The Small Shoppe

To Your Health!

2011-07-22T13:23:00.003-05:00

"...And they all ate and were satisfied." (Matt 14:20a)

I have never previously herein participated in the activity known as Recipe-Sharing, and I suspect that I will not be doing so with anything approaching regularity. Just the same, I feel I owe it to my fellow man, for the advancement of the common good, to present this one formula which, having concocted and tested, I now propose and recommend:

Michael’s Anti-Cholesterol “Knock-Out-Punch” Cereal
*Chestertonian Certified*
Suitable for Hermits, Recluses, and other Human & Canine Life-Forms

¼ cup Bob’s Red Mill® Oat Bran Cereal
2 TBLSP Ground Flax
2 TBLSP Ground Walnuts
Cinnamon to taste (I use a bunch!)

1 TBLSP Extra Virgin Olive Oil
¼ cup Kellogg’s® All-Bran Buds®
1 Cup Water

Put all of the above in a big cereal bowl, and microwave for 3 ½ minutes (depending..)

Then slice a banana on top, and stir the whole thing well.

Pour up to ¼ cup milk, or even half-n-half on top.

Enjoy! It works.
(I reduced my bad cholesterol 75 points in 5 months with this)

"Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself..."

2011-06-25T14:56:00.004-05:00

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it. You shall ove your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37-40

I am not all together certain why this passage, and a particular insight that accompanies it have visited my consciousness so insistently over the past several days. Likely it is owing to the fact that I am not particularly loving of my neighbor; or at least quite selectively exclusive in my determination of exactly "who is my neighbor."

I will attempt to describe the insight that came rushing upon me like a Pentecost wind as I thought of this passage from Sacred Scripture. Throughout my life, I always have taken these verses to mean that I should love God, and then sort of "measure" how I love myself, and apply that measure of love to others around me. The disturbing insight of which I have become aware of late is, I think, more than simply a nuance. In the command to love my neighbor as myself, I now understand that I am to consider that my neighbor "is" myself. In so doing, I will of course love my neighbor. This command fights fiercely against my narcissism; for if I consider for even a moment that my neighbor is myself, then all of the great concern and interest which I normally reserve for my own needs and wants is now focused on someone else. I must love my neighbor exactly as though my neighbor were, in fact, me.

The very thought of such a thing frightens me and, I must say -- in the interest of full disclosure--makes me feel rather ill. First off, there are more than several people for whom I have no desire at all to have such consideration. Secondly, that fact that there are indeed people for whom I do not desire to have this sort of love makes me feel guilty and sinful; not a spiritual sensation of which I am at all fond.

Perhaps I have, at long last stumbled upon an Examination of Conscience in capsule form. I may not need to fumble for a pamphlet, or look for a marked page in the back of my missal again. These few verses from the Gospel shed much light upon the state of my soul; upon the state of my relationship with God and those with my fellow men. As I reflect, I cannot presently remember a sin which I have in the past committed that does not relate directly to these two commandments: Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself.

"O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee..."

Then again...

2011-06-20T10:59:00.003-05:00

"Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity, and sound speech that cannot be censured, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us." Titus 2:7-8

Over this past weekend, as I've read, prayed, and most importantly listened with regard to the "Fr. Corapi / Black Sheepdog" matter, I have arrived at some points for reflection. One of the most interesting things I have read with regard to this present concern is a blog entry by Fr. Corapi's former Bishop and the Episcopal Founder of the S.O.L.T. to which he belongs. The Bishop's post may be found at: http://www.sanctepater.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-father-corapi-by-bishop.html.

Here are the reflection points to which I am drawn:

1. Much of my initial reaction to Fr. Corapi's "Black Sheepdog" announcement is expressive of my pain at "losing him." As I've mentioned, his preaching was instrumental in my "re-version" to the Catholic Church.

2. Much of my negative reaction to the "Black Sheepdog" moniker is an emotional response to what I continue to view as a dark and "creepy" image of some visually nondescript beast staring at sheep. My reaction to the name also fails to take into account the fact that Fr. Corapi has frequently used "special forces/military" language in his public expressions.

3. I have assumed that Fr. Corapi's statement meant that he was leaving the Catholic Church, and formally renouncing the priesthood. In fairness, his actual words do not explicitly state either of these things.

4. I was, until today, not aware that Fr. Corapi had initiated a civil suit against the woman who has become his principal accuser. It is at least possible that this civil action may result in his vindication. He would be unable to continue the civil suit while at the same time defending himself in an ecclesial proceeding, as the ecclesial process requires that no "pressures" such as civil litigation be applied against any "witnesses."

5. As some others have stated, there is so much here that we do not know, that it is inherently foolish and dangerous to engage in deep commentary and speculation.

6. There is much in Fr. Corapi's statement which can be, and no doubt is being used to attack the Church and her bishops. This is a direction in which no Faithful Catholic may follow. We must pray for Fr. Corapi; he is a priest forever -- and thus, as others have said, he is a target of Satan until the moment of his death.

7. As long as Fr. Corapi makes it abundantly clear that he is not speaking or ministering as a priest (which point he is certainly making), he is canonically free to speak in accord with the Truth; no Catholic is forbidden from doing such.

8. There is much about Fr. Corapi's present methodology that causes me to wince. I must resist the temptation to allow those things to cause me to reject or condemn.

9. Our Church, our Holy Father, our Bishops, our Priests, our Deacons, and our Religious are all under constant Satanic attack. On any day in which we fail to earnestly pray for them, we fail in our responsibilities as Faithful Catholics.

10. "I have often regretted speaking too much, but have never regretted holding my tongue." -St. Arsenius, The Great

The Shepherd, rather than the sheepdog

2011-06-18T13:35:00.004-05:00

"He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If any one serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him." John 12:25-26

I heard it said, although I no longer remember who I heard utter the words, "So far as you are from Peter, so far are you from Christ." In my old, schismatic days, I heard Fr. John Corapi say "If you believe what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, you are morally obliged to unite yourself to her." He also said many things, on many occasions regarding authority, obedience, submission, and faithfulness. He was direct, non-glossy, hard-hitting, and clear: The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, and for any of her human blemishes, she is the bride chosen by the Lamb -- and woe to those who stand against her.

The many such things said by Fr. Corapi caused me no small amount of discomfort as I sat in the midst of my personal rebellion against the Church. I had managed, for the most part, to dupe myself into believing that my exodus was not only justifiable; it was even a call from God to serve Him in another "part" of His Church. This line of rationalization afforded me what I came to believe was the freedom to accept ordination with an independent Anglican community.

Like many good "Anglo-Catholics," I sought out Catholic input for my preaching and teaching. My input of choice was various programs aired on EWTN. Often, I would sit watching Fr. Corapi while squirming uncomfortably. His words carried a Truth that burned like fire, and cut like a two-edged sword. His chapter-and-verse knowledge of both Scripture and of the Teachings of the Church left me at a loss to dispute his assertions. Here was a man, a priest grounded in Truth, standing firmly upon The Rock; that which he said was not simply his own words. It was the Truth.

So, what do I make of the "important announcement" Fr. Corapi made yesterday via YouTube? How does his statement square with what I have known of this man, this priest over the years?

To be fair, I required of myself that I should review Fr. Corapi's statement several times. Each time, my initial reactions were confirmed and deepened. His statement seems dark and frightening.

He appears to hide behind an image that, to me, conveys fear and evil; the very dark, piercing eyes of some animal -- supposedly a "black sheepdog" -- bearing stationary reflections of sheep. The image does not seem to convey the idea of this animal as a brave protector; rather it is possible, based on the image, that the sheep might have a good deal to fear from the one whose eyes are so intently trained upon them.

Imagery aside, Fr. Corapi's actions are disturbing. Has he rejected the authority of those to whom he has vowed and promised obedience? Has he stripped himself of his office and title as priest, and has set himself up as the speaker of Truth? If so, he has committed nearly all of the essential steps of apostasy, and may be well on the road to formal heresy should he at some point expand his "truth" beyond that which has been revealed.

