David Blankenhorn is one of the foremost experts on marriage in the United States. Blankenhorn is a sociologist by trade, and founder and President of the Institute for American Values, an organization devoted to strengthening families and civil society in the U.S. and the world. Blankenhorn is a self-professed liberal but also an outspoken opponent of same-sex "marriage." The Future of Marriage is one of the most important books written to date on the contemporary threats traditional marriage faces in Western Civilization. This book is not written from a Catholic perspective. It is not even written from a particularly Christian perspective. Instead, Blankenhorn writes purely from a sociological standpoint, and offers a cogent defense of marriage in terms even secularists can not ignore.
Blankenhorn's main thesis is that marriage in America today is in danger of becoming "deinstitutionalized." Deinstitutionalization refers to the process of abolishing a practice that has been considered a norm, or reducing the importance, central meaning, and significance of a social institution. Marriage is such a public, social institution. In fact, marriage's public nature is its most important feature. The purpose of marriage, according to Blankenhorn is to ensure, insofar as possible, that the man and woman who make the child through sexual intercourse are there for the child, as social parents, and are there for each other. Marriage brings together biologically unrelated persons to produce the next generation, create fatherhood as a social role for men (which makes civilized society possible), and radically expands the reach and possibility of kinship ties. It brings together the two sexes in such a way that each child is born with two parents, a mother and a father, who are legally and jointly responsible for the child. Civil marriage is a societal endorsement of that monogamous, sexual relationship that exists to bring children into the world and ensure that the children know their parents, and are raised by their parents.
What the institution of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. (In modern society) marriage regulates sex in a wholly non-coercive manner (sex outside of marriage is no longer a crime). Marriage exists to solve a problem that arises between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity or procreative power? Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman (even in polygamous marriage) for the same reason that there are two sexes: it takes one of each to produce a child. That doesn't mean marriage is worthwhile only insofar as it yields children, but it means that the institution is oriented toward child-rearing. A healthy marriage culture encourages adults to arrange their lives so that as many children as possible are raised and nurtured by their parents in a common household.
Same-sex marriage is one part of the larger threat to the institution. The other threats to marriage include no-fault or otherwise easy divorce, the proliferation of unwed child-birthing and cohabitation, contraception, and the Western tendency to think of all things in radically private, individualistic terms. Ideas, movements, or technologies that separate marriage from its procreative and public purpose greatly weaken marriage. We could probably deinstitutionalize marriage without adopting gay marriage, but gay marriage clearly presupposes and in some respects requires deinstitutionalization.
Gay marriage proponents always begin from the premise that marriage is a private contract between consenting adults for the purpose of love and companionship. Unfortunately, most modern Americans view marriage in these private contractual terms as well. Therein lies the most fundamental problem says Blankenhorn. If one accepts this more contemporary view of marriage as a private relationship between two adults for the purpose of love and companionship, ignoring marriage's public function as a societal sanction of a sexual relationship for the purpose of creating and raising children, then same-sex marriage makes perfect sense. And if same-sex "marriage" is legalized, marriage will most certainly continue down this path of deinstitutionalization in which marriage becomes solely and decisively a private contractual arrangement, the form of which is limited only to the imagination of consenting adults. Polygamy could not logically be prohibited, nor could a multitude of different "family" arrangements. A new conception of marriage based on nothing more than "love and companionship" would eviscerate the traditional collective understanding of marriage and change its meaning and objectives forever. Why then, couldn't elderly brothers who take care of each other, or friends who share a house and bills, or boyfriends/girlfriends be marriages? Why shouldn't their relationships be recognized as well? Under the traditional view of marriage, however valuable those relationships are, they are not oriented towards procreation and children, so we do not treat them the same way. Society and governments have traditionally favored the uniquely procreative relationship of 1 man-1 woman, and set it apart with certain rights, privileges (and penalties for breaking this covenant) to ensure the propagation of society and help to ensure that children are brought into this world under the best possible circumstances. But if marriage is reduced to a private arrangement for the purpose of love, companionship, and intimacy, is no longer about creating and raising children, and is open to coupling arrangements that cannot generate new life, society's interest in encouraging, endorsing, and preserving marriage evaporates. Thus, there is a significant danger that over time, it becomes pointless for the state to confer any special marital status at all.
Blankenhorn observes that in the short term, if same-sex marriage becomes legally sanctioned, the legal framework of our society governing families and parenthood will have to be re-written to accommodate this revolution. If this is to happen, our culture and our laws may no longer favor one type of marriage over another--to do so would be akin to discrimination. In fact, criticizing gay "marriage" becomes hate speech. More importantly, our government will have a duty to give equal treatment to all "forms" of marriage, including the resulting changes to what constitutes parenthood. Same-sex marriage necessarily would require us to give greater legal protections to gay couples raising children by essentially creating a completely new definition of what a "parent" is. So a woman in a gay relationship with another woman is automatically the parent of that mother's child. Why? Because she and the mother say that she is. She is not just a caregiver, not just the mother's lover and partner. She is the child's parent. This novel conception of parentage is necessary if we are to put gay "marriage" on equal footing with traditional marriage and accord its participants the same rights and privileges. This threat is not mere alarmist hyperbole. After Canada legalized same-sex "marriage", Canadian law erased the term "natural" parent from its books and replaced it with the term "legal" parent.
This legal accommodation of gay marriage and the rights of gay parents would require us in both law and culture to deny the double origin of the child. It would would require us to withdraw marriage's greatest promise to the child--the promise that, insofar as society can make it possible, the child will be loved and raised by the mother and father who made him. In a gay marriage culture, when one says, "every child deserves a mother and a father," one will be saying something that is not only controversial, but that also conflicts with the law. To accept same-sex marriage, society will have to disregard the notion that a mother and a father is the right of each child and create a legal regime in which natural and heterosexual parents cannot be favored over "legal" parents. Children will no longer have the right to know and be raised by their mother and father (to the extent it is possible). The rights of children will be withdrawn in favor of the rights of (gay) adults. Children become rights of the gay couple, not individuals that possess their own infinite value and rights. The mantra of the gay marriage movement of "we, as consenting adults, have the right to get married and have children" necessarily conflicts with the rights of children to know and be raised by their parents. Thus, if government gets out of the business of marriage (as so many wish it would), then the government essentially declares that it is no longer interested in the welfare of children.
If marriage is weakened, as it would be if government no longer fostered, encouraged, or even recognized traditional marriage, those that are the most vulnerable and the most dependent upon marriage would suffer the most: children. But when marriage as a social institution weakens, government ironically has to get more involved, not less. The government ends up performing many of the functions previously provided by the parents, and courts end up acting as referees to decide issues such as custody, etc. Moreover, marriage exists to make sure that tomorrow exists. It is the best institution ever devised to provide for the generation and care of children (the future of society). So if the government cannot have an interest in marriage and ensuring that society continues, then the government can have no interest in anything.
