An excerpt from the Council of Carthage

Having done a little bit of reading in order to refute the errant whims of a "Catholic" lover of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I stumbled (as I often stumble) on a bit of reading from the Council of Carthage (419). As with so much in our Catholic faith, if one is to seek the source of its authenticity we must look back to its beginnings. Even a cursory study of patristics, the earliest history of the Church, the compilation of the Bible, the early councils, etc. will convince even a hardened skeptic of her being the one true Church founded by Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Any man who seeks to belong to that Church which possesses the fullness of the Christian faith must pledge fidelity to the Church of Rome, with its roots on the rock that is Peter, the first Pope.

I do intend to endeavor a deeper a study of early Church history as it is absolutely fascinating and revealing. Here is a brief excerpt from one of the Canons of the Council of Carthage, regarding schismatic or disobedient priests:

Canon 11.
If any presbyter, inflated against his bishop, makes a schism, let him be anathema .

All the bishops said: If any presbyter shall have been corrected by his superior, he should ask the neighbouring bishops that his cause be heard by them and that through them he may be reconciled to his bishop: but if he shall not have done this, but, puffed up with pride, (which may God forbid!) he shall have thought it proper to separate himself from the communion of his bishop, and separately shall have offered the sacrifice to God, and made a schism with certain accomplices, let him be anathema, and let him lose his place; and if the complaint which he brought against his bishop shall [not] have been found to be well founded, an enquiry should be instituted.

LET HIM BE ANATHEMA! SIT SEMPER HERETICIS!

Most interesting still is the final definitive declaration of the Canon of the Bible, in effect a repetition of the exact same Canons declared by the Synod of Rome and the Council of Hippo. If Protestants believe in "sola scriptura" they have nothing on this Canon of the Council of Carthage. (Bold face added for emphasis)

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. books.
• The Chronicles, ij. books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomon.
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah.
• Ezechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.
  • The New Testament.
    • The Gospels, iv. books.
    • The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
    • The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
    • The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
    • The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
    • The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
    • The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
    • The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Sanctification and Salvation

I often choose topics that are too big to chew but I can't resist. I'm only briefly touching the tip of an iceberg which is gloriously large.

What is the fundamental mission of the Church? The answer is simple: the sanctification and salvation of mankind.

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matt 28:19-20)

We often hear of the great things that the Church has done in the realm of social justice- alleviating poverty, ministering to prisoners, etc- and justifiably so! She has done her task well! And yet we hear nothing about the infinitely more important work which the Church fulfills in leading the Lord's flock to salvation. No other calling is more important. For,

...what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. (Matt 16:26-27, Mark 8:36*)

What profit do we have to be freed from poverty, to have the comforts of life, to be free from physical bondage, if our souls are still chained down by sin? All is dust but the soul is eternal. If we allow ourselves to replace the spiritual life with the charitable one, virtuous as acts of mercy and charity are, we put ourselve in grave risk of forfeiting our souls! And should we deny the priority of the spiritual life as Catholics over all other things without reservation, we effectively deny eternity and the salvation which is to come. Beware!

We have much to be thankful for and should be greatly inspired by the works of charity fulfilled by the faithful. Indeed, our Lord has commanded us to love our neighbor and to fulfill such works with zeal. And yet, the most important work that we as the faithful can possibly do is pray unceasingly. Pray for the faithfully departed. Pray to the saints that they may intercede on our behalf. Pray for the sanctification and salvation of mankind, for it is only by this that our Lord's Kingdom will come.

Remember the event in the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 2. The paralytic, gravely afflicted in the soul and flesh, is lowered down by four men through the roof before our Lord. In that moment, seeing the man ill from palsy, the Lord says to him, "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee" [italics added]. Witnessing this most grievous of physical maladies, our Lord Jesus Christ takes as priority the healing of this man's soul of its sins. This, likewise, is the mission of the Holy Mother Church.

My beloved priest once said in a sermon, "I only ever pray for one thing. You need only pray for one single thing: the sanctification and salvation of mankind." Should we pray for a lifetime and witness by that prayer the sanctification and salvation of one man, that singular act will be greater in weight than if we were to save 100 men from physical strife, only to see their souls condemned. So much so that we may come before our Lord and hear His glorious words: "Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." (Matt 25:21)

"By Grace You Have Been Saved"

I just finished reading an article so impeccably written and succint that I will not do it the injustice of paraphrasing. I will simply place a link here to a fascinating blog which I discovered called "Nicene Truth", written by a Reformed Protestant (Calvinist) convert to Catholicism.

The particular article of interest is called, "By Grace You Have Been Saved", an in-depth discussion on such oft-employed terms as "justification", "grace", "salvation", "faith", and "works". Are we saved by faith alone or by faith and works? What is the role of grace? This article aptly captures the truth of the Catholic teaching on these questions and is deeply enlightening.

Tolle et lege!

Besieged

For some strange reason the past several days have been fraught by religious discussions in which I have grown increasingly disillusioned by the errors that are out there. In one case I could sense the presence of the deceiver launching his attacks upon the Church. I have been deeply distressed to say the least.

It began this weekend when I found myself in a two and a half hour long conversation with a Protestant friend talking primarily about Calvinism, which she adheres to in the guise of "reformed theology". Whatever you call it, I was profoundly disturbed by the claims that were put out and made it clear. What a hopeless and concocted theology! It denies the entire loving nature of God and mires otherwise self-evident teachings in a "tulip"-laced morass of erroneous babble! I very effortfully defended our cherished belief in the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Faith, on the mystery of the Incarnation and of the Sacred Tradition which compliments the Scriptures among other things. And yet against the folly of Calvinism what can one do?