The Fr. Corapi who has made this recent statement, and taken these actions seems to run far afoul of the Fr. Corapi who has, in the past, taught faithfully the unvarnished Truth of the Catholic Faith. His present course does not seem to correspond to his many previously made admonitions with regard to authority, obedience, and Godly submission.

Has he fallen victim to the most dastardly temptation of all? Has he set himself up as the sole authority over John Corapi's life? If so, he sets himself at odds with the Church; and thus at odds with the Shepherd. Is he indeed a guardian sheepdog, or he has become a lone wolf; answerable only to his own thinking.

If Fr. Corapi has divorced himself from that which made his previous words true and powerful, we must certainly pray for him. We must even more certainly be vigilant so as not to follow where he presently seems to have gone.

If given the choice between the black sheepdog and the Shepherd; I will stay close to the Shepherd.

"Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." John 12:35-36

The Devil Doesn't Go on Spring Break

2010-03-30T15:16:00.004-05:00

"Thou wretched Babylon's daughter, blessed be, who shall repay thee what thou didst to us! Blessed be who taketh they babes, and dasheth them against the rock!"

And...

"To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Lo! All the beacon-fires are lighted,
Let all hearts be now united!
To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!"

Well! Perhaps somewhere, however I am wagering that the two quotes above have never, or only rarely appeared together.

This post, after a far too lengthy hiatus, will be short and to the point:

Catholics -- and by that term I only refer to Faithful Catholics in union with the Holy See -- we are at war. No longer do we have the leisure (if indeed we ever did) of tolerating wimpy, withdrawn, teetering, hand-wringing or apologizing, "cafeteria catholics." These are, I am quite certain, something further removed from the Catholic Church than could be any sincere protestant. These rebellious "sob sisters" are, to use a term from Eastern Orthodoxy, Anathema! (I believe the term is usually said rather loudly, and repeated thrice as a curse)

If, therefore, you are "taken aback" by the negative press of late regarding the Church and our Holy Father, then I advise you to consider well your course of action.

You have, as I see it, the following options:

1. You can believe the rubbish proffered you by the so-called news media (actually "news producers," for they produce it as a product packaged for sale). Should this be your choice, it is probably best for you to hang up your beads -- if indeed you remember whence you last put them -- and leave. Spiritually, you likely left a good while back.

2. You can consider that Christ Himself was falsely accused by the "news producers" of His earthly day, who coerced and bribed "witnesses" to testify to all manner of falsehood against Him, blaming every real and imagined malady on His preaching, teaching, and actions. Make no mistake, the same crowd that cheered Him on Palm Sunday clamored for Him to be ripped limb from sinew on Good Friday. The crowds were "convinced," the "latest polls" called for Him to be deposed, many who had followed Him now distanced themselves from Him, and even Peter would not be associated with His name.

Should this be your choice, then you must "gird your loins," and "put on the full armour of Christ." You must not shrink before the lies and blasphemies being uttered against Christ. Yes, against Christ! Just as Jesus and the Father are One, so Christ and His Church are One. He who attacks Peter, attacks the Church. He who attacks the Church, attacks Christ. There is no separating Benedict XVI from Peter, from the Church, nor from Christ.

The Sacred and Holy Triduum is nigh, and the hour of our Salvation is at hand. In the secular world -- in which "news producers" and other wretched creatures reign -- it is "Spring Break." Make no foolish misjudgments; Satan and his minions do not go on "Spring Break." They live to "make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." They live to make war on the Catholic Church! We must not stand idly by!

"Lo, all the beacon fires are lighted, (think of this at the Easter Vigil)
Let all hearts be now united!
To Arms! To Arms! To Arms!"

Vivat Benedictus XVI!

Where Have all the Catholics gone? or How the Traditonal Catholics may Save Catholicism

2009-08-03T18:04:00.010-05:00

With due apologies to Pete Seeger and Joe Hickerson:

Where have all the Catholics gone?
Long time passing;
Where have all the Catholics gone?
long time ago;
Where have all the Catholics gone?
They've all gone secular;
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

This blog post has been "brewing" for a bit, and while I am sure it would continue to improve, like a good Irish Stout, with a bit more time in the barrel, I have decided to open the tap now, and share it with my friends...and even my enemies.

I begin with a few examples of Catholic "know-nothings" which have brought me nearly to the point of screaming and pulling out my few remaining hairs --

1) "Catholics" who really don't have a clue as to why on earth the Godparents for their children should be Catholics;

2) A Hispanic family who tried to arrange a quinceanera (15th birthday blessing) for their daughter--at a local Catholic parish-- but didn't want anything "Catholic," because most of their family doesn't go to Church anymore;

3) "Catholics" who get their dander up at the funeral of a loved one, because the celebrant dares to gently explain that only Catholics "who are able" may receive Holy Communion;

4) "Catholics" who turn their attention "on" when the entrance song for Mass begins, and turn it "off" again after the closing song -- after all, the show's over;

5) "Music Ministers" who choose songs which are far more focused on the people than on God -- or, even worse, songs which are worded as though the singer is God;

6) "Catholic Catechists" who use non-catholic versions of the bible to teach Catholic Children;

7) "Music" selections for the Mass, which have all the musical depth and breadth of the Barney Theme Song, or perhaps the Oscar Meyer Wiener jingle;

8) Deacons, Priests, and Bishops who fail to faithfully transmit the teachings and discipline of our Holy Catholic Faith--some even using their collars to legitimize their contradiction of Church teachings;

9) Priests who allow known and celebrated members of the Masons to have funerals in the Catholic Church -- with Masonic emblems brought into the Church for the Mass;

10) Deacons and Priests who close their eyes to the fact that many of their "marriage prep" couples are living together--having sexual relations--and have been continuously receiving Holy Communion in their parishes;

11) Priests who tell their congregations that the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is not a binding document -- that it's not infallible; despite John Paul II promulgating it "by virtue of my apostolic authority" as "a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine..." and declaring "it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith..."; and

12) Masses that are "noisy," leaving no time whatever for silence, and feeding a growing lack of reverence that encourages behavior appropriate to a sports venue.

Where have all the Catholics gone?

To be sure, there are yet many Catholics among us. I regret to say that I believe them to be -- at least in this country -- in the minority. By this, I do not mean that the parishes are entirely populated by people of 'bad will.' I do mean that many parishes are led and populated by people of ignorance -- ignorance of the Catholic Faith.

This ignorance is the result both of poor catechesis and willful laziness. These two are malevolent twins which prowl about seeking souls to devour. The poor catechesis itself is a combination of actual mal-intent and sloth. There really are those within the Catholic Church who are driven by what they perceive is an opportunity to create the "American Catholic Church" after the image of their socio-political ideology. Their liturgical color is green (of course), climate change and carbon footprints are their favorite gospels, and their sacrament is a blend of forced inclusivity and tolerance (of anything except orthodoxy). These "teachers" are actually evil, and I now understand why Catholics in increasing numbers are home-schooling their children in religious education.

The majority of poor catechesis these days, however, comes from well-intentioned but ignorant catechists. They have taken their courses, and earned their "certifications," but they know precious little of the Catholic Faith. On more than one occasion I have stumped a so-called catechist by asking him (or her) to list three vital differences between Catholicism and Methodism. Most often I have been responded to with silence, or something with the theological depth of "well, they don't believe in Mary."

The ignorance with which these catechists operate is, to some degree, the fault of those who catechised them -- or better perhaps, those who failed to do so. That being said, this ignorance is -- to a greater degree -- a product of their own laziness. When people have within their reach the means of learning and knowing the Truth, and do not do so, they assume the fault for their ignorance. Why am I among a minority because I own, read, and use a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Why am I among an even smaller minority of those who own, read, and use a copy of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council? If I have been able to find these treasures, can they really be so well hidden from the rest of the Church? This says nothing of the many other, timeless, and dependable sources of Catholic teaching which are available at our fingertips. But, to read them takes a certain commitment; and sloth mitigates against commitment.