Finally, many proponents of gay marriage conceptualize marriage in terms of "civil rights." This argument has an element of self-delusion about it, because at the same time, those who propose it deny that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these false assurances. Our tolerance for racism is quite limited: the government, while it generally respects the relevant constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are strong. If our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will have to undergo change that would be as dramatic as it would be extensive. Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus. Criticism of gay marriage, will be equivalent to hate speech. Religious organizations that choose not to give benefits to the "spouse" of a gay employee would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit and hefty federal fine, etc., etc., etc.
Changing a public meaning is a public event; the meaning changes for everyone. Changing the definition of marriage would forever change the way we all think about marriage, and will result in deinstitutionalization. And this point cannot be overstated. Re-defining marriage would make the countervailing norms and the public purpose of marriage themselves incoherent, which affects everyone. In fact, as Blankenhorn points out with statistical data, the countries with same sex marriage were also the ones where support for marriage as an institution is weakest--where people tended to accept single parenthood and divorce, for example. Countries with marriage-like civil unions showed more support for marriage; those with only regional recognition of gay marriage showed more support still, and those without either gay marriage or civil unions were most supportive of all of traditional marriage. Same sex marriage may not be the main cause of weak support for marriage, but the two clearly go together. Same sex marriage is not a sign of a strong marriage culture, and adopting same-sex marriage would permanently and fundamentally alter this institution in ways that we have yet to even imagine. Blankenhorn's book is a sobering caution against this social experimentation.
Overall, Blankenhorn offers a robust defense of traditional marriage. Although the book is not a theological work, the topic of Christian teaching does come up occasionally. I noticed a few instances where the author misstated Church teaching and took a few Church fathers' writings out of context; these are fairly inconsequential parts of the book that are not really necessary to his main thesis. In addition, Blankenhorn struck me as a bit naive in overlooking the threat that civil unions would pose to marriage. But I think this position derives from the author's desire to offer a sort of compromise with the gay marriage movement, rather than an oversight. This also, is a very minor criticism of an otherwise excellent book. The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn is a must read for anyone who is serious about the gay marriage debate.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Benedict XVI's comment on condoms
If you followed yesterday's media frenzy about the Pope's statement on condoms on the occasion of the publication of the book Liturgy of the World, you have probably been mislead about the true nature of those comments. The Catholic World Report proposes an excerpt of the interview in which the Pope addresses the issue which I post below:
An excerpt from Light of the World, Peter Seewald’s book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI
From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:
On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa youstated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.
The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.
I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
An excerpt from Light of the World, Peter Seewald’s book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI
From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:
On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa youstated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.
The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.
I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
2010 Nobel Prize in Medicine: Awarded a Promoter of the Culture of Death
After the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to newly-elected U.S. President Barack Obama, a committed pro-abortion and anti-family supporter, another Nobel Prize has been awarded to a promoter of the culture of death. The 2010 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has in fact been awarded to Robert Edwards, the British researcher who developed in vitro fertilization (IVF).
According to the Nobel Committee Press Release, "His contributions represent a milestone in the development of modern medicine." This is really puzzling and makes one wonder: wasn't medicine suppose to heal people and help them live a healthy life? Isn't the Nobel Prize supposed to be awarded to "scientists who have made the most important discoveries for the benefit of mankind"? How is this discovery beneficial when millions of babies are killed in the process of 'creating' one in a lab? This researcher has designed a way to 'make' babies in a tube, and thus opened the way to man's attempt to supplant the Creator of life, and in the meantime, he has also opened the doors for the destruction of life. How many embryos have been thrown away once the right one has been implanted? How many millions of babies have been diposed of as if they were a commodity since 1978? This is obviously something that the Nobel Prize Committee and the papers don't tell you.
Because Mr. Edward's 'discovery' does not benefit humanity but only contributes to the destruction of its children, it should not be an achivement deserving of recognition, let alone a Nobel Prize. It is clear that the agenda behind these awards perpetrates a culture of death.
According to the Nobel Committee Press Release, "His contributions represent a milestone in the development of modern medicine." This is really puzzling and makes one wonder: wasn't medicine suppose to heal people and help them live a healthy life? Isn't the Nobel Prize supposed to be awarded to "scientists who have made the most important discoveries for the benefit of mankind"? How is this discovery beneficial when millions of babies are killed in the process of 'creating' one in a lab? This researcher has designed a way to 'make' babies in a tube, and thus opened the way to man's attempt to supplant the Creator of life, and in the meantime, he has also opened the doors for the destruction of life. How many embryos have been thrown away once the right one has been implanted? How many millions of babies have been diposed of as if they were a commodity since 1978? This is obviously something that the Nobel Prize Committee and the papers don't tell you.
Because Mr. Edward's 'discovery' does not benefit humanity but only contributes to the destruction of its children, it should not be an achivement deserving of recognition, let alone a Nobel Prize. It is clear that the agenda behind these awards perpetrates a culture of death.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Need to Write
"I need to write things which in part I cannot quite grasp, but which, in effect, represents a proof that what is in me is stronger than myself." Albert Camus
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Suffering and Love
Is there suffering upon this new earth? On our earth we can only love with suffering and through suffering. We cannot love otherwise, and we know of no other sort of love. I want suffering in order to love.
Quote from Dostoevsky's “The Dream of A Ridiculous Man”
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Dostoyevsky on the Enlightenment
They answered me:
"We may be deceitful, wicked and unjust, we know it and weep over it, we grieve over it; we torment and punish ourselves more perhaps than that merciful Judge Who will judge us and whose Name we know not. But we have science, and by the means of it we shall find the truth and we shall arrive at it consciously. Knowledge is higher than feeling, the consciousness of life is higher than life. Science will give us wisdom, wisdom will reveal the laws, and the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness."
That is what they said, and after saying such things everyone began to love himself better than anyone else, and indeed they could not do otherwise. All became so jealous of the rights of their own personality that they did their very utmost to curtail and destroy them in others, and made that the chief thing in their lives. Slavery followed, even voluntary slavery; the weak eagerly submitted to the strong, on condition that the latter aided them to subdue the still weaker. Then there were saints who came to these people, weeping, and talked to them of their pride, of their loss of harmony and due proportion, of their loss of shame. They were laughed at or pelted with stones. Holy blood was shed on the threshold of the temples. Then there arose men who began to think how to bring all people together again, so that everybody, while still loving himself best of all, might not interfere with others, and all might live together in something like a harmonious society. Regular wars sprang up over this idea. All the combatants at the same time firmly believed that science, wisdom and the instinct of self-preservation would force men at last to unite into a harmonious and rational society; and so, meanwhile, to hasten matters, 'the wise' endeavoured to exterminate as rapidly as possible all who were 'not wise' and did not understand their idea, that the latter might not hinder its triumph. But the instinct of self-preservation grew rapidly weaker; there arose men, haughty and sensual, who demanded all or nothing.