In addition to another chat about Calvinism two days ago, today at lunch I was sitting on the front porch of my workplace and overheard two guys "discussing" Catholicism, or their misperception of it, rather. In reality, one person was throwing out facetious, conjectural, and ultimately baseless claims about Catholic teaching and the other simpleton simply replied, "No way! I never knew that!" My blood was boiling and I regret not speaking up as I felt I should have.

Among the insanities uttered was the "Catholic belief" that by walking through the doors of St. Peter's Basilica, we're entering into a heaven-like place and thus are saved. There was the fascinating comment about how Catholics for 2000 years have completely missed the line in Matthew 23:9 saying that we must call no man on earth our father, and yet we call our priests "father", therefore the entire faith is a hoax. There was the profoundly disturbing statement that the Eucharist is just a symbol, that we're insane to derive from the Bible the belief that we can eat Christ himself, that it is ludicrous (at least he acknowledges that it is indeed a difficult teaching). His most erroneous claim was that there is absolutely no biblical basis for the doctrine of the Eucharist, which is absolutely unfounded. The list goes on. I felt like I was being fired at with spiritual cannon fire that was withering.

Now, I was actually taking detailed notes of the conversation because it was perfectly audible from where I was seated, as such I also noted their statements of erroneous Protestant doctrine. The most irksome and oft-repeated statements revolved around that most cherished of errors: the belief in sola scriptura. Here are the choice statements which I overheard:

"The Bible was written by God"
No. It was written by divinely-inspired men from the earliest Hebrews to the early Christians who devoted their lives, however perfectly or imperfectly to seeking God. They and their writing, however much inspired, was clearly affected to some extent by the context in which they lived along with the inspiration received.

"Everything that I believe is in the Bible"
The very belief of sola scriptura is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Thus this statement is false right off the bat. Belief finds its sources not just in written word but primarily from our life experience and that which we learn orally. Most importantly, our belief is also an effort in conformity to the true teachings passed down not just scripturally, but by the Holy Mother Church. That is, much of our belief is in fact extra-scriptural, which in its more refined form is referred to by Catholics as Sacred Tradition. It is exceedingly presumptuous to assert that one believes everything that is in the Bible, because our human flaws prevent us from grasping even so simple a command as "love thy neighbor".

"Keep reading, God will reveal things to you."
Using the logic of the above two quotes, I will contend that God has revealed everything that He has intended in the Bible. This is in accordance with sola scriptura. As such, any further revelation can not be possible, even that which may be stirred in us as we read Scripture. For God to continue revealing things in a extra-scriptural way must prove the existence of a sacred tradition rooted in and emanating from written and unwritten revelation.

What a vexatious past few days these have been. Lord have mercy. Pray for the conversion of those gone astray and for the unity of Christ's Church on earth.

Our Divine Mandate

As of late I have been asking myself the same question quite frequently: why is it so difficult for us to speak absolutely about our faith? We fall so easily into the trap of relativism because we live in its framework, we are educated to think in a relativistic way, and we are expected to accept multiple options, multiple lower-case t truths, etc. Even if we utter in word what we aspire to believe as absolutely true, often our actions and our subsequent words do not back up this seemingly impossible stance. And yet…

The more I contemplate, the more I am truly convinced that Christianity- read, Catholicism, the only full and true faith revealed to the Church- is the one and only religion with a truly divine mandate, a heavenly bond, a direct call from on High. Both logic and faith confirm this.

No other religion so encapsulates both the fullest reality of our being and the deepest aspiration of every human soul. That we are born deeply flawed and yet yearn every waking day for something better, for a taste of the divine. That to be righteous and to obey the moral law set down by our Creator is perhaps the most difficult thing we can do, bringing with it frustration, vacillation, and persecution, and yet what bliss to follow the narrow path! No clearer sign is there than this: “Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.”

What of the other major faiths? For the Jews, at the time of reckoning, when the Son of Man descended in the deepest humility and was then hung on the Cross for our iniquities, they rejected him, preferring to retain their worldly laws and loyalties to cling to a hope which, unbeknownst to them, had just been fulfilled. Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam, led wars and insurrections and ultimately died in peace like many a worldly king. The Buddhists promise personal nirvana through individual contemplation, and yet quo vadis for the rest? And so forth. And yet, the one true God is worshipped and adored through His Son, who alone gave himself up in the lowest humiliation, in the purest act of sacrifice, through his terrible death on the Cross and his subsequent Resurrection. Just as the soldier is the only person who has truly fought for our freedoms, so too our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the only one who has truly died for our sins.

He died in fulfillment of the Greatest Commandment: “that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13, italics added). With what reluctance does humanity obey this call, with what vacillation! How difficult it is to fulfill, and yet how simple it is to fall to selfishness, self-fulfillment, impatience, and the like. Verily, this is a divine call, for such a mandate could not possibly have its origin in the selfish heart of man.

This was and is the revolution ushered forth by the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, that not by condemnation, nor isolation, nor hatred are we to live and serve our Lord, but by the heavenly grace that is love, the unconditional yearning for the good of another. And to this end we are to dedicate all in our being to seeing that our brethren be sanctified unto their ultimate salvation in the oneness of the Spirit, through the mercy of our Lord and King, from now unto the end of the world. Amen.

An intriguing thought experiment...

I entered into a cognitive reverie yesterday and the most delightfully revealing thought experiment entered into my head. It has to do with drawing moral lines. By using the liberal arguments for amorality against a hypothetical proponent of gay "marriage", our proponent ends up hitting a wall.