It is so much less bother to "just let people be people." Why "rock the boat" by telling a couple they need to stop having sex, and live separately before they can begin marriage preparation? Someone answered this for me recently by saying "If we did that, we'd have no weddings at all here -- we'd just turn everybody off." My God! I could hardly believe what I heard. I am reminded of the words of Chesterton, "the religion which begins by including everyone ends by converting no one."

We have come through 45 years of bland, secular catechesis. That is to blame for much of the ignorance we now carry about in place of Catholicism. Our laziness kicks in because of the spiritual atrophy brought about by these years of semi-pious fluff. It's "too darn hard to start over and learn about being a Catholic now! I'm sure God understands! We just need to treat people as we would like to be treated, and everything will be fine." And, sadly, for many "catholics," the foregoing has become their operative creed.

Thanks be to God for the pontificate of His Holiness Benedict XVI. We are standing at a crossroads, a turning point for the future of the Catholic Church. Our seminaries are once again, albeit slowly, filling with students attracted to orthodoxy; young men who bravely respond to the call to live and proclaim Love in Truth.

Fortunately, there are still Catholics who follow faithful priests. Many of these "sheep" come from a pasture long neglected by the more progressive types; "the traditional Catholics." These are those, who have clung to the teachings of the Catholic Church, often at great cost and sacrifice. They have taught it to their children--and to their children's children. They have learned and practiced the "old truth" which the Church has always taught as The Truth, and they are willing and happy to follow holy priests who will proclaim it in love and faithfulness. Within the ranks of these "traditional Catholics," are those who have maintained the True Faith within the so-called modern church, and those who sought refuge and strength in the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass --with the sanction of the Holy See and their bishops. As the Irish monks have lately been credited with saving civilization by their careful preservation of the great elements of human culture, so these traditional Catholics may well be credited one day with saving Catholicism for a world which so desperately needs it.

With apologies to typing teachers of old, "Now is the time for all good Catholics to come to the aid of their Church." The choice is yours! The decision is yours! The Truth is learnable and knowable. The resources are many. This is a call to arms! Adults; educate yourselves in the faith. Read, Study, Pray. Teach the True Faith; the Holy Catholic Faith, to your children. Support, encourage, and pray for good, holy priests who bravely follow and proclaim the teachings of the Catholic Church. And, do not shrink from confronting those who teach falsely. Confront respectfully and charitably, but do confront; you are responsible for whatever you allow.

To Arms! For God and His Holy Church! For our Blessed Lord, our Blessed Lady, and the Holy Company of Saints! Be Not Afraid! Be Catholic!

A Great Abomination, standing where it ought not

2009-07-18T12:46:00.003-05:00

"When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat." (Matthew 24:15-18)

A friend of mine sent me a message the other day inquiring as to what might be the reaction of the Holy Father to the decision yesterday of "The Episcopal Church USA," in which they authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions.

While I worded my response kindly, my gut-feeling is that the Holy Father will give this about as much attention as if it had been a decision reached by a group of WICCANS during a break from tree & shrub hugging. The Episcopal Church USA is as much of a non issue as anything can possibly be. While I feel deeply for the innocent faithful who have been sore wounded by the wanton apostasy and heresy of their church, the shameful truth must be told.

The Episcopal Church USA is not a "church" in the Christian understanding of that word. Of the essential 4 Marks which identify the True Church established by Jesus Christ; One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; I submit that the Episcopal Church USA bears not one.

The Episcopal Church USA, first off, is not "one." Not only is it relegated to some sort of observer or affiliate status within the world-wide Anglican Communion, but it is openly at war with its own dioceses--and within dioceses it wages legal wars against parishes and clergy. There is no oneness of faith either; as has always been the case in Anglicanism, one can believe nearly anything (or, even nothing) and be faithful. Teachings vary from priest-to-priest, and from diocese-to-diocese. Nothing is absolutely wrong, it seems, and nothing is always right. If there is any oneness to be found in the Episcopal Church it is the singular lack of unity which is most notable.

The Episcopal Church USA is not "holy." It has repeatedly espoused as holy the very things condemned as profane and evil in the Holy Scriptures. The ranks of its clergy are filled with divorced and remarried persons, homosexuals, pedophiles (surprised?), trans-gendered persons, and every imaginable abomination. It's official pro-gay-agenda organ, Integrity, has literally engineered the last several "General Conventions" of the church. Two conventions ago, when its present presiding bishop was elected, the Episcopal Church rejected a resolution which reaffirmed that the scriptures of the old and new testament are the written Word of God. They have rejected scripture, and have called holy those things which are not holy.

The Episcopal Church is not "Catholic." It is not even "catholic," nor *catholic. No matter how you couch or twist the term, this church is not a Catholic body. It neither has nor shares in anything remotely universal, with the glaring exception of sin. Dressing up in the liturgical garb does not make one Catholic. The Episcopal Church has far more in common with Unitarianism than with any "brand" of Catholicism. Unitarians in vestments--are yet Unitarians.

The Episcopal Church is not "Apostolic." While clinging ceremoniously to the laying on of hands from one bishop to the next, this outward show accomplishes absolutely nothing. The Episcopal Church does not now intend to do what The Church intends to do when The Church ordains and consecrates. Lacking that singular intention of ordaining priests and bishops into the sacrificial priesthood of Jesus Christ, the Episcopal Church has no valid claim to Apostolic Succession, despite its rigorous defense of the so-called pipeline theory in which valid consecration simply flows or trickles down through the generations--apparently regardless of intention. Aside from the question of valid ordination, the Episcopal Church USA cannot be Apostolic simply because it has rejected the clear and consistent teachings of the Apostles and of the Apostolic Fathers.

There are indeed orthodox Anglicans. There are Anglicans who likely possess valid orders. The Episcopal Church USA is no legitimate home for such persons of faith--nor has it been for many years. The Episcopal Church USA has--by design--become a pagan sex-cult. Wanton sexual perversion--and the official blessing of it has replaced Christ as its cornerstone. It has become an anti-church; a dark and distorted shadow church.

The "Good Ship Episcopal" is mortally damaged, and is going only one place--down to the bottom. To sit stubbornly in her deck chairs hoping to be saved is spiritual suicide. The faithful among her members should have long ago made their way to the lifeboats; to not do so now is inexcusable. Some will simply put blindfolds on, turn up the music, and go down with the ship; that is their choice of course, but I do not--and cannot respect them for doing so.

Orthodox Anglicans will find no hope in their association with the See of Canterbury, for she is taking on murky water as well. They will need to do serious soul searching, and tether themselves to a vessel that is not sinking--or they too, at length, shall dwell in the dark abyss of shame and abomination.

Loyal Disrespect

2009-06-27T09:43:00.002-05:00

"There are not many things which move me to anything like a personal contempt. I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification. I do not feel any contempt for a Bolshevist, who is a man driven to the same negative simplification by a revolt against very positive wrongs. But there is one type of person for whom I feel what I can only call contempt. And that is the popular propagandist of what he or she absurdly describes as Birth-Control...a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom." (G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows)

I have thought rather long and deeply about this, before daring to put it into words. What I am saying in this post may come as a bit of a shock to some who read it, because in some sense it represents a bit of a "flip-flop" from a former position which I can no longer hold in honesty and integrity.

We often hear the phrase "My country, right or wrong," or "even if I didn't vote for him, he's my president," or other such non-statements. As Chesterton tells us, the man who says "My country, right or wrong," is saying as much as the man who says "My mother, drunk or sober." Of such silliness is the remark, "I respect the office, not the man."

Really? And, exactly how do you do that? For example, peering back in time, how would you advise a German citizen -- who happens to be Jewish--to respect the office of Fuhrer, but not the man; Hitler? Should he give the straight-arm salute? Should he be faithful in wearing his Star-of-David arm band? Please, tell me, how should he do this "respect the office" dance? I confess, that I no longer believe in such advice, and I will no longer give it.

I respect Responsible Leadership; but when the Fuhrer, or the President do not exercise Responsible Leadership, then I -- as a loyal citizen-- will not respect them; not even through the veneer of their office.