Quote from “The Dream of A Ridiculous Man”
Friday, September 10, 2010
Why Is Modern Physics Biased Against Religious Belief?
In a fascinating discussion of Frank Tipler's book, The Physics of Christianity, lawyer-blogger A.S. Haley, aka The Anglican Curmudgeon, helps us to understand why modern physicists go to great lengths to ignore the signs that are in front of their faces.
"What, then, is the problem? Why are scientists unwilling to accept fully the implications of the three tried-and-true great theories which evolved over the last century? Listen to Professor Tipler, once again, in his own words (p. 47):
"One of the implications of the laws of physics, an implication that most physicists find philosophically and religiously repugnant, is a necessary consequence of the [well-documented] expansion of the universe: it began a finite time ago . . . in a singularity, where the laws of physics themselves do not apply. The laws of physics do not apply at a singularity because, as the initial singularity is approached from inside space and time, physical quantities such as the density of material go to infinity. The laws of physics, however, can govern only the behavior of finite quantities. In the words of the great cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), "The problem with a singularity is that not only do the known laws of physics not apply there, no possible laws of physics can apply there." Hoyle is completely correct; no possible laws of physics can control a singularity. Modern physicists hate the idea that something real could be beyond the power of the laws of physics. . . ."
There is more, much more, that will reward a careful reading.
Check it out.
"What, then, is the problem? Why are scientists unwilling to accept fully the implications of the three tried-and-true great theories which evolved over the last century? Listen to Professor Tipler, once again, in his own words (p. 47):
"One of the implications of the laws of physics, an implication that most physicists find philosophically and religiously repugnant, is a necessary consequence of the [well-documented] expansion of the universe: it began a finite time ago . . . in a singularity, where the laws of physics themselves do not apply. The laws of physics do not apply at a singularity because, as the initial singularity is approached from inside space and time, physical quantities such as the density of material go to infinity. The laws of physics, however, can govern only the behavior of finite quantities. In the words of the great cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), "The problem with a singularity is that not only do the known laws of physics not apply there, no possible laws of physics can apply there." Hoyle is completely correct; no possible laws of physics can control a singularity. Modern physicists hate the idea that something real could be beyond the power of the laws of physics. . . ."
There is more, much more, that will reward a careful reading.
Check it out.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Garrigou-Lagrange: Quote of the Day
"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P
(Thanks, Tom for sending this quote.)
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tabletop Pastoral Care
Christ Church uses remarkably simple equipment to take prayer to the people in southeast Schenectady, New York.
I arrived at the church at 9 a.m. with Torre Bissell and we set up a 4-by-4 folding table with five chairs.
“Put it here,” Torre said, pointing to the crack in the sidewalk that must have been the property line. “That way no one can say we’re on the sidewalk. And point chairs this way, facing out. That way people don’t feel trapped.”
And that was it. A laminated sign reading “Prayer Table” flapped from the front. Torre pulled out a pen and paper and jotted down my name and his and the day’s date. Then he pulled out a bag of wooden crosses and laid out a few along with a thin paperback English Standard Version New Testament.
“Good morning!” he called to a man walking across the street. “Can we pray for you?”
The man waved and walked on his way.
Christ Church is on State Street in Hamilton Hill, which most people just call The Hill. In the cities where I’ve lived, The Hill is never a nice neighborhood. Hamilton Hill is no different.
“The Hill provides two essential services to the suburbs: prostitution and drugs,” Torre told me later over lunch.
Another man approached.
“Good morning! What do you need us to pray for?” Torre called.
Read it all.
I arrived at the church at 9 a.m. with Torre Bissell and we set up a 4-by-4 folding table with five chairs.
“Put it here,” Torre said, pointing to the crack in the sidewalk that must have been the property line. “That way no one can say we’re on the sidewalk. And point chairs this way, facing out. That way people don’t feel trapped.”
And that was it. A laminated sign reading “Prayer Table” flapped from the front. Torre pulled out a pen and paper and jotted down my name and his and the day’s date. Then he pulled out a bag of wooden crosses and laid out a few along with a thin paperback English Standard Version New Testament.
“Good morning!” he called to a man walking across the street. “Can we pray for you?”
The man waved and walked on his way.
Christ Church is on State Street in Hamilton Hill, which most people just call The Hill. In the cities where I’ve lived, The Hill is never a nice neighborhood. Hamilton Hill is no different.
“The Hill provides two essential services to the suburbs: prostitution and drugs,” Torre told me later over lunch.
Another man approached.
“Good morning! What do you need us to pray for?” Torre called.
Read it all.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Christian Moral Therapeutic Deism
Christian Smith and Melinda Denton, principal investigators for the National Study of Youth and Religion, say that a new faith has infected American churches, a faith they describe this way:
"A significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that it is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but has rather substantially morphed into . . . Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
According to Christian Century writer Kenda Creasy Dean,
"If teenagers wrote out the creed of this religious outlook, it would look something like this:
• A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over life on earth.
• God wants people to be good, nice and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
• The central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about yourself.
• God is not involved in my life except when I need God to solve a problem.
• Good people go to heaven when they die."
Read Kenda Creasy Dean's important review of this study of American religious youth.
"A significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that it is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but has rather substantially morphed into . . . Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
According to Christian Century writer Kenda Creasy Dean,
"If teenagers wrote out the creed of this religious outlook, it would look something like this:
• A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over life on earth.
• God wants people to be good, nice and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
• The central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about yourself.
• God is not involved in my life except when I need God to solve a problem.
• Good people go to heaven when they die."
Read Kenda Creasy Dean's important review of this study of American religious youth.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Bishop Olmstead, Marriage, and Judge Walker's decision
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix published a beautiful article in The Catholic Sun explaining the importance of defending the true and real nature of marriage. His article was a response to Judge Walker's decision to strike down Prop. 8 in California.
Read the article "Marriage: a 'hang up' or God's plan?"
Read the article "Marriage: a 'hang up' or God's plan?"