So here's the thought experiment: a pro-gay "marriage" lad, who happens to be called Bob in my reverie, is taking a walk through a park where he runs into a most intriguing personage named Fred. Their discourse went as follows:

BOB: Hey, Fred!
FRED: Hey Bob, what's up?
BOB: Not much. Hey, are you voting for that gay marriage amendment on Election Day, you know, the one defining marriage as between both heterosexual and homosexual couples? It will finally let people who love each other get 'married' and give them the 'rights' they've so longed for!
FRED: Heck yea, man. Freedom from bigotry. True equality! But I don't think the amendment goes far enough. What if, like, a buncha' people love each other? Like, a buncha' dudes? Why shouldn't they get married? That's not fair.
BOB: Oh, well...Yeah. I guess so. Yeah, maybe they should be allowed to.
FRED: Yeah. You know what used to be 'in' and should come back? That thing where one guy has a bunch of wives. Yeah, polygamy!
BOB: Uh, well... That's a little weird.
FRED: Why's that weird? If they love each other, why not? I mean, why should only gays get to marry? Are you saying polygamists don't have rights? Are you imposing your morality on me?
BOB: Well no, dude. That's just a little weird, don't you think? I mean, gays should get rights but the polygamy thing is weird.
FRED: Why's it so weird? One man, many women! Why limit people? We're a nation of liberty! Stop pushing your morals on me, dude! I mean, if I love my mom that much, well, dude, why not?
BOB: You're joking, right? You're talking about in-...
FRED: Yeah man! Nothing is greater than love! We should be more open and inclusive, and less divisive. Why should your definition of love be pushed on me?
BOB: Well...No...It shouldn't. But, that's disgusting.
FRED: If I think it's ok, it's ok! Don't tell me it's disgusting you bigot! It's just different!

As we can see, the Pandora's box that Bob initially opened ultimately swallows him whole, as he finds himself in a moral no-man's-land where he can't say why incest is taboo and polygamy is disgusting, etc. He finds that his initial moral judgment has opened a can of worms and that it comes back to haunt him. He learns that his moral judgment is arbitrary and that he can consequently make no real moral judgments.

It seems that the only moral judgment that is not arbitrary with regard to marriage is that most natural one: that marriage is between one man and one woman in a union of love which alone is capable of bearing new life.

Case closed!

Catholic Voters: The Moral Basis of Our Vote - PART ONE

The 2008 Presidential Election is fast upon us and I am choosing to take some time to address a very contentious topic that has been circulating, that of supposed single-issue politics on the part of pro-lifers, particularly many of my Catholic pro-life friends (which is a redundancy; all real Catholics are pro-life). We can take as axiomatic that nobody should vote for a pro-abortion/”right-to-choose”/pro-choice politician at all, least of all a CATHOLIC. I am actually not arguing for that point- it is crystal clear already. I am going to argue that there are many other issues, not as grave as the abortion one, that nonetheless must command a Catholic’s attention. While issues pertinent to life must be the primary reason motivating our vote, our moral framework does not exclude other important areas. I’ll address them by the catchwords by which we often hear about them in the news.

I’ll be referring heavily to Canon Francis Ripley’s definitive book, This is the Faith. This will be written in installments.

1) PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SOCIALISM

The Church has held, since time immemorial, the right to private property as essential for the good-functioning of society. As Moses states in Deuteronomy 19:14:

Thou shalt not take nor remove thy neighbour's landmark, which thy predecessors have set in thy possession, which the Lord thy God will give thee in the land that thou shalt receive to possess.

Because we are endowed with an intellect and free will, by our nature we must have private property by which to manifest these capacities and to achieve the work for which God has created us. We cannot work land unless we have a plot that is ours. And if it is not ours and we work on it, we are expected to receive a wage which is in itself a form of private property which can be converted into other things like food, land, an investment, etc. This too is a natural right, viz., to be able to convert our labor for a wage and vice versa.

So, enter socialism, which by its pure definition denies the right to private ownership of productive goods. Socialism to some minor degree exists everywhere. It could be argued that the tax system in its most fundamental form is a form of socialism in that the resources of the many (taxes) are pooled into a common, social depository which is the federal government. It then uses that money as it sees fit for the social good, as outlined in the US Constitution, primarily through national defense and the regulation of commerce. We must agree that, fundamentally, the system of taxation is a form of theft from the populace, but that a majority of people would agree that it is morally imperative for all to see after the means of their defense and the safeguarding of the conditions necessary for the economic welfare, i.e., unfettered commerce. These are necessities which we most certainly agree upon as vital and common to all.

And so arrive at our contemporary period where we often hear about such ideas as socialized medicine, welfare, affirmative action, government bailouts, and the like. Of recent interest is the government bailout of Wall Street which, perhaps surprisingly, warranted the ire of the American people. What was this bailout? Once we lift the political baggage, it is clear that the government took money that was given to it by the people for their good and given to corporations the owners of which abused their rights to private property with excessive risk-taking and ultimately menaced the whole economy. So who is to pay? By the simple premise of personal accountability they, along with their companies, must bear the responsibility for their actions. However, the government saw it more fit to take taxpayer money entrusted to it and to give it over to save these private property-owners. This is, by definition, socialism- more specifically, the privatization of profit and the socialization of losses. This goes against the personal accountability which forms the entire backbone for our moral fabric as Catholics. We must account for our own sins and nothing that anyone else save the Lord does can absolve us of this culpability.