Now to my point. Barack Obama is pro-death. He is vigorously anti-life. His appointment of so-called "pro-choice Catholics" to a myriad of administration positions, and his appointment of "Catholic collaborators" to several others is a cynical attack on the Truths held and taught by the Holy Catholic Church. He believes in, and will fight to the death for a "fundamental right to abortion." That being the case, I don't care at all what his policies are on war, hunger, education, capital punishment, or anything else. I don't believe that he can be trusted on the key issue of the "fundamental right to life," therefore I believe he would lie and mislead with regard to any and all other issues. He is what he is, and I cannot trust him; I will not.

I am tired of this whole "work together on the issues we agree on" approach. Somehow, I have this idea stuck in my head that abortion really IS child-killing; that every abortion really DOES end in homicide. So, how--in God's Name--do I agree, for even a moment, to set that "issue" aside, and work on "other issues on which we agree?" To do that, means to set aside the child-killing "issue," WHILE IT CONTINUES TO GO ON, so we can talk about "other things." Someone tell me, please, which children who will be killed (while we talk about other things) are so expendable?

Would we sit down with a serial killer, setting aside the fact that he's going to continue killing, and work together on other issues we agree on? Would we sit down with a habitual rapist, setting aside the fact that he's going to continue raping, and talk about areas where we can cooperate? Would we sit down with Hitler, setting aside the holocaust, and talk about the value of a disciplined military? Does anyone get it?

Somehow, I cannot imagine a Knight giving respect to a nave who slays children--nor to a "lord" who orders or condones such slaying. In fact, we would expect the Knight to defend the defenseless.

I cannot respect both Life, and the forces aligned against it. And I will no longer pretend to do so.

A Living Sacrifice

2009-06-22T09:45:00.003-05:00

"I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1)

Due in large part to some of the things I have been reading of late (The Compleat Gentleman, The Parish Priest, A Civilization of Love, What's Wrong with the World, and Apologia Pro Vita Sua), I have been having wild, chivalrous thoughts running about in my head and heart.

I have been, until recently, at a loss as to how best to express these. Then, while preparing a class on the 9th and 10th chapters of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, something akin to a spiritual thunderclap caught my attention! In verses 5-7, St. Paul quotes Psalm 39:7-8, "Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but a body have You prepared for Me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God."

At the very same time as I was reading these words, my thoughts went to Romans 12:1, "I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service."

I now know exactly the one word to express what has been swirling around inside of me: Sacrifice! Sacrifice in the sense in which it is described and called for in these two Pauline texts (and elsewhere).

According to the Word of God, our "reasonable service" is our presenting of our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God!

Living Sacrifices! This means that I am to "do" this while I yet live. The heroism, chivalry, knighthood, and discipleship to which I am called is one built of many seemingly small, "insignificant" acts in which I sacrifice my human will and body in a manner which is holy and pleasing to God.

These so-called "small, insignificant" acts of the will, have huge spiritual significance. It is by these heroic deeds, often unseen, that I may faithfully fulfill my role in the Great Battle between Good and Evil. Daily, by my submission to the will of God, I engage the forces of darkness--and participate in the eternal victory of Christ the King--our Sovereign High Priest.

The message for me, in all of this, is that there really are no "small, insignificant" deeds. Everything has consequences. The life of the Catholic Christian is not some sort of card game, where you get a certain number of wild-cards; "freebies," that you can do with what you wish, and not have it count against you. There are no "free passes." Every choice, every decision, every thought, word, and deed carry with them spiritual significance. In each of these, I let it be known for Whom I stand; to Whom I submit, and in Whose service I am engaged.

As the Lord has spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, and again through St. Paul, He has put His laws on our hearts, and has written them on our minds. This being so, there must be a reason--a purpose. I believe the purpose is this: That we present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God; our reasonable service.

Vivat Iesus!

"Haec est fides catholica; quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit."

2009-06-08T10:42:00.003-05:00

"This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully."

On this Monday after Trinity Sunday, I find myself reflecting on the many near-heresies I have heard in reference to the Most Holy Trinity. In my experience, most homilies on this Great Solemnity are fine right up to--and including--the statement "The mystery of the Holy Trinity, briefly stated, is that there are three divine persons in One God." The majority of homilists would do well to stop there, and go on to talk about the weather, gardening, and the beauty of the coming summer season.

Unfortunately, most go on to attempt some sort of explanation of the mystery. Most often, this unwise venture leads to some form of functional assignment of various Godly attributes to certain of the members of the Trinity. We all know where this goes: Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. Usually, by this point of these would-be homilies, I have either tuned out mentally, or actually removed myself quietly from the assembly.

The assignment of particular God duties to certain persons of the Trinity is heretical, in that it implies a separateness that cannot abide within the Holy Trinity. While "Enquiring minds" do indeed "want to know," some things simply cannot be explained; hence The Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

The difficulty in comprehending the Trinity is legendary. A story about St. Augustine comes to mind:

St. Augustine, studied the mystery of the Holy Trinity and although he was at his wits' end, he still could not comprehend it. One day he was walking on the sandy beach by the ocean. There churned in his mind the mystery of the Holy Trinity. He was talking to himself: "One God, but three Persons. Three Persons--not three Gods but one God. What does it mean? How can it be explained? How can my mind take it in?" And so he was torturing his mind and beating his brains out, when he saw a little boy on the beach. He approached him to see what he was doing.

The child had dug a small hole in the sand. With his little hands he was carrying water from the ocean and was dumping it in the little hole. St. Augustine asked, "What are you doing, my child?" The child replied, "I want to put all of the water of the ocean into this hole." Once more St. Augustine asked, "But is it possible for all of the water of this great ocean to be contained in this little hole?" And the child asked him in return, "If the water of the ocean cannot be contained in this little hole, then how can the Infinite Trinitarian God be contained in your mind?"

Perhaps this is why the Church has long had the tradition of offering the Athanasian Creed for our consideration on this Great Solemnity.

I close today's post by offering it for yours:

"Whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons,
nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three
Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge
every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say,
There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess,
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man,
yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead
into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance,
but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul
and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
God Almighty, from whence he will come
to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully,
he cannot be saved."

...in montem sanctum tuum et in tabernacula tua

2009-06-02T16:42:00.003-05:00

"From the beginning man has offered sacrifices in fulfillment of his obligations to God. Under the Old Law, sacrifices were divinely prescribed and regulated. At the temple in Jerusalem, smoke rose daily from the holocausts, and the blood of victims crimsoned the stones of the great altar. These sacrifices--pleasing as they were to God--were but types and figures of the one great sacrifice to come -- that of Calvary...

The Sacrifice of the Mass and that of Calvary are the same sacrifice, the 'one oblation,' because the Priest and Victim are the same -- Jesus Christ. The only difference is that on Calvary Christ offered Himself in a bloody manner; in the Mass He offers Himself in an unbloody manner...

When we participate...in the offering of Mass, we shall find that the cataracts of the deep are opened and the heavens rain down showers of grace. We shall find fountains of the merits of Christ pour their floods of benediction over our souls, that Christ, lifted up as on Calvary, draws our hearts to Himself."
(Rev. Ralph Gorman, C.P., Editor of The Sign, Preface to "The New Marian Missal," 1950)

One could never seriously write the above words as a description of a protestant communion service. These words of Fr. Gorman make no sense whatever unless applied to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; the liturgical and sacramental crown jewel of the Catholic Church.

How many of us stop to think about what the Mass "really is?" For this present discussion I don't really care if you're a "modern Mass Catholic," or a "TLM Catholic," I only care that you are a Catholic, loyal to the Holy Father -- Pope Benedict XVI.

That being established, I ask again, how many of us really stop to think about what the Mass really is?

I once heard a story of a Muslim fellow who said to a priest, "If I believed what you claim to believe about the Mass, I would fall on my face and not dare to look up until I was dismissed."