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Hilaire Belloc - Europe and the Faith
So things have gone. We have reached at last, as the final result of that catastrophe three hundred years ago, a state of society which cannot endure and a dissolution of standards, a melting of the spiritual framework, such that the body politic fails. Men everywhere feel that an attempt to continue down this endless and ever darkening road is like the piling up of debt. We go further and further from a settlement. Our various forms of knowledge diverge more and more. Authority, the very principle of life, loses its meaning, and this awful edifice of civilization which we have inherited, and which is still our trust, trembles and threatens to crash down. It is clearly insecure. It may fall in any moment. We who still live may see the ruin. But ruin when it comes is not only a sudden, it is also a final, thing.(closing of Europe and the Faith "Sine auctoritate nella vita" by Belloc)
In such a crux there remains the historical truth: that this our European structure, built upon the noble foundations of classical antiquity, was formed through, exists by, is consonant to, and will stand only in the mold of, the Catholic Church.
Europe will return to the Faith, or she will perish.
The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.
(This text is public domain and available to be copied and quoted freely.)
Monday, August 2, 2010
Book One - St Augustine's Confessions
The following text is the opening of St Augustine's Confessions (which is free online and public domain).
Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Thy power, and Thy wisdom infinite. And Thee would man praise; man, but a particle of Thy creation; man, that bears about him his mortality, the witness of his sin, the witness that Thou resistest the proud: yet would man praise Thee; he, but a particle of Thy creation. Thou awakest us to delight in Thy praise; for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee. Grant me, Lord, to know and understand which is first, to call on Thee or to praise Thee? and, again, to know Thee or to call on Thee? for who can call on Thee, not knowing Thee? for he that knoweth Thee not, may call on Thee as other than Thou art. Or, is it rather, that we call on Thee that we may know Thee? but how shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? or how shall they believe without a preacher? and they that seek the Lord shall praise Him: for they that seek shall find Him, and they that find shall praise Him. I will seek Thee, Lord, by calling on Thee; and will call on Thee, believing in Thee; for to us hast Thou been preached. My faith, Lord, shall call on Thee, which Thou hast given me, wherewith Thou hast inspired me, through the Incarnation of Thy Son, through the ministry of the Preacher.
Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Thy power, and Thy wisdom infinite. And Thee would man praise; man, but a particle of Thy creation; man, that bears about him his mortality, the witness of his sin, the witness that Thou resistest the proud: yet would man praise Thee; he, but a particle of Thy creation. Thou awakest us to delight in Thy praise; for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee. Grant me, Lord, to know and understand which is first, to call on Thee or to praise Thee? and, again, to know Thee or to call on Thee? for who can call on Thee, not knowing Thee? for he that knoweth Thee not, may call on Thee as other than Thou art. Or, is it rather, that we call on Thee that we may know Thee? but how shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? or how shall they believe without a preacher? and they that seek the Lord shall praise Him: for they that seek shall find Him, and they that find shall praise Him. I will seek Thee, Lord, by calling on Thee; and will call on Thee, believing in Thee; for to us hast Thou been preached. My faith, Lord, shall call on Thee, which Thou hast given me, wherewith Thou hast inspired me, through the Incarnation of Thy Son, through the ministry of the Preacher.
And how shall I call upon my God, my God and Lord, since, when I call for Him, I shall be calling Him to myself? and what room is there within me, whither my God can come into me? whither can God come into me, God who made heaven and earth? is there, indeed, O Lord my God, aught in me that can contain Thee? do then heaven and earth, which Thou hast made, and wherein Thou hast made me, contain Thee? or, because nothing which exists could exist without Thee, doth therefore whatever exists contain Thee? Since, then, I too exist, why do I seek that Thou shouldest enter into me, who were not, wert Thou not in me? Why? because I am not gone down in hell, and yet Thou art there also. For if I go down into hell, Thou art there. I could not be then, O my God, could not be at all, wert Thou not in me; or, rather, unless I were in Thee, of whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things? Even so, Lord, even so. Whither do I call Thee, since I am in Thee? or whence canst Thou enter into me? for whither can I go beyond heaven and earth, that thence my God should come into me, who hath said, I fill the heaven and the earth.
Do the heaven and earth then contain Thee, since Thou fillest them? or dost Thou fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain Thee? And whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pourest Thou forth the remainder of Thyself? or hast Thou no need that aught contain Thee, who containest all things, since what Thou fillest Thou fillest by containing it? for the vessels which Thou fillest uphold Thee not, since, though they were broken, Thou wert not poured out. And when Thou art poured out on us, Thou art not cast down, but Thou upliftest us; Thou art not dissipated, but Thou gatherest us. But Thou who fillest all things, fillest Thou them with Thy whole self? or, since all things cannot contain Thee wholly, do they contain part of Thee? and all at once the same part? or each its own part, the greater more, the smaller less? And is, then one part of Thee greater, another less? or, art Thou wholly every where, while nothing contains Thee wholly?
What art Thou then, my God? what, but the Lord God? For who is Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? Most highest, most good, most potent, most omnipotent; most merciful, yet most just; most hidden, yet most present; most beautiful, yet most strong, stable, yet incomprehensible; unchangeable, yet all-changing; never new, never old; all-renewing, and bringing age upon the proud, and they know it not; ever working, ever at rest; still gathering, yet nothing lacking; supporting, filling, and overspreading; creating, nourishing, and maturing; seeking, yet having all things. Thou lovest, without passion; art jealous, without anxiety; repentest, yet grievest not; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy works, Thy purpose unchanged; receivest again what Thou findest, yet didst never lose; never in need, yet rejoicing in gains; never covetous, yet exacting usury. Thou receivest over and above, that Thou mayest owe; and who hath aught that is not Thine? Thou payest debts, owing nothing; remittest debts, losing nothing. And what had I now said, my God, my life, my holy joy? or what saith any man when he speaks of Thee? Yet woe to him that speaketh not, since mute are even the most eloquent.
Oh! that I might repose on Thee! Oh! that Thou wouldest enter into my heart, and inebriate it, that I may forget my ills, and embrace Thee, my sole good! What art Thou to me? In Thy pity, teach me to utter it. Or what am I to Thee that Thou demandest my love, and, if I give it not, art wroth with me, and threatenest me with grievous woes? Is it then a slight woe to love Thee not? Oh! for Thy mercies' sake, tell me, O Lord my God, what Thou art unto me. Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. So speak, that I may hear. Behold, Lord, my heart is before Thee; open Thou the ears thereof, and say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. After this voice let me haste, and take hold on Thee. Hide not Thy face from me. Let me die- lest I die- only let me see Thy face.
Narrow is the mansion of my soul; enlarge Thou it, that Thou mayest enter in. It is ruinous; repair Thou it. It has that within which must offend Thine eyes; I confess and know it. But who shall cleanse it? or to whom should I cry, save Thee? Lord, cleanse me from my secret faults, and spare Thy servant from the power of the enemy. I believe, and therefore do I speak. Lord, Thou knowest. Have I not confessed against myself my transgressions unto Thee, and Thou, my God, hast forgiven the iniquity of my heart? I contend not in judgment with Thee, who art the truth; I fear to deceive myself; lest mine iniquity lie unto itself. Therefore I contend not in judgment with Thee; for if Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall abide it?