Do you therefore take courage, and let not your hands be weakened: for there shall be a reward for your work. (2 Chronicles 15:7)

Logically, if we do not work, we will not be rewarded. Now, even if we work hard and reap fewer benefits than may be desired due to the misfortunes that are inevitably a part of life, the government can not be called upon to alleviate the difficult conditions which are a natural part of life. Firstly, these can be minimized to a degree but to eliminate them altogether is impossible. Such attempts have led to the utopian social projects which have been historically to blame for great suffering. Secondly, the belief that government can alleviate the difficult conditions of life imbues government with those qualities which can only be ascribed to God and to our Faith, and thus lead to the sort of atheistic and socialist ideologies which have so ravaged Europe’s moral fabric along with more extreme cases like North Korea, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 2425: “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’”.

History, particularly the history of the 20^th century, has shown that government promises to alleviate those vicissitudes which have always been a natural part of our existence have always transpired as: 1) a bold promise for change, 2) an attempt at a sweeping change with occasional success virtually always ending in, 3) great expectations (often met with disappointment) among the people vis-a-vis the government due to their desire for further change. The government may either be toppled, capitulate, or blame their failures or inadequacies on certain elements of the population or even other political parties as a pretext to continue its social projects. Often we hear of the "need" to press on towards the future. A fitting example from recent history is the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. In its attempt to unify the nations of Europe economically, the EU has sought to focus its energy on agricultural policy through a system of intensive subsidization. While ambitious and promising in the beginning, this socialist system has led to an exacerbation of the inequalities which were the original target. While the wealthier countries of the EU such as France, Germany, and Belgium enjoy considerable prosperity and cheaper food prices, less well-off countries like Italy and Greece suffer from stagnated development, artificially high food prices, and even major environmental problems. Subsidization has killed production.

Thus, as Catholics determined to work for a greater justice in the world, we must ask if it is better to allow our resources to be taken from us for the “common good” or if perhaps we ourselves are better stewards of these resources. As rightly-guided faithful, we would know better where our resources will be deposited in a moral sense than the government, which most often does not share our cherished beliefs. It is upon private property in the expanded sense of our controlling these resources personally that the Church has always placed its moral weight and confident approbation.

Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris: On Socialism

On the mystery of faith

The Spirit moved vigorously tonight as a group of my friends and I travelled down to Ocala once again to assist at the traditional Latin Mass. Today it was a sung Mass so we had the schola, of which I form part, perform the chants; it was mesmerizingly beautiful. Singing the Mass is a marvellous medium for prayer. But I would say that today's sermon was particularly exceptional.

The main theme of our priest's, Fr. Fryar's, sermon was actually a central epistemological question of our age: what is it know? Is faith knowledge? In today's Gospel, taken from St John, 4: 4-53, Our Lord states, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not." What is the meaning of faith? Faith is pure trust in the Lord, and hope is the fervent desire to be with God. The last remaining theological virtue is charity. Trust necessarily demands an a priori condition of ignorance, or of surrendering oneself to someone or something about which we are uncertain. To have faith in God is to trust in Him without prior conditions, such as having seen signs, or needing proof, or having understanding. It thus, in a way, demands that we relinquish our reason, our deduction,and our knowledge. To believe does not require that we understand. Indeed, to understand, or to seek to understand, eliminates the need for faith. If we have our science and our reason, we give up our faith, but it is by faith that we are bound to God. In today's Gospel, when Jesus tells the ruler whose son is sick in Capharnaum that his son is healed, and before even seeing that this is true, by faith the man believes it to be true, and it is so. Had he seen proof before the Lord had said so, he would not have needed faith because his understanding would have satisfied him. And yet right there he would have severed the necessary link between his son's welfare and the grace and divine charity of our Lord.

The question made me contemplate significantly. I often try to understand everything, to try to encapsulate everything in my mind, even sometimes when it comes to my faith. And yet Fr Fryar spoke verily in saying that if we seek to understand we satisfy ourselves with that understanding, which can only ever be faulty and incomplete, rather than submitting ourselves to the knowledge that can be had only by faith, which is that bond with the divine. The temptation to want to understand, to proof, to be able to argue is tempting, particularly in our day and age. And yet we can not enter the Kingdom unless we rid ourselves of this vice, which is what it really is in the end.

There are no easy answers and no complete explanations. It is only by the blind eye of faith that we can truly see and know. What a winding and mysterious path towards God!

Catholic Social Teaching à la Française

I do not believe I have written much on social teaching before so I feel that some recent ruminations on the social situation in France provide a suitable backdrop for some thought on the Church's stances.

As my reader(s)- if there are any- know, I am currently in Paris, France working in the beautiful Eglise de la Madeleine. I have long been enamored with French civilization and am very familar with it. So, when some news about proposed changes in the social system crossed my ears, I began to look at it in terms of Catholic social teaching and I also began to ask myself some questions. In all frankness, some of the thoughts I have entertained have been less than content, because I am troubled by some of the things I hear.

It is known throughout the world that the French have a very entrenched and relatively effective social system whereby the citizens come under numerous regulatory protections, among them a universal healthcare system which reimburses (now most, not all) medical expenses as well as stringent labor regulations. Now, I am politically conservative and not altogether in accord with the idea of universal healthcare for my own reasons but that's not what I want to discuss. Here're the recent developments that raise some question marks in my head.

One of France's well-known labor regulations is the 35-hour workweek and mandatory vacation per year. In the US we have a 40-hour workweek but, as we all know, there're people who work well above that. Recently, President Sarkozy has expressed a desire to lift the cap on the workweek to 40 hours in order to cope with the current economic slump. So, here're my thoughts:

-France's productivity and economic capacity are strongly comparable to those of other Western industrialized nations, even with a shorter workweek. And who would think that having such long vacations, lunch breaks, and a shorter week would actually not harm productivity! Therefore, my question is: is it really necessary to extend the workweek, to redo the system because of what is a relatively brief economic malaise? If the people do not need to work more, why should they? Now, I understand full well the value and necessity of work, but to what extent?