Think about that! If that Muslim believed that the Mass was the essential re-presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary of the Son of God to His Father for the redemption of sinners, AND that the consecration of the bread and wine changed them into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ--True God and True Man, he would fall on his face and not dare to look up until he was dismissed!

And we? Many of us sit like bums at a bus station, reading our bulletins and talking with those around us. Some of us even bring toys for our children to play with in the pews -- so they run no risk of boredom (and no risk of learning obedience).

What DO we really believe about the Mass? Make no mistake; our "operative belief" will show in our chosen attitude and actions.

What does my attitude say about what I believe? What do my actions say? Am I conscious of going "unto the altar of God"...unto His holy mount, and into His tabernacles?

That IS what the Mass IS. We either honor God or blaspheme Him every time we dare to be present at the Holy Sacrifice.

Now, to me, THAT's a sobering thought.

"Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa..."

Of Roses, Begonias, and Dirt

2009-05-31T19:38:00.002-05:00

The "Spiritual Works of Mercy" are rarely spoken of these days. Still, for some of us men of old, they function as a steady and present guide in daily life. As a reminder, the Spiritual Works of Mercy are:

1) Convert the Sinner
2) Instruct the Ignorant
3) Counsel the Doubtful
4) Comfort the Sorrowful
5) Bear wrongs patiently
6) Forgive injuries
7) Pray for the Living and the Dead

These find their origin in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and in the consistent practice of the Catholic Church since apostolic times.

Of late, I have found myself especially drawn to praying for the dead. As I have mentioned recently, I have rediscovered my connection with my great-great grandfather. I have been visiting his grave -- and those of his immediate family over the last several days. I found myself cleaning off the faces of the gravestones, brushing dirt from his Civil War Veteran marker, and silently planting an American Flag in his honor and memory.

Somehow, I sense that he has been praying for me. I feel the power of his prayers guiding me to this long-ignored work of mercy.

Today, I went out and purchased potting soil, a small rose bush, and several red begonias, in order to prepare an arrangement for his grave site. For many people, this would not be a "blog-worthy" event; for me it was, I assure you, a definite first. I was so unsure of myself that I sought out a friendly looking female customer and showed her what I was thinking to buy, and asked her if would look alright. Her encouragement gave me the reassurance to make my way to the cash register!

I arrived home, and looked at it all -- with no real clue as to what to do next. My dad was great with things like this. He could grow yellow roses in Green Bay--in the dead of winter! He'd have them blooming on December 12th for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe (my Irish dad's favorite feast).

I arranged everything within arms' reach in the bed of my pick-up, tore open the bag of topsoil, and then paused; what to do next? I took the planter-liner -- a thing that looked to me like an over-grown flower pot made out of pressed paper -- and doused it with water. Somehow, I decided that this would be a good thing; start it out wet!

Then I carefully removed the rose bush from its pot, and set it squarely in the middle of the liner. I packed potting soil around it, and tucked the begonias in a circle along the inside edge of the liner. Then I doused everything gently with fresh water, and stood back to have a look.

I nodded approvingly and said out-loud, "Yep, you can tell that I'm my father's son!" The arrangement looked exactly like ones my dad had fixed for the family graves for years-and-years before. I never knew that I was doing as he had done, until I had finished with it. So now, biting my lip and holding back some tears, I end up praying for my dear dad as well.

I think it interesting that I was aware of enjoying the feeling of the slightly moist soil on my hands as I worked it into place. I haven't done such things before, so in a sense it was a new experience. Usually, I am rather quick to wash any dirt from my hands -- feeling very uncomfortable--very dirty until I do.

But today, thinking of dear family members who have gone before me, and doing what small good thing I could do in prayerful commemoration, today...
I sense something very holy about roses, begonias, and dirt. Today I feel as though I have drawn closer to Him who fashioned the earth with His own hands.

Eternal Rest Grant unto Them, O Lord,
And let Perpetual Light shine upon Them.
May their Souls,
and the Souls of all the Faithful Departed,
Through Your tender Mercy
Rest in Peace. Amen.

Common Ground and Graveyards

2009-05-29T18:48:00.009-05:00

Miguel Diaz will, upon certain confirmation by the U.S. Senate, be the United States Ambassador to the Holy See. He, like his colleague Douglas Kmiec, is a so-called pro-life Democrat and ardent supporter of President Barack H. Obama. Diaz, like Kmiec and others of the catholic intellectual elite, claims to be "ardently pro-life," while being content to move beyond the issue of abortion to a more broad spectrum of life issues. These ardent pro-lifers concede defeat on the issue of abortion, and seek to work together with the president and his cohort on the areas where we can all agree. They seem to take the president at his word that he wishes to reduce the number of abortions by working to eliminate the need for abortion. In taking him at his word, they of course stipulate that there indeed is such a thing as a need for abortion.

Miguel Diaz may well believe that he is ardently pro-life. I do not trust anyone who says he is pro-life while at the same time supporting someone whose actions are pro-abortion. Anyone who seriously believes that President Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions is wrong.

One would only want to reduce abortion if one saw it as "bad." If one really did see it as bad, then reducing it would only make sense if that were the only way to move in the direction of ending it all together. If however, one sees abortion as an essential right of choice--an option that must remain on the table for all women, then such a person does not see abortion as "bad" or evil -- and thus has really no commitment to reducing the occurrence of abortion.

I am amazed at the so-called catholics who lap up this common ground dribble. How can anyone simply agree to disagree about abortion, and move on to other life issues?

I think I know the answer!

It's because many catholics do NOT really believe that abortion is the killing of a human child. They use clinical terminology such as abortion, or termination of pregnancy, which acts as a verbal buffer against the ugly reality. It is like calling rape unrequested insemination.

Dr. Alan Keyes, whom I previously considered as a bit over the top, consistently uses the words "Child-Killing" when referring to abortion. Such brazen, and crude terminology used to grate on even my sensibilities. I used to shy away from such explicit verbiage, as though it was fanatic. Similarly, I would distance myself from those who would hold up pictures of the abortion procedure, or display dolls with fake blood splashed on them. This was too much!

Or, is it simply too true? Is it simply too honest? I believe so.

As long as we Catholics allow the abortion debate to be conducted in a clean and sterile verbal environment, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Child-Killing is not a procedure to be kept safe and legal. It is an evil to be stopped! As G. K. Chesterton wrote, "...We could smash them to atoms, if we could be as indecent in our language as they are immoral in their conclusions" ("The Thing").

The only common ground on abortion is that every single one of these merciless killings ends in the death of a child: Their common ground are their graves -- at least for those few fortunate enough not to have been rinsed down a disposal unit.

We Catholics need to pause -- seriously -- and ask ourselves what we believe about abortion; the Truth?... or the lie put forth by planned parenthood, NARL, and the Obama administration?

Support of those who are either supportive or permissive of abortion is cooperation in Child-Killing. Looking for common ground so as to reduce or eliminate the need for abortion is a cowardly retreat in the face of the wanton slaying of innocent children. While abortion --in this country-- may not presently be called murder, there is absolutely no question that every abortion is an act of homicide. Anyone who can agree to move beyond homicide, and seek other areas of cooperation with its agents, is morally and spiritually bankrupt.

"...Thou shalt respect all weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them...Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy...Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and evil..."
(from Leon Gautier's "Ten Commandments of Chivalry" quoted in "The Compleat Gentleman" by Brad Miner. Richard Vigilante Books, 2009.)

Ubi Petrus - Ibi Ecclesia

2009-05-27T16:25:00.004-05:00

"Where Peter is, there is the Church!" And, to quote the title of Dr. R. Stackpole's 2006 (Marian Press) book, "St. Peter Lives in Rome."

I have long been tired of the ship of fools (including 1st Mate Pelosi) firing their deck guns at the barque of Peter. One of the reasons for keeping my 4th Degree Sword in my office, is to remind me of my sworn duty to defend the Holy Catholic Church, the Holy Father, the Bishops, and all priests. I fully intend, with God's help, to perform faithfully that duty.