Yet suffer me to speak unto Thy mercy, me, dust and ashes. Yet suffer me to speak, since I speak to Thy mercy, and not to scornful man. Thou too, perhaps, despisest me, yet wilt Thou return and have compassion upon me. For what would I say, O Lord my God, but that I know not whence I came into this dying life (shall I call it?) or living death. Then immediately did the comforts of Thy compassion take me up, as I heard (for I remember it not) from the parents of my flesh, out of whose substance Thou didst sometime fashion me. Thus there received me the comforts of woman's milk. For neither my mother nor my nurses stored their own breasts for me; but Thou didst bestow the food of my infancy through them, according to Thine ordinance, whereby Thou distributest Thy riches through the hidden springs of all things. Thou also gavest me to desire no more than Thou gavest; and to my nurses willingly to give me what Thou gavest them. For they, with a heaven-taught affection, willingly gave me what they abounded with from Thee. For this my good from them, was good for them. Nor, indeed, from them was it, but through them; for from Thee, O God, are all good things, and from my God is all my health. This I since learned, Thou, through these Thy gifts, within me and without, proclaiming Thyself unto me. For then I knew but to suck; to repose in what pleased, and cry at what offended my flesh; nothing more.
Afterwards I began to smile; first in sleep, then waking: for so it was told me of myself, and I believed it; for we see the like in other infants, though of myself I remember it not. Thus, little by little, I became conscious where I was; and to have a wish to express my wishes to those who could content them, and I could not; for the wishes were within me, and they without; nor could they by any sense of theirs enter within my spirit. So I flung about at random limbs and voice, making the few signs I could, and such as I could, like, though in truth very little like, what I wished. And when I was not presently obeyed (my wishes being hurtful or unintelligible), then I was indignant with my elders for not submitting to me, with those owing me no service, for not serving me; and avenged myself on them by tears. Such have I learnt infants to be from observing them; and that I was myself such, they, all unconscious, have shown me better than my nurses who knew it.
And, lo! my infancy died long since, and I live. But Thou, Lord, who for ever livest, and in whom nothing dies: for before the foundation of the worlds, and before all that can be called "before," Thou art, and art God and Lord of all which Thou hast created: in Thee abide, fixed for ever, the first causes of all things unabiding; and of all things changeable, the springs abide in Thee unchangeable: and in Thee live the eternal reasons of all things unreasoning and temporal. Say, Lord, to me, Thy suppliant; say, all-pitying, to me, Thy pitiable one; say, did my infancy succeed another age of mine that died before it? was it that which I spent within my mother's womb? for of that I have heard somewhat, and have myself seen women with child? and what before that life again, O God my joy, was I any where or any body? For this have I none to tell me, neither father nor mother, nor experience of others, nor mine own memory. Dost Thou mock me for asking this, and bid me praise Thee and acknowledge Thee, for that I do know?
I acknowledge Thee, Lord of heaven and earth, and praise Thee for my first rudiments of being, and my infancy, whereof I remember nothing; for Thou hast appointed that man should from others guess much as to himself; and believe much on the strength of weak females. Even then I had being and life, and (at my infancy's close) I could seek for signs whereby to make known to others my sensations. Whence could such a being be, save from Thee, Lord? Shall any be his own artificer? or can there elsewhere be derived any vein, which may stream essence and life into us, save from thee, O Lord, in whom essence and life are one? for Thou Thyself art supremely Essence and Life. For Thou art most high, and art not changed, neither in Thee doth to-day come to a close; yet in Thee doth it come to a close; because all such things also are in Thee. For they had no way to pass away, unless Thou upheldest them. And since Thy years fail not, Thy years are one to-day. How many of ours and our fathers' years have flowed away through Thy "to-day," and from it received the measure and the mould of such being as they had; and still others shall flow away, and so receive the mould of their degree of being. But Thou art still the same, and all things of tomorrow, and all beyond, and all of yesterday, and all behind it, Thou hast done to-day. What is it to me, though any comprehend not this? Let him also rejoice and say, What thing is this? Let him rejoice even thus! and be content rather by not discovering to discover Thee, than by discovering not to discover Thee.
Hear, O God. Alas, for man's sin! So saith man, and Thou pitiest him; for Thou madest him, but sin in him Thou madest not. Who remindeth me of the sins of my infancy? for in Thy sight none is pure from sin, not even the infant whose life is but a day upon the earth. Who remindeth me? doth not each little infant, in whom I see what of myself I remember not? What then was my sin? was it that I hung upon the breast and cried? for should I now so do for food suitable to my age, justly should I be laughed at and reproved. What I then did was worthy reproof; but since I could not understand reproof, custom and reason forbade me to be reproved. For those habits, when grown, we root out and cast away. Now no man, though he prunes, wittingly casts away what is good. Or was it then good, even for a while, to cry for what, if given, would hurt? bitterly to resent, that persons free, and its own elders, yea, the very authors of its birth, served it not? that many besides, wiser than it, obeyed not the nod of its good pleasure? to do its best to strike and hurt, because commands were not obeyed, which had been obeyed to its hurt? The weakness then of infant limbs, not its will, is its innocence. Myself have seen and known even a baby envious; it could not speak, yet it turned pale and looked bitterly on its foster-brother. Who knows not this? Mothers and nurses tell you that they allay these things by I know not what remedies. Is that too innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing in rich abundance, not to endure one to share it, though in extremest need, and whose very life as yet depends thereon? We bear gently with all this, not as being no or slight evils, but because they will disappear as years increase; for, though tolerated now, the very same tempers are utterly intolerable when found in riper years.
Thou, then, O Lord my God, who gavest life to this my infancy, furnishing thus with senses (as we see) the frame Thou gavest, compacting its limbs, ornamenting its proportions, and, for its general good and safety, implanting in it all vital functions, Thou commandest me to praise Thee in these things, to confess unto Thee, and sing unto Thy name, Thou most Highest. For Thou art God, Almighty and Good, even hadst Thou done nought but only this, which none could do but Thou: whose Unity is the mould of all things; who out of Thy own fairness makest all things fair; and orderest all things by Thy law. This age then, Lord, whereof I have no remembrance, which I take on others' word, and guess from other infants that I have passed, true though the guess be, I am yet loth to count in this life of mine which I live in this world. For no less than that which I spent in my mother's womb, is it hid from me in the shadows of forgetfulness. But if I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, where, I beseech Thee, O my God, where, Lord, or when, was I Thy servant guiltless? But, lo! that period I pass by; and what have I now to do with that, of which I can recall no vestige?