-Another thing that I ask myself is: what should be the main focus in our lives? In the Western world, the concern is in large part work and economic survival, I must confess. However, I really think the focus should be, first and foremost of course, our obligation to the Lord and then to ourselves, i.e., to self-enrichment through activities that properly better our lives, like hobbies, exercise, reading, etc. Again, if our means are sufficient, as individuals and on the scale of nations, is it necessary to work even more when we could be focusing on other, more enriching things? Now, according to the Protestant work ethic prevalent in the US and Britain, work is in itself enriching and a service to the Lord. To an extent I agree that work can be healthy and enriching, however, is it the same situation that in which a person says a Rosary while going for a jog or walk, rather than stopping and actually focusing on the prayer? I think not.

This brings me to my last rumination. Another change in the air in France is the opening up of Sunday as a workday. Visitors to Paris see very clearly that the city turns into a ghost town on Sunday; everything closes save a couple cafés here and there. It is dead. From a Christian perspective, this is a very good thing. Has it not been commanded that we rest on Sunday? I've heard dozens of attempted rationalizations back at home for doing some kinds of work on Sunday, that it must not be servile labor, that it must not be overly physical, etc. Again, these are rationalizations that in effect skirt the Commandment. I have heard the same here in France, as well. So, like I've reitarated before, is it really necessary to work on Sunday and open up shops to make the Lord's Day like any other? I do not believe so. (By the way, no comments from smart alecks who say that Saturday is really the Lord's Day, let's not make such inane points please).

Parlez-en!

Lunatics on Parade

Thus far I have prided myself on fairly professionally-toned entries and aurally-palatable verbage becoming of a level-headed college upperclassman. I will thus take the liberty to suspend this trend this once, and likely not for the last time, because I'm just fuming right now. First off, kudos to my friend Jon Knox for his recent entries on the feminist invasion of the Catholic Church. They're my springboard.

What is with these feminazis, these liberals? Why, for goodness sake, can't they just live and let live? Everything has been turned into a parade, a mockery! First they began by infiltrating society, then they moved to destroy the family, and now they've turned their sights on the moral and intellectual pillar and heart of Western civilization: the Roman Catholic Church. Let's face it, nobody out there is remaining as steadfast with what has really held up Western civilization for the past two millennia as the Catholic Church in these, I daresay, apocalyptic times. Family values, a sense of reverence for authority, religious fervor, tradition, etc. The list goes on. Why can't these feminazis just go off to some island somewhere and make their heretical fantasies come true there where no one can see them?

I'm going to spell this out really clearly for all of the rebels out there right now. God has revealed Himself to us as the FATHER, that is, as a MALE figure. Jesus was not black, nor oppressed by racist Romans, nor, heaven forbid, a female! And here is the pill that you either swallow or leave on the plate and go join some hippy Protestant church: if you do not agree with Catholic teaching, you are not a Roman Catholic, nor a Roman Catholic in good standing; you are a Protestant, perhaps an apostate, but definitely a heretic! So keep your heresy out of my beloved Church! You can not support abortion at all and call yourself a Catholic, much less a Christian. You can not support feminism (feminazism) and call yourself a Catholic. You can not hold the delusion that the Eucharist is a symbol, rather than the true substance and Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and call yourself a Catholic. You can not pick and choose your favorite teachings that fit your pre-chosen agenda and call yourself a Catholic. You can not support homosexual "marriage" and call yourself a Catholic. You can not support destructive genetic research and call yourself a Catholic. Really, this is quite simple. You're either in or you're out. You can't have your arm in Heaven and your leg in Hell.

I'm having a lot of trouble containing myself. This is a masquerade, really, this parade of feminazis who think that they have been so gravely wronged, that the big bad Roman Catholic Church has deprived them of the right to become priestesses. I really think that these people live the most dismal lives ever experienced in the span of human history. There's no other explanation for why they'd hitch a ride on the lunatic fringe bandwagon and adopt the illusion that they're oppressed just to make themselves feel like they're righteous, like they're one with the early Church leaders who were truly persecuted.

These people make a mockery out of everything we have ever held dear. And here we have to take their crap, watch them destroy our Church traditions and Western civilization? If it were up to me they'd all be excommunicated by now and I'd already be propping the stake up in front of the church. They sicken me! They're the most deluded people in the history of humanity and yet they parade as the progressive and enlightened of our time! What in the world is going on here. Does anyone see what is going on here???

The Beauty of Family Values

I ran into this really cute video on YouTube made back in the day as a tool to teach kids to appreciate their parents. Although it seems like something that hearkens back to a better time, these are values that have been treasured for generations and that should be held for many more to come.



Appreciating Your Parents - Honoring Your Father and Mother

All that is necessary in life is family and faith in God and His Church; all else is secondary.

The Vocation Sensation

I have read quite frequently lately from a number of people, sources, websites, etc. about the hot topic amongst many Catholics which is the question of priestly vocations. With it comes the anti-Church quick-fix: female ordination and/or married priests. I intend to try my best, with the help of the Spirit, to shed some light on this.
As most of us may well know, there has been a shortage of priests in recent years as well as a decline in the number of vocations. Some parishes do not have a resident priest and do not take Holy Communion as often as other parishes do. Other parishes have closed down. The whole doomsday scenario goes on.

I used to worry about this question quite a bit. It still causes me an acute bit of anxiety but I've tried my best to confide in the Lord and surrender my qualms to Him because, in the end, He will see His Church through. Correction: He is seeing His Church through.

Here are the facts that many in the women ordination/end-priestly-celibacy camp won't tell you.