Msgr. R. Michael Schmitz, the Vicar General and Provincial Superior of the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest reminds us "The two spiritual powers which the Church holds for the sake of our redemption, namely, of government and of sanctification, are fully present only in Peter. He is the source of their unity and thus, he is the base of all true Mission coming from the Lord. Far from Peter, there is no full unity, neither with the Church nor with Christ."

Msgr. Schmitz goes on, "Small wonder then if we see the Vicar of Christ constantly beset by storms. Desiring to destroy the work of redemption, the enemy relentlessly sends his forces against the Universal Shepherd of Christ's flock. Hence our duty is not only to look up to the Shepherd and follow him, but also to rally behind him and implore the heavenly Mother of the Church and St. Joseph, its Patron, as well as the Angels to defend and shield the Holy Father. Thus strengthened, he continues to guide the Church, the marvelous boat of salvation, as it floats on high waves without ever sinking under the waters."

My friends, to paraphrase Lincoln, we are engaged in a great spiritual war. What we do here, and what we say here, have eternal consequences. Every time we allow some malcontent, renegade, or other adversary; from without or from within, to malign the Holy Father, we fail in our duty to defend the Church.

Again, I recommend Brad Miner's book, The Compleat Gentleman. In the first chapter, Miner quotes Edmund Burke lamenting on the seizure and imprisonment of Queen Marie Antoinette. Burke lamented "that he had lived to 'see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.(p2)'"

To respectfully paraphrase him, I lament that I am living in a time when such disasters have fallen upon the Church in a world of supposedly gallant men, with pews full of men of honor. I would think that thousands of swords (figurative and perhaps otherwise) would leap from their scabbards to avenge even an insulting look aimed in the direction of our Shepherd. Sadly, most of us just "sit there," and let the insults and ridiculous criticisms go unchallenged. We would stand idly by, and let them put Peter in chains?

We must cultivate, as The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest says, "...a deep Roman Catholic consciousness, enabling not so much the re-creation as the continuation of an unbroken tradition of faithfulness to the Vicar of Christ on Earth as the wielder of the Lord's redemptive powers of government and sanctification."

"Where Peter is, there is the Church!" And should you be foolish enough to attack the Holy Father, the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, Know ye full well that I shall come to his defense!

En Garde you Scurvy Knave!

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, Have you reached a Verdict?

2009-05-26T19:44:00.004-05:00

While driving to a local shrine of the much-venerated Sam Walton, I was listening to some sort of talk-radio station. The particular program was a call-in type of affair, and I was only half-listening.

In between parking, and telling my two canine companions to settle down, I heard a caller saying, "...but even though Bush was a Methodist, we all saw him cozying up to the Pope; like he had no problem with him at all."

This peaked my interest, so I sat and listened a few more minutes:

"Announcer: So, what exactly are you saying? What is it you're concerned about?
Caller: Well, now we have Obama, and while we evangelicals don't agree with him on many issues, he's a protestant, and we would expect him to keep his distance from Rome. But we notice that he's appointed one Catholic after another, and now he's appointed a Catholic to the Supreme Court. This is very troubling, really. We're very concerned that the Pope's influence in this country is just going to keep growing..."

At this point, I laughed, and went in to buy dog biscuits, and fill a prescription.

I don't think the caller has anything to be worried about. So far there's no definitive word as to whether or not Ms. Sotomayor is Catholic. I find this "lack of evidence" interesting. It sort of reminds me of the old evangelistic one-liner "If you were arrested and charged with the crime of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" In terms of Sotomayor's religious affiliation, at least as of early this evening, "the jury is still out."

Even if she is a Catholic, those who cringe in fear of the "Tiara and Crossed Keys" need not be too concerned. There are 5 Catholics sitting on the Supreme Court now -- and so far, the forces of secular humanism have had very little to fear from the High Bench.

Judging from comments she has made, Ms. Sotomayor is a confirmed relativist; a non-believer in the existence of absolute truth. She also believes that latina women are naturally endowed with a certain superiority that uniquely suits them to the making of wise judicial rulings. Imagine if John Roberts had said that he felt that way about white men! That nomination would have been flushed on the spot.

While no verdict can yet be rendered on the question of Judge Sotomayor's catholicity, there is ample evidence that she is a liberal, judicial activist, who believes in using judicial authority to legislate. This, not her religious affiliation--or lack thereof, is the problem and danger inherent in her nomination to the Supreme Court.

The United States is no more likely to "cozy up to the Pope" with Judge Sotomayor on the high court, that it was with John Kennedy as president.

That the Fierce Might of our Enemies may be Brought Low...

2009-05-25T14:48:00.008-05:00

25th May, 2009 ~ Memorial Day in the United States of America

Today I attended and took part in the annual Memorial Day Mass offered on the grounds of our city's Catholic Cemetery. Our bishop, The Most Rev. David Lauren Ricken, was the sole celebrant. Having unexpectedly come into his presence a few minutes before the Mass, I had chatted with him briefly about my plan to track down my great-great grandfather's grave--in that very cemetery--later in the day.

Great-great Grandpa Murphy; Denis J. F. Murphy; received the Congressional Medal of Honor on January 22, 1892 in recognition of his bravery in an engagement with Confederate forces at Corinth, Mississippi, on October 3rd, 1862. That day, as he bore the flag in battle, he was wounded 3 times--which added to a wound suffered a day or so earlier--and yet "valiantly bore the colors throughout the conflict." He was one of 4 soldiers to be so honored for their actions at Corinth that day and the day following.

Bp. Ricken, in his homily, was kind enough to say "I found out this morning that there are even veterans of the Civil War buried here..." Although I never could have known him, I am quite certain that Sergeant Denis J. F. Murphy smiled at the bishop's notice.

There were several hundred people at Mass; some familiar to me, most not. I noticed a prominent, local, pro-choice "catholic" politician seated with his wife. I made a point of not noticing whether or not he received Communion from the "extraordinary minister" assigned to his section.

Although I normally resist the temptation to look around during Communion, today I granted myself a dispensation. I purposely looked at the easy-to-spot VFW members who were present. One such gentleman very carefully made his way to Communion, pausing now and then --either to regain balance, or because walking was painful--as he approached the blessed sacrament. I heard another fellow, who looked to be of the same vintage whisper to a friend "86 years old," as he pointed at the gentleman I was watching.

As he received our Blessed Lord in Communion, and devoutly Crossed himself and slowly headed back to his seat, head bowed, I whispered --almost audibly-- "greater love hath no man than this..."

You see, this fellow knew what it meant to lay his life down. He did so time and time again during his time of service. For some reason, known only at present to God, his laid-down life was not taken from him; but make no mistake, he laid it down.

I thought of my great-great grandfather again, and I choked up, my eyes blurring a bit with tears.

How much we owe to those who laid down their lives for the freedoms we now enjoy? And what debt beyond measure do they ask of us?

It came to me, as I considered these matters in silent meditation, that we owe them the debt of preserving for ourselves and our posterity, that freedom -- and those noble, Christian ideals-- for which these brave men laid down their lives.

I smiled, and nearly chuckled just a bit, as I realized that this 86 year old WWII veteran, and my great-great grandfather -- gone now just shy of 108 years -- are brothers in sacrifice: Both faithful, Catholic Men, who did their duty as clearly they saw it, and followed their Lord in laying down their lives for others.

"O God, who bringest wars to nought and shieldest by Thy power all who hope in Thee, overthrowing those that assail them; help Thy servants who implore Thy mercy; so that the fierce might of their enemies may be brought low, and we may never cease to praise and thank Thee. Through our Lord..." (collect: Votive Mass in Time of War)

Play or Passion?

2009-05-24T12:23:00.005-05:00

"Another op’nin, another show
In Philly, Boston, or Baltimo'
A chance for stage folks to say hello!
Another op'nin of another show."
(Lyrics by Cole Porter)

Let me do this gently: There are times, too many times, when I could easily have imagined the above lyrics as the "entrance song" at Mass.

There, I've finally said what I've been thinking on this subject for some time now. It really does seem to me that in many Catholic Churches, the operating standard of conduct is something at-or-below what one would find at either a high school play, or a movie theater.