Passing hence from infancy, I came to boyhood, or rather it came to me, displacing infancy. Nor did that depart,- (for whither went it?)- and yet it was no more. For I was no longer a speechless infant, but a speaking boy. This I remember; and have since observed how I learned to speak. It was not that my elders taught me words (as, soon after, other learning) in any set method; but I, longing by cries and broken accents and various motions of my limbs to express my thoughts, that so I might have my will, and yet unable to express all I willed, or to whom I willed, did myself, by the understanding which Thou, my God, gavest me, practise the sounds in my memory. When they named any thing, and as they spoke turned towards it, I saw and remembered that they called what they would point out by the name they uttered. And that they meant this thing and no other was plain from the motion of their body, the natural language, as it were, of all nations, expressed by the countenance, glances of the eye, gestures of the limbs, and tones of the voice, indicating the affections of the mind, as it pursues, possesses, rejects, or shuns. And thus by constantly hearing words, as they occurred in various sentences, I collected gradually for what they stood; and having broken in my mouth to these signs, I thereby gave utterance to my will. Thus I exchanged with those about me these current signs of our wills, and so launched deeper into the stormy intercourse of human life, yet depending on parental authority and the beck of elders.
O God my God, what miseries and mockeries did I now experience, when obedience to my teachers was proposed to me, as proper in a boy, in order that in this world I might prosper, and excel in tongue-science, which should serve to the "praise of men," and to deceitful riches. Next I was put to school to get learning, in which I (poor wretch) knew not what use there was; and yet, if idle in learning, I was beaten. For this was judged right by our forefathers; and many, passing the same course before us, framed for us weary paths, through which we were fain to pass; multiplying toil and grief upon the sons of Adam. But, Lord, we found that men called upon Thee, and we learnt from them to think of Thee (according to our powers) as of some great One, who, though hidden from our senses, couldest hear and help us. For so I began, as a boy, to pray to Thee, my aid and refuge; and broke the fetters of my tongue to call on Thee, praying Thee, though small, yet with no small earnestness, that I might not be beaten at school. And when Thou heardest me not (not thereby giving me over to folly), my elders, yea my very parents, who yet wished me no ill, mocked my stripes, my then great and grievous ill.
Is there, Lord, any of soul so great, and cleaving to Thee with so intense affection (for a sort of stupidity will in a way do it); but is there any one who, from cleaving devoutly to Thee, is endued with so great a spirit, that he can think as lightly of the racks and hooks and other torments (against which, throughout all lands, men call on Thee with extreme dread), mocking at those by whom they are feared most bitterly, as our parents mocked the torments which we suffered in boyhood from our masters? For we feared not our torments less; nor prayed we less to Thee to escape them. And yet we sinned, in writing or reading or studying less than was exacted of us. For we wanted not, O Lord, memory or capacity, whereof Thy will gave enough for our age; but our sole delight was play; and for this we were punished by those who yet themselves were doing the like. But elder folks' idleness is called "business"; that of boys, being really the same, is punished by those elders; and none commiserates either boys or men. For will any of sound discretion approve of my being beaten as a boy, because, by playing a ball, I made less progress in studies which I was to learn, only that, as a man, I might play more unbeseemingly? and what else did he who beat me? who, if worsted in some trifling discussion with his fellow-tutor, was more embittered and jealous than I when beaten at ball by a play-fellow?
And yet, I sinned herein, O Lord God, the Creator and Disposer of all things in nature, of sin the Disposer only, O Lord my God, I sinned in transgressing the commands of my parents and those of my masters. For what they, with whatever motive, would have me learn, I might afterwards have put to good use. For I disobeyed, not from a better choice, but from love of play, loving the pride of victory in my contests, and to have my ears tickled with lying fables, that they might itch the more; the same curiosity flashing from my eyes more and more, for the shows and games of my elders. Yet those who give these shows are in such esteem, that almost all wish the same for their children, and yet are very willing that they should be beaten, if those very games detain them from the studies, whereby they would have them attain to be the givers of them. Look with pity, Lord, on these things, and deliver us who call upon Thee now; deliver those too who call not on Thee yet, that they may call on Thee, and Thou mayest deliver them.
As a boy, then, I had already heard of an eternal life, promised us through the humility of the Lord our God stooping to our pride; and even from the womb of my mother, who greatly hoped in Thee, I was sealed with the mark of His cross and salted with His salt. Thou sawest, Lord, how while yet a boy, being seized on a time with sudden oppression of the stomach, and like near to death- Thou sawest, my God (for Thou wert my keeper), with what eagerness and what faith I sought, from the pious care of my mother and Thy Church, the mother of us all, the baptism of Thy Christ, my God and Lord. Whereupon the mother my flesh, being much troubled (since, with a heart pure in Thy faith, she even more lovingly travailed in birth of my salvation), would in eager haste have provided for my consecration and cleansing by the health-giving sacraments, confessing Thee, Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, unless I had suddenly recovered. And so, as if I must needs be again polluted should I live, my cleansing was deferred, because the defilements of sin would, after that washing, bring greater and more perilous guilt. I then already believed: and my mother, and the whole household, except my father: yet did not he prevail over the power of my mother's piety in me, that as he did not yet believe, so neither should I. For it was her earnest care that Thou my God, rather than he, shouldest be my father; and in this Thou didst aid her to prevail over her husband, whom she, the better, obeyed, therein also obeying Thee, who hast so commanded.
I beseech Thee, my God, I would fain know, if so Thou willest, for what purpose my baptism was then deferred? was it for my good that the rein was laid loose, as it were, upon me, for me to sin? or was it not laid loose? If not, why does it still echo in our ears on all sides, "Let him alone, let him do as he will, for he is not yet baptised?" but as to bodily health, no one says, "Let him be worse wounded, for he is not yet healed." How much better then, had I been at once healed; and then, by my friends' and my own, my soul's recovered health had been kept safe in Thy keeping who gavest it. Better truly. But how many and great waves of temptation seemed to hang over me after my boyhood! These my mother foresaw; and preferred to expose to them the clay whence I might afterwards be moulded, than the very cast, when made.