(1) The fact that priestly vocations have declined in the US does not mean they have declined all over the world. We like to project our problems here and think they are global in scope since, after all, the US of A is the center of humanity as we know it, right? Right?... No. While priestly vocations have declined precipitously in the Western, secular, increasingly irreligious, capitalist, economic powerhouse world, they have either remained steady in number or increased in "second" and especially Third World countries. In the poorest countries of the world God is calling the loudest for the children of the poor to shepherd His flock. Somehow this does not surprise me at all.

Relatively modernized countries like Poland and Ireland actually have priest surpluses and are "exporting" priests around the world to help. During my time in France, it was not uncommon to find parishes with 8 priests and up for dwindling parishes. So the argument that the number of Catholics is skyrocketing and the number of priests is dwindling is only an iota correct. Every area has its own situation. Consider this: statistically speaking, would it not make more sense that in a more strongly Catholic area where there are large numbers of true faithful, there would also be a comparatively adequate number of pure vocations to the priesthood? In Europe, despite its radical secularism and assaults on religion, there are still steady numbers of vocations to the priesthood. They're not as high as they used to be but they are there. Thanks be to God.

(2) Although unfortunate, it is not the end of the world if a parish goes without Holy Communion from time to time. There are countries in the world where parishes only take the Eucharist once or twice a year at most due to supply shortages. In the city where this was written (Gainesville, FL) the Eucharist is taken on at least 54 occasions PER WEEK. And this is in the South where Protestantism is strong. Consider that before you whine and complain.

(3) Throwing out data is one thing. Interpreting it is another. As we all know, 47% of statistics are made up! All the same, this we do know: the number of Catholics in the world right now is a bit over 1 billion (1,000,000,000). That is one sixth of the world population. That number is primarily compiled from parish registrations, which are required by churches. Now, any one Catholic could be registered in more than one church at any time. I am one of those. Any Catholic could also register at a church and then never go to Mass or practice his or her faith at all. Assessing the number of practicing Catholics is trickier than just looking at registrations and it is they who most call upon the presence of a priest. So when someone says that there are well over a billion Catholics in the world, and that there are way too few priests, and that there simply aren't enough priests to deal with the massive population of Catholics- think again. Yes, it would be nice to have more priests who can go out and evangelize, bring people back, etc. but at this time there aren't. This is not a bad thing. We make do with what we have and let God work His wonders.

There are many groups and dissident factions within the Church today who have created a sort of doomsday sensationalism regarding the vocation question such as FutureChurch and Call to Action which have been plotting to bring down our sacred tradition and who have waited patiently for the moment to strike during which to push their divisive agenda. They scored a minor victory in Vatican II but the Church stood firm.

Allow me to show you exhibit one: graphical data from the Georgetown University Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. I have been yearning for some time now to locate this data and see if my suspicions regarding the trends in the 20th century were true. They proved true.

As you can see from the below chart, in the period where the Catholic Church in the US really got momentum going from 1899 all the way up to the period around 1956-1965, the number of religious priests and brothers rose dramatically. The rate of growth did not begin to seriously decelerate until the '65-'76 period- right in the wake of Vatican II. Then, shockingly, in the 1976-1985 period, the number begins to plummet. (Incidentally, while many pro-women ordinationists would like to say that there is an ample supply of women to be priestesses, the fact is that the number of women religious has plummeted just as dramtically if not more as with the men.)

(If you can't see these charts, click them)



Below, exhibit two: women religious trends.



How does one account for these trends? Well, there are many reasons to explain the gradual decline in vocations in the post-WWII period- the rebellious spirit of the times, the rise of secularism in the US, the sexual "revolution", the overall assault on traditional authority and morality, etc. However, the plummeting of vocations in the period around 1975-1985 can be most easily explained by the changes enacted during Vatican II and the Protestantization of ministry with an overemphasis on the laity. If the laity are made to think that they are equal in authority as the priest, that they can perform many of the same functions as the priest, and that they do not need ordination to engage in the ministry of the Church, what reason do they have to go through the trouble of ordination? The Novus Ordo Mass in itself does not require much particular skill or expertise to perform. If I dare speak of appeal, the appeal of the post-Conciliar priesthood is not as strong as it once was, when being a priest was something exceptional, loftier, requiring a deeper spiritual retreat from the world and commitment to prayer that has been greatly de-emphasized in our modern times. Is this to say that all post-Conciliar priests are bad? NO! Nonetheless, the overall emphases made in the "spirit of Vatican II" create the impression that being a priest is not as necessary as just doing your duty. Let us not forget that the practice of receiving a tonsure in the pre-Conciliar Church and having strictly altar boys (who were in that position as potential seminarians) contributed greatly to the number of vocations.

Somehow I get the feeling that persisting in the modernist liberalization of the Church will not really help the vocation question. It seems to have done immense harm since the "reforms" crept in during the past 40 or so years. Perhaps a return to the traditional theology and teachings of the Church is in order. Perhaps doing things the way we did for so many centuries is the solution. If the Church enters and becomes of the world, it loses its moral authority and its source of strength and sanctity that has so drawn the many religious to its ranks for centuries. This is why priestly celibacy, the deepest sign of a priest's complete commitment to his supremely vital labor and his bride, the Church, must be retained. Regarding "priestesshood", I reiterate the millennial position of our Holy Mother Church that we have only male priests because Christ only chose men to be his Apostles. Men, by virtue of their bodies (as explained in JPII's Theology of the Body) and their scriptural role as the stewards of God's Creation, are the initiators of the sacrifice, they have been chosen throughout history to be God's priests. They are not superior to women nor are women, thus, inferior. Men are ordinate and women subordinate. This is in Scripture (1 Corinthians: 1-16, Ephesians 5:21-33). This is not oppression nor an expression of a lesser worth on the part of women nor even the blind assertion of social practice. Men and women have distinct roles- this is what makes society run. Rather than bicker all day about "liberation" or "rights", why don't we get to work doing what we are called to do, either as men or as women, each called in unique ways to serve God the Father. There is much work to be done. There is no time to waste on this frivolous debate.