The chatter, not merely in whispered tones --which is aggravating enough-- but in very loud "outside voice," begins in the parking lot and continues into the Church with only a brief pause for the holy water "crossing ritual." Once seated, the gab is on full force. Like all neighborly conversation, more appropriately conducted over the backyard fence, it runs the entire gamut of social life and commentary. I often suspect that I would find more reverence in the food court of a shopping mall.

Ah, then there's the opening bell! We all stand, and in some parishes we still "welcome our celebrant with our opening song." To be fair, most --but not all-- parishes have corrected that abomination. While singing the entrance song though, you'd better watch the words very carefully. Don't think that you know this one just because you've sung it a "gazillion" times since you were a child. It is more than likely that the words have been changed to protect against any possible offense. As many times as possible, the word "Christ" will be used in place of the word "Him," as though Christ is somehow "gender neutral." In fact, most of the changes involve the removal of masculine pronouns --even those referring to Jesus--and their replacement with other words; even "it" and "the." I find this artistically violent when such alterations are done to the works of writers and composers who are "no longer with us." Charles Wesley has been violated with the politically correct rendering of "Hail the Day that sees Christ Rise," rather than the original "Hail the Day that Sees Him Rise." The new version has so many verbal castrations in it, that I can only shake my head while reading it. What is the great need for such tampering?

But, I digress!

The next great clamour arises at the invitation "Let us share with one another a sign of peace." Far too often, this is recess; people leaning or climbing over pews in order to shake every possible hand within a 50 foot radius, and more loud, silly talking. Instead of "The Peace of the Lord be with You," and the answer of "And also with you," what is typically heard is "Hi...how ARE you? Have a WONDERFUL day!" All of which are very appropriate in the coffee hour and parking lot, but have no place within the context of the liturgy.

Rarely, the recess din has subsided by the time the priest is half-way through the Agnus Dei ("Lamb of God"). Usually, while this solemn and holy hymn is being recited, one can still hear the "leftovers" from the exchange of the peace.

Then comes Communion. More handshaking and greeting on the way up and back seem to be more and more the order of the day in many parishes. Sometimes I wonder if some of those who leave after communion (not a practice I advocate) may be doing so simply to get some quiet time with the Lord; having just received Him. Any hope of quiet time inside the Church is lost. There will be a Communion Song of some sort, followed by some other choir or instrumental piece, often with absolutely no time of silence allowed for in the "program."

When the Mass is ended, all the stops are let out! The chatter re-starts with wreckless abandon. There seem to always be a few who kneel down and try valiently to spend a few moments in thanks and adoration to the High King of Heaven, who resides silently in a mostly ignored tabernacle; but they are a tiny minority.

I am not writing this merely to "gripe." I write this with sadness. We are missing so much. This situation I have described is a product of poor catechesis over the past 40+ years, and of a "liturgical" movement that has been more focused on "stagecraft" and "performance quality," than on giving God the worship due to Him--and to His Holy Name.

The world, if it is to be reconciled to God, needs the Catholic Church. It needs the Catholic Church to be Catholic; to be a universal, worshiping, sacrificing, Church that comes into the awesome presence of the Most High God, and by her liturgy proclaims His enduring presence to all of mankind. If we become a church whose worship is something more akin to "attending a performance," we are not being faithful to Him.

This is a call to all of us, and to each of us.

"Eternal Father, I unite myself with the intentions and affections of our Lady of Sorrows on Calvary, and I offer Thee the Sacrifice which Thy beloved Son Jesus made of Himself on the Cross, and which He now renews on the holy altar..."

Dull and Dark

2009-05-22T09:06:00.007-05:00

The Baltimore Catechism teaches that sin dulls the intellect and darkens the soul.

It should be noted, that this teaching is not revoked in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - promulgated by the Servant of God John Paul II.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews (3:12-13) we read:

“Take heed, brethren, lest perhaps there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, to depart from the living God. But exhort one another every day, whilst it is called today, that none of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.”

I mention this today in response to the tragedy of Rembert Weakland, the retired archbishop of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

His recent "revelations" and unbelievable commentary are timely examples of the effects of sin. Not only has he admitted to "several" homosexual relationships, he has defended them as moral. As if this were not quite enough, he told a reporter, on May 19th, that he "never knew" that the abuse of children by clergy was illegal. When I saw that comment, I could hardly believe it. I read it, and re-read it several times. He never knew it was illegal?

Sin dulls the intellect, and darkens the soul.

We are cautioned, warned by the Word of God written in the Epistle to the Hebrews about the "deceitfulness of sin." In Psalm 36:1-10 (35, Douay) we have the passage "sin speaks to the sinner in his heart...there is no fear of God before his eyes..."

This is the only explanation for what has happened to Archbishop Weakland -- and, we must remember, can happen to us as well.

Sin dulls the intellect, and darkens the soul.

Once we begin on the path of disobedience; even with "little disobediences," we begin the fall from grace -- the fall into the darkness of sin. As we tumble further into its abyss, sin becomes more and more "natural" to us. We even lose the ability to identify sin as "sin." Our judgment becomes fogged, and our moral compass no longer points to "True North."

This condition is not reserved for those of low mental abilities. Everyone, regardless of education, I.Q., or position is vulnerable to temptation. We must resist, as St. Peter says, "firm in the faith," lest our adversary the devil devour us.

Sin dulls the intellect and darkens the soul.

Being in such darkness, and being dulled to the point of not recognizing the situation is a condition terrible and to be feared.

Rembert Weakland has brought shame and disgrace upon the Church, and there is no telling how his revelations and actions have hurt others -- including those who looked to him as their shepherd. He is a man entangled in spiritual darkness. Rather than rejoicing at his fall from grace, our duty is to pray for his conversion.

Let us pray for, and exhort each other every day -- while it is still today -- that none of us be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, Have Mercy on Me; a sinner!

"Don't It Make You Want to Go Home, Now..."

2009-05-21T08:25:00.008-05:00

"Don't it make you want to go home, now;
Don't it make you want to go home?
All God's children get weary when they roam,
O, don't it make you want to go home?" (Words & Music by Joe South, 1969, Lowery Music)

I am writing today's post after reading an article by Randy Sly, former Archbishop of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and now Roman Catholic. His article can be found at:
http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=33610

I found Randy's article interesting because it so mirrored my own reasons for coming home to the Catholic Church. Like Randy, I came to the Church from an independent Anglican jurisdiction. In fact, the "archbishop" of my jurisdiction had coauthored an article on "convergence" together with Randy. Unlike Randy, however, I had been raised in the Catholic Church, and had foolishly left her behind while I went roaming other pastures. That's a story for another day!

Through my involvement with the ministry of the Coming Home Network International, I have had the opportunity to meet and share with a good number of former protestant clergy. From this experience I have learned that there is a common thread, or two, in our reasons for "coming home."

Sly quotes St. Elizabeth Ann Seton's statement about coming into the Church that was founded by God Himself. She really "puts it in a nutshell."

As an Anglican "priest," I found myself increasingly in the situation of a "fish out of water." I believed Catholic, preached Catholic, taught Catholic, mimicked Catholic liturgy and sacraments, but had none of the spiritual support that is found in the Catholic Church; Absolute Truth - and - Authority.

These spiritual supports, as I call them, are common to many of us who "come home." We grow weary of roaming far from Rome. We tire of the "clear and present danger" looming in all denominations: Their truth is subject to a majority vote at their next conference, convention, or synod; nothing is absolute. The denominations also suffer from the lack of legitimate, Godly authority. The proof of this lack is the very fact that the denominations only exist because of rebellion against authority. Like nature abhorring a vacuum, the denominations search for something to fill the authority void. Some create sola scriptura, or other such non-biblical doctrines as their authorities. In reality, they end up with their authority being found tied to their truth; everything is invested in the whim of the majority of voting delegates.

No denomination is safe. No independant group or communion, or whatever else they may be called, is safe. Every Christian Community that is separated from the Catholic Church is sitting on this same time bomb.