In boyhood itself, however (so much less dreaded for me than youth), I loved not study, and hated to be forced to it. Yet I was forced; and this was well done towards me, but I did not well; for, unless forced, I had not learnt. But no one doth well against his will, even though what he doth, be well. Yet neither did they well who forced me, but what was well came to me from Thee, my God. For they were regardless how I should employ what they forced me to learn, except to satiate the insatiate desires of a wealthy beggary, and a shameful glory. But Thou, by whom the very hairs of our head are numbered, didst use for my good the error of all who urged me to learn; and my own, who would not learn, Thou didst use for my punishment- a fit penalty for one, so small a boy and so great a sinner. So by those who did not well, Thou didst well for me; and by my own sin Thou didst justly punish me. For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
But why did I so much hate the Greek, which I studied as a boy? I do not yet fully know. For the Latin I loved; not what my first masters, but what the so-called grammarians taught me. For those first lessons, reading, writing and arithmetic, I thought as great a burden and penalty as any Greek. And yet whence was this too, but from the sin and vanity of this life, because I was flesh, and a breath that passeth away and cometh not again? For those first lessons were better certainly, because more certain; by them I obtained, and still retain, the power of reading what I find written, and myself writing what I will; whereas in the others, I was forced to learn the wanderings of one Aeneas, forgetful of my own, and to weep for dead Dido, because she killed herself for love; the while, with dry eyes, I endured my miserable self dying among these things, far from Thee, O God my life.
For what more miserable than a miserable being who commiserates not himself; weeping the death of Dido for love to Aeneas, but weeping not his own death for want of love to Thee, O God. Thou light of my heart, Thou bread of my inmost soul, Thou Power who givest vigour to my mind, who quickenest my thoughts, I loved Thee not. I committed fornication against Thee, and all around me thus fornicating there echoed "Well done! well done!" for the friendship of this world is fornication against Thee; and "Well done! well done!" echoes on till one is ashamed not to he thus a man. And for all this I wept not, I who wept for Dido slain, and "seeking by the sword a stroke and wound extreme," myself seeking the while a worse extreme, the extremest and lowest of Thy creatures, having forsaken Thee, earth passing into the earth. And if forbid to read all this, I was grieved that I might not read what grieved me. Madness like this is thought a higher and a richer learning, than that by which I learned to read and write.
But now, my God, cry Thou aloud in my soul; and let Thy truth tell me, "Not so, not so. Far better was that first study." For, lo, I would readily forget the wanderings of Aeneas and all the rest, rather than how to read and write. But over the entrance of the Grammar School is a vail drawn! true; yet is this not so much an emblem of aught recondite, as a cloak of error. Let not those, whom I no longer fear, cry out against me, while I confess to Thee, my God, whatever my soul will, and acquiesce in the condemnation of my evil ways, that I may love Thy good ways. Let not either buyers or sellers of grammar-learning cry out against me. For if I question them whether it be true that Aeneas came on a time to Carthage, as the poet tells, the less learned will reply that they know not, the more learned that he never did. But should I ask with what letters the name "Aeneas" is written, every one who has learnt this will answer me aright, as to the signs which men have conventionally settled. If, again, I should ask which might be forgotten with least detriment to the concerns of life, reading and writing or these poetic fictions? who does not foresee what all must answer who have not wholly forgotten themselves? I sinned, then, when as a boy I preferred those empty to those more profitable studies, or rather loved the one and hated the other. "One and one, two"; "two and two, four"; this was to me a hateful singsong: "the wooden horse lined with armed men," and "the burning of Troy," and "Creusa's shade and sad similitude," were the choice spectacle of my vanity.
Why then did I hate the Greek classics, which have the like tales? For Homer also curiously wove the like fictions, and is most sweetlyvain, yet was he bitter to my boyish taste. And so I suppose would Virgil be to Grecian children, when forced to learn him as I was Homer. Difficulty, in truth, the difficulty of a foreign tongue, dashed, as it were, with gall all the sweetness of Grecian fable. For not one word of it did I understand, and to make me understand I was urged vehemently with cruel threats and punishments. Time was also (as an infant) I knew no Latin; but this I learned without fear or suffering, by mere observation, amid the caresses of my nursery and jests of friends, smiling and sportively encouraging me. This I learned without any pressure of punishment to urge me on, for my heart urged me to give birth to its conceptions, which I could only do by learning words not of those who taught, but of those who talked with me; in whose ears also I gave birth to the thoughts, whatever I conceived. No doubt, then, that a free curiosity has more force in our learning these things, than a frightful enforcement. Only this enforcement restrains the rovings of that freedom, through Thy laws, O my God, Thy laws, from the master's cane to the martyr's trials, being able to temper for us a wholesome bitter, recalling us to Thyself from that deadly pleasure which lures us from Thee.
Hear, Lord, my prayer; let not my soul faint under Thy discipline, nor let me faint in confessing unto Thee all Thy mercies, whereby Thou hast drawn me out of all my most evil ways, that Thou mightest become a delight to me above all the allurements which I once pursued; that I may most entirely love Thee, and clasp Thy hand with all my affections, and Thou mayest yet rescue me from every temptation, even unto the end. For lo, O Lord, my King and my God, for Thy service be whatever useful thing my childhood learned; for Thy service, that I speak, write, read, reckon. For Thou didst grant me Thy discipline, while I was learning vanities; and my sin of delighting in those vanities Thou hast forgiven. In them, indeed, I learnt many a useful word, but these may as well be learned in things not vain; and that is the safe path for the steps of youth.
But woe is thee, thou torrent of human custom! Who shall stand against thee? how long shalt thou not be dried up? how long roll the sons of Eve into that huge and hideous ocean, which even they scarcely overpass who climb the cross? Did not I read in thee of Jove the thunderer and the adulterer? both, doubtless, he could not be; but so the feigned thunder might countenance and pander to real adultery. And now which of our gowned masters lends a sober ear to one who from their own school cries out, "These were Homer's fictions, transferring things human to the gods; would he had brought down things divine to us!" Yet more truly had he said, "These are indeed his fictions; but attributing a divine nature to wicked men, that crimes might be no longer crimes, and whoso commits them might seem to imitate not abandoned men, but the celestial gods."
And yet, thou hellish torrent, into thee are cast the sons of men with rich rewards, for compassing such learning; and a great solemnity is made of it, when this is going on in the forum, within sight of laws appointing a salary beside the scholar's payments; and thou lashest thy rocks and roarest, "Hence words are learnt; hence eloquence; most necessary to gain your ends, or maintain opinions." As if we should have never known such words as "golden shower," "lap," "beguile," "temples of the heavens," or others in that passage, unless Terence had brought a lewd youth upon the stage, setting up Jupiter as his example of seduction.
"Viewing a picture, where the tale was drawn,
Of Jove's descending in a golden shower
To Danae's lap a woman to beguile."
And then mark how he excites himself to lust as by celestial authority:
"And what God? Great Jove,
Who shakes heaven's highest temples with his thunder,
And I, poor mortal man, not do the same!
I did it, and with all my heart I did it."