O Holy Spirit, Spirit of wisdom and divine love, impart Your knowledge, understanding, and counsel to youth that they may know the vocation wherein they can best serve God. Give them courage and strength to follow God's holy will. Guide their uncertain steps, strengthen their resolutions, shield their chastity, fashion their minds, conquer their hearts, and lead them to the vineyards where they will labor in God's holy service.
Amen.


An explanation for the male priesthood
Priestly celibacy
Vocations Blog (Very interesting)

Chat With an Anglican & What is Community?

(This is very long, but I beg that you will read it all attentively).

I will begin my post saying that I spent about two and a half hours this evening having come across, quite fortuitously, a devout Anglican with whom I had perhaps the most enriching, profound, and just plain amazing conversation about faith and Catholicism that I've had in eons. It goes beyond words how great it was. Conversations like that are few and very far between. Part of our conversation involved a chat on the meaning of community, which I'll get to in a bit.

As I was doing my barista work at the Christian Study Center, this good gentleman, about 50 years old or so, happened to come in to purchase a coffee and casually asked me what the Study Center was. I don't know how it began but we got into a preliminary chat on theology. We quickly realized who we were and our stances on this and that and the conversation took off from there.

I was stunned to find that on virtually every single point on theology, traditional Catholicism, the liturgy, in a word- everything- we were in perfect agreement. I daresay I have spoken so candidly about my Catholicism with few if any Roman Catholics. Why is this man an Anglican you ask? Well, he was raised Catholic, but left the Church to become an Anglican because after Vatican II, the Church was simply not that Catholic anymore. The traditional Anglican Church, so it seems, has maintained virtually intact so many practices and beliefs, &c. &c. that its brand of Catholicism, per se, is more "Catholic" than that which emerged from the chaos of the 60's post-Vatican II.

Take a moment and digest that.

Wait, you mean, a Protestant thinks the post-Vatican de facto Church is not Catholic enough?! Now, hold your horses! Don't go running off to Westminster now! All is not lost in Rome. In fact, nothing is lost! The reforms of Vatican II were just hijacked by, dare I say, ideological flappers that just took off into Kumbayah land such that it really, really looks like all hell and happy-holding-hands-quasi-Protestantized-Catholicism has broken loose. In many ways it has, but fear not! The gates of hell will not prevail and Sacred Tradition will triumph! It is already happening! I desist.

Why am I so excited about the long and exciting chat I had with this gentleman? I am excited because it gives me hope- profound hope. It gives me hope that the Church will reunify, not in the ridiculous ecumenical way whereby everyone descends into a sort of least-common-denominator Christianity, which really has no semblance to Christianity, and which ultimately will spell the doom for what Catholicism has stood for for 2000 years. NO! The body of Christ will reunify into one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church when all Christians the world round come to the realization of the Gospel Truth (can I hear an Amen?) that is professed and safeguarded by the Holy Catholic Church as it has been all these centuries past. It will be, once again, a genuine, unified, body of believers in true community, i.e., in true COMMUNION with Christ the Bridegroom.

Can I hear an amen?

That brings me to the coup de grâce: what is community? Why do I suddenly decide to talk about this? You shall see.

The man with whom I spoke, named Ed, is an architectural historian. He is about to write a book on the liturgical functionality of traditional churches; quite fascinating, I'd say. Anyways, as we all know, one of the developments in contemporary churches is the abandonment of traditional church architecture- the Latin cross form, the altar is smack in the middle and nothing obstructs its view, etc.- for a more "open" and "liberal" architecture. One predominant form is the circle, whereby a church is designed in such a way that the congregation surrounds the altar and forms a circle with the priest, who faces them. "This is," Ed stated, "quite a communistic arrangement."

Whoa! Communism? Yes. Communism. Not the Fidel Castro kind, but rather the "we're all equal and we're happy holding hands" etc. This begs the question: isn't a community formed of a group of equals, all together and loving each other. Well, yea, but that's just a super tiny aspect of it.

Ever since the dawn of humanity, human societal organization, from the most primitive hunter-gatherers to the most advanced societies, have been characterized by a number of shared characteristics. Here are the big ones:
~Shared customs, practices, beliefs, ideals, etc.
~A common language or communicative symbology
~Sacred places and/or dwellings/places of gathering
~A leader (uh-oh...)

Just think a little bit and see that it is virtually impossible for a human society to function without these things. Is not a religious denomination organized thus, as well? Catholicism sure is! We have shared customs and beliefs, etc. that define us and distinguish us as Catholics. We share a common language of worship, be it the literal language which, traditionally, is Latin, or be it the vocabulary of the faith. We have sacred places set aside for special purposes called CHURCHES to which we invest much time and energy to make beautiful and useful in keeping with their extraordinary purpose. Lastly, we have a leader/leaders. Our Leader is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. We are led by bishops and by priests, who lead us in prayer. When one or more of these things is absent, community degenerates into a mob, or at best a gaggle (since mobs often have leaders, too!).