Interestingly, it is a time bomb that was planted with the very seeds of the reformation. Protestantism and its denominations were born in rebellion; in the casting off of authority. Once separated from Peter, they were also cut adrift from their only assurance of Truth.

Authority and Truth; these are what many of us "come home" for. These are what we tend to rebell against in the flesh, while longing for in the spirit.

When we roam, we become weary. Thankfully, God's grace is there to bring us home.

BEARING WITNESS TO THE FAITH THROUGH THE DIGITAL WORLD

2009-05-20T08:19:00.002-05:00

This today from Vatican Information Service:

VATICAN CITY, 20 MAY 2009 (VIS) - At the end of his general audience, celebrated this morning in St. Peter's Square, the Pope made a brief appeal for World Communications Day, due to be held on Sunday 24 May.

Speaking English, the Holy Father recalled how in his Message for the Day this year "I am inviting all those who make use of the new technologies of communication, especially the young, to utilise them in a positive way and to realise the great potential of these means to build up bonds of friendship and solidarity that can contribute to a better world.

"The new technologies", he added, "have brought about fundamental shifts in the ways in which news and information are disseminated and in how people communicate and relate to each other. I wish to encourage all those who access cyberspace to be careful to maintain and promote a culture of respect, dialogue and authentic friendship where the values of truth, harmony and understanding can flourish.

"Young people in particular, I appeal to you: bear witness to your faith through the digital world! Employ these new technologies to make the Gospel known, so that the Good News of God's infinite love for all people, will resound in new ways across our increasingly technological world!"

AG/NEW TECHNOLOGIES/... VIS 090520 (230)

The Holy Father has put forth this morning the argument, if you will, that I have often proposed to fellow defenders of the Faith: We do a disservice when we "unplug" from the digital world (except of course for those who are divinely led to do so).

Removing the voices of witnesses to the Truth will leave this powerful digital medium in the hands of those who exploit it for evil means -- and an evil end.

Before the end of his earthly life, Pope John Paul II warned that we have already entered into the "final conflict" between the Church and the world. How long this final conflict will last is known to God alone. But, lest anyone "not get it," we are at war. We Catholics stand at the head of the "Army of Christendom." We must be engaged in the battle; that is what it means to be faithful.

To be faithfully engaged in the battle, we must use every legitimate means at our disposal to wage "holy war" through the spreading of the Holy Gospel; "so that the Good News of God's infinite love for all people, will resound in new ways across our increasingly technological world."

We can no more justify unplugging from cyberspace, than we can justify removing the Catholic presence from the marketplace, the public square, or the halls of government. Wherever people are - that is where the Catholic witness is needed - and is hungered for.

I firmly believe that the enemies of Truth hope that we will depart from the digital world, shaking its dust from our feet as we leave.

Let us remain then, and let us be faithful and unafraid: He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world.

"A Great Chasm is fixed between us...."

2009-05-19T07:40:00.007-05:00

Every now and then I am struck by how some people really do "get it."

Last evening, at the end of a session I am teaching on St. Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, a young man -- I believe he is a high school sophomore -- approached me and listened briefly as I answered a question someone had asked relative to abortion. This young man immediately said "There can be no 'middle ground' when it comes to abortion." Well said!

This fellow "gets it." Many, of far more years in the Faith, still do not get it. But let us rejoice for those who do.

"There can be no 'middle ground' when it comes to abortion."

This is not to say that we who battle in defense of life can expect to win the entire victory "all at once." A move from "abortion on demand" to "abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life" would be a move "in the right direction;" meaning that we never view such a directional move as an acceptable 'state of affairs.' Yes, we agree that a reduction in murders from 100 to 10 is a good thing; however we may never 'accept' that the 10 murders are a good thing -- or that they are somehow 'necessary' due to some other factors. Every one of them is vile, evil, and an attack on God - the Author and Giver of Life. Thus, we must not tire, we must not falter, we must not fail in our defense of life, and in the assertion that...

"There can be no 'middle ground' when it comes to abortion."

You see, "middle ground" implies some area--some place--some wiggle room where "both sides" have what they want. Worse, it implies a "place" where both sides are "right." More explicitly, it "allows" for "some abortions" to be accepted as inevitable; and therefore as 'acceptable losses.'

"There can be no 'middle ground' when it comes to abortion."

Scott -- a salute with my ready sword to you, sir! By God (and by His grace) You've got it!

"St. Michael, the archangel, defend us in battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Power of God, cast into hell Satan and all other evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen"

The Need(?) for Rape

2009-05-18T07:36:00.007-05:00

In a certain sense, the two sides on the issue of rape are irreconcilable. Both will continue to make their case passionately to the nation. Surely, we can have this discourse without demonizing each other. Surely we can work together on concerns we share in common. If together we work to eliminate the "need" for rape, surely that will be something both sides will agree on.

I sincerely hope that you -- the reader -- recognize the above as totally berserk! Yet, simply switch the word "rape" with the word "abortion," and you have essentially the proposition made yesterday at "South Bend Secular University" (aka; "notre dame") by President B.H. Obama.

And, of course, as he let these oratorical pearls drip from his pursed lips, the clowns on stage with him -- including many sporting Roman Collars under their academic robes -- applauded loudly (on cue?). By their applause, they indicated approval of what had just been said. They, by their applause, agreed that there actually IS a "need for abortion." Well, there you have it -- it's not "sin," because it is a legitimate need. We certainly don't want to "demonize" it, do we?

I am wondering if Mr. Obama will say something similar to the Prime Minister of Israel when they discuss the problems in the mideast. Will Mr. Obama suggest that surely the two sides can work together to eliminate the "need" for missiles to be lobbed into Tel Aviv?

You see, when we upgrade evil to the status of "need fulfillment," it's no longer something serious enough to "be against." Then we just "work together" to be sure the "need" is fulfilled in a "legal, safe, and rare" fashion.

Excuse me, I think the Kool-Aid is ready!

South Bend Secular University

2009-05-17T18:54:00.004-05:00

President B.H. Obama has come and gone from what used to be --at some point in history-- a Catholic University rightly called "The University of Notre Dame." I listened to his speech today, and watched so-called "Catholic" dignitaries applaud him at nearly every strategic pause. In fact, he was "interrupted" more than 20 times by the clapping of once-Catholic hands.

I have come to the conclusion that many "Catholics" simply don't get it when it comes to the sanctity of life. They so want to believe in Mr. Obama, that they willingly set aside the fact that he is the most pro-abortion (and thus the most anti-life) president in our nation's history.

I sat in absolute amazement that these people could swallow the porridge he was feeding them about wanting to reduce the number of abortions. The only reason one could possibly have for really wanting to reduce the number of abortions would be one's recognition that abortion is a "bad thing." Mr. Obama clearly does NOT think so. Judging by his record both in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate--and by his actions thus far as president--Mr. Obama believes that abortion is perfectly fine--if that's what the woman decides to do. The audience at South Bend Secular University (aka; "notre dame") nodded their heads, clapped their hands, and with wild cheers allowed him to "have it both ways."

It is totally incredible (that is "not believable") that President Obama really wants to reduce the number of abortions. He simply wants to have that "drum beat" win him "Catholic support" for his social agenda. His "Catholic" fans will rally behind him to support his economic and social programs -- all with the false promise that giving enough people enough free government money and services will lower the number of abortions. The truth is, it won't. The demand for abortion is not fueled by finances -- it is fueled by a selfish disregard for -- and devaluation of--Life. No amount of money or services will change that.

I am now convinced that the "Change" Mr. Obama seeks to bring is a deepening of the culture of death. His support of abortion (aka; "pro-choice") and his promotion of embryonic stem-cell research prove that he is not an instrument of positive change. One cannot support intrinsic evil, and be "working for the common good."

As an 80-year old priest asked a "notre dame" campus policeman -- as he (the priest) was handcuffed and dragged away on Saturday, May 16th--"What's wrong with your mind? What's wrong with your mind?" The same should be asked of the "catholic" clergy, laity, and students who supported Mr. Obama with their applause.