pavone is important. Humility should tell him he is, although this does not call for braggery. It should also drive home his grave duty to finances and his other duties. He should also keep in mind that Christ is the source of all good works.
Yes, There is Persecution
The personal attack leveled by Bishop Zurek, constitutes persecution. Why do Catholics feel the need to engage in them, and not just stick to the facts? Father Pavone's spiritual state is between him, his spiritual director and his confessor. Unless Bishop Zurek is his spiritual director or confessor, he should be silent on this aspect of the case and remember the words of Saint Paul:
"It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor 4:3).I think persecution could be tamped down if certain bishops would stop the personal attacks. Father Pavone has a right to defend his good name. Stop attacking his good name, and things might go more smoothly. Stop the persecution and personal attacks! Just stick to the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)