Armed with these weapons, we now proceed to take a good look at our contemporary situation. The "spirit of Vatican II" has caused a (fictitious) shift in the Church's thinking from a more individualistic notion of salvation to a more socialized one. Therefore, we throw around the word "Church community" quite a bit and forget what that means. Point blank: this is false. Why? Well, if everyone is allowed to believe whatever they want to believe (shopping at the cafeteria, being "open-minded"), criteria number 1 breaks down. Suddenly, we are no longer united in belief and such. Then, every church in the world is allowed to use its own vernacular, such that an American Catholic going to an Ethiopian Catholic church has no idea what the heck is going on in terms of language. He is not a part of that community. Criteria 2 has been shot down. Don't even get me started on how 3 has been chiseled away with these hideous modern megachurches, or outdoor "camp" masses on the grass, etc.

The kicker is with number 4. It is anthropologically impossible for a human society, on whatever scale, to exist without at least a rudimentary degree of leadership. And we wonder then how it is that liberal Protestantism has shamed Christianity with this indescribable multiplicity of beliefs and sects. Why has this happened? There is NO leadership of any sort. Anyone who says that they can be in a church community or a legitimate religious denomination without a spiritual leader is absolutely off their rocker! Is a church pastor who preaches day in and day out a leader to his flock? NO! Somebody who stands in front of you and talks to you is not leading you. They are talking to you. Now, is a person, specially set aside for a particular purpose- as a military officer is set aside with a distinct uniform, distinct responsibilities, and a distinct role- a leader? Yes. A leader is not a God-like figure, although if they do well they can be a beautiful manifestation of God's presence. He does not have to be divine or all holy, although an extraordinary degree of exemplarity is a prerequisite to leadership. Who on earth plays such a role in the ordinary Catholic Church adherent to the true Faith?-- a priest. A priest, like a person driving a car, faces his back to the group not because he does not care about them, but because he is leading. (Who ever saw a general run into battle with his troops running backwards on his horse? I mean, seriously). He has exceptional knowledge in his role, appears slightly different, etc. but has the same innate essence as those he leads. THIS IS TRUE COMMUNITY. United behind the priest, the Catholic parish offers itself up as a group in the purest form of community, most especially while taking Holy Communion (communion = come + union), in a specially set-aside place, with a set of shared practices and beliefs, and with a common language. Nothing comes closer to community than this. The parishioners in this community understand that from among them is a person chosen to perform special different roles in order to help preserve their community. They come to him for advice, address their grievances and troubles to him, and trust in his expertise in his specially-assigned role, reserving judgment of his capacities to a more competent authority higher than him out of humility, reverence, and respect for a fellow man.

I can not stress any more strongly how profoundly the traditional faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the purest and most beautiful manifestation of human community united in love of God in Christ ever witnessed on the face of this earth. Nothing else competes at all.

Thou shalt not...pollute your backyard?

A top Vatican official just recently "updated" the old list of sins by adding in such things as polluting the environment, genetic manipulation, and (my favorite) extreme inequality as exemplified by the quote: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It seems that the modern legalistic spirit of wanting to get away with anything that is not expressly forbidden has necessitated that the Vatican spell things out.

The hallmark of a liberal moral conscience, and by that I mean an unrestrained one (not a hippy one, although those come close), is the usage of moral laws only when they are to one's moral benefit. For example, freedom of speech is essential! (but it must exclude religious talk in schools). Freedom of assembly is crucial! (but churches must keep wholly on their own property and not demonstrate publicly). Killing is evil! (unless I need to abort my baby because of my own irresponsibility). See the inconsistency?

The same sense of moral exploitation, if you will, rears its head when it comes time for an examination of conscience before confession. One of the main definitions of a mortal sin is that it is a grave and wanton violation of God's law. More often than not, the benchmark for God's law is the Ten Commandments. Ok, let's begin there. Now, (to borrow names from the Baltimore Catechism), Felonius may egg on a buddy of his to view pornography but, since Felonius is such an angel, he refrains from doing so while his friend does. Confession times comes about. Felonius says, "I didn't commit the sin by watching the pornography so I don't need to confess!" Well, yeah, that's right, Felonius, you didn't watch the pornography. But you forgot one minor detail: you drove your neighbor to sin, and to sin quite gravely. The Pharisees had a similar logic when they felt that by paying Judas to betray Jesus they would have no blood on their hands. And yet, even they accept their own guilt when the blood money is returned and they do not place it in the temple coffers. This act of leading someone else to sin is called "scandal" and it is indeed mentioned in the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill." In this case, scandal spiritually kills by driving another to sin. It could be said that one who commits scandal is a particularly nasty opponent of God's will, an accomplice of Satan one might say.

Allow me to venture a bit further on my scandal tangent. Now, what about free will? The dude who watched the pornography could easily have just not done so. True. We do not know the circumstances by which, let's call him Jasper, was driven to view pornography. All the same, Felonius was what the Church calls an "accessory to sin". Had Felonius not egged Jasper on the chances of his viewing pornography on his own may have been far less or even nonexistent. Maybe he used such Satanic poetry as "Oh, it's not that bad! You have to release your sexual urges somehow! EVERYONE DOES IT!"

Right there before your eyes is an examination of conscience over one sin- a particularly grave one. Contrary to the legalistic cognition of our time, things do not need to be spelled out all the time for us to know that they are immoral. If we approach confession and sin in terrible fear of the Judgment, like we ought to, we would not be so lax in our "interpretations"- another lovely word from Satan's opus.

The Vatican is to be commended for being well abreast of the times as it has always been and reiterating the need to look between the lines when it comes to examining our moral conscience. The need to care for our environment, avoid genetic manipulation, and fight economic inequality are perennial Christian virtues with a slightly different look but with all the same essence.

"Si iniquitátes observáveris Dómine: Dómine quis sustinébit?"

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/vatican-updates-thou-shalt-not-list/20080310151509990001