Not one whit more easily are the words learnt for all this vileness; but by their means the vileness is committed with less shame. Not that I blame the words, being, as it were, choice and precious vessels; but that wine of error which is drunk to us in them by intoxicated teachers; and if we, too, drink not, we are beaten, and have no sober judge to whom we may appeal. Yet, O my God (in whose presence I now without hurt may remember this), all this unhappily I learnt willingly with great delight, and for this was pronounced a hopeful boy.
Bear with me, my God, while I say somewhat of my wit, Thy gift, and on what dotages I wasted it. For a task was set me, troublesome enough to my soul, upon terms of praise or shame, and fear of stripes, to speak the words of Juno, as she raged and mourned that she could not
"This Trojan prince from Latinum turn."
Which words I had heard that Juno never uttered; but we were forced to go astray in the footsteps of these poetic fictions, and to say in prose much what he expressed in verse. And his speaking was most applauded, in whom the passions of rage and grief were most preeminent, and clothed in the most fitting language, maintaining the dignity of the character. What is it to me, O my true life, my God, that my declamation was applauded above so many of my own age and class? is not all this smoke and wind? and was there nothing else whereon to exercise my wit and tongue? Thy praises, Lord, Thy praises might have stayed the yet tender shoot of my heart by the prop of Thy Scriptures; so had it not trailed away amid these empty trifles, a defiled prey for the fowls of the air. For in more ways than one do men sacrifice to the rebellious angels.
But what marvel that I was thus carried away to vanities, and went out from Thy presence, O my God, when men were set before me as models, who, if in relating some action of theirs, in itself not ill, they committed some barbarism or solecism, being censured, were abashed; but when in rich and adomed and well-ordered discourse they related their own disordered life, being bepraised, they gloried? These things Thou seest, Lord, and holdest Thy peace; long-suffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth. Wilt Thou hold Thy peace for ever? and even now Thou drawest out of this horrible gulf the soul that seeketh Thee, that thirsteth for Thy pleasures, whose heart saith unto Thee, I have sought Thy face; Thy face, Lord, will I seek. For darkened affections is removal from Thee. For it is not by our feet, or change of place, that men leave Thee, or return unto Thee. Or did that Thy younger son look out for horses or chariots, or ships, fly with visible wings, or journey by the motion of his limbs, that he might in a far country waste in riotous living all Thou gavest at his departure? a loving Father, when Thou gavest, and more loving unto him, when he returned empty. So then in lustful, that is, in darkened affections, is the true distance from Thy face.
Behold, O Lord God, yea, behold patiently as Thou art wont how carefully the sons of men observe the covenanted rules of letters and syllables received from those who spake before them, neglecting the eternal covenant of everlasting salvation received from Thee. Insomuch, that a teacher or learner of the hereditary laws of pronunciation will more offend men by speaking without the aspirate, of a "uman being," in despite of the laws of grammar, than if he, a "human being," hate a "human being" in despite of Thine. As if any enemy could be more hurtful than the hatred with which he is incensed against him; or could wound more deeply him whom he persecutes, than he wounds his own soul by his enmity. Assuredly no science of letters can be so innate as the record of conscience, "that he is doing to another what from another he would be loth to suffer." How deep are Thy ways, O God, Thou only great, that sittest silent on high and by an unwearied law dispensing penal blindness to lawless desires. In quest of the fame of eloquence, a man standing before a human judge, surrounded by a human throng, declaiming against his enemy with fiercest hatred, will take heed most watchfully, lest, by an error of the tongue, he murder the word "human being"; but takes no heed, lest, through the fury of his spirit, he murder the real human being.
This was the world at whose gate unhappy I lay in my boyhood; this the stage where I had feared more to commit a barbarism, than having committed one, to envy those who had not. These things I speak and confess to Thee, my God; for which I had praise from them, whom I then thought it all virtue to please. For I saw not the abyss of vileness, wherein I was cast away from Thine eyes. Before them what more foul than I was already, displeasing even such as myself? with innumerable lies deceiving my tutor, my masters, my parents, from love of play, eagerness to see vain shows and restlessness to imitate them! Thefts also I committed, from my parents' cellar and table, enslaved by greediness, or that I might have to give to boys, who sold me their play, which all the while they liked no less than I. In this play, too, I often sought unfair conquests, conquered myself meanwhile by vain desire of preeminence. And what could I so ill endure, or, when I detected it, upbraided I so fiercely, as that I was doing to others? and for which if, detected, I was upbraided, I chose rather to quarrel than to yield. And is this the innocence of boyhood? Not so, Lord, not so; I cry Thy mercy, my God. For these very sins, as riper years succeed, these very sins are transferred from tutors and masters, from nuts and balls and sparrows, to magistrates and kings, to gold and manors and slaves, just as severer punishments displace the cane. It was the low stature then of childhood which Thou our King didst commend as an emblem of lowliness, when Thou saidst, Of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Yet, Lord, to Thee, the Creator and Governor of the universe, most excellent and most good, thanks were due to Thee our God, even hadst Thou destined for me boyhood only. For even then I was, I lived, and felt; and had an implanted providence over my well-being- a trace of that mysterious Unity whence I was derived; I guarded by the inward sense the entireness of my senses, and in these minute pursuits, and in my thoughts on things minute, I learnt to delight in truth, I hated to be deceived, had a vigorous memory, was gifted with speech, was soothed by friendship, avoided pain, baseness, ignorance. In so small a creature, what was not wonderful, not admirable? But all are gifts of my God: it was not I who gave them me; and good these are, and these together are myself. Good, then, is He that made me, and He is my good; and before Him will I exult for every good which of a boy I had. For it was my sin, that not in Him, but in His creatures- myself and others- I sought for pleasures, sublimities, truths, and so fell headlong into sorrows, confusions, errors. Thanks be to Thee, my joy and my glory and my confidence, my God, thanks be to Thee for Thy gifts; but do Thou preserve them to me. For so wilt Thou preserve me, and those things shall be enlarged and perfected which Thou hast given me, and I myself shall be with Thee, since even to be Thou hast given me.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Eggsploitation: Egg Donation and the Infertility Industry
A powerful documentary on egg donation and the infertility industry, Eggsploitation, will debut at The Little Theater in Rochester, NY, August 9, 2010. Produced by The Center for Bioethics and Culture it "spotlights the booming business of human eggs told through the tragic and revealing stories of real women who became involved and whose lives have been changed forever."
Read the article "Eggsploitation' Documentary Reveals Secrets of Infertility Industry"
Read the article "Eggsploitation' Documentary Reveals Secrets of Infertility Industry"
Monday, July 26, 2010
Pope Benedict Quote
"Ethics are a consequence of being: first the Lord gives us new life-this is the great gift. Being precedes action and from this being action then follows, as an organic reality, for we can also be what we are in our activity. Let us thus thank the Lord for He has removed us from pure moralism; we cannot obey a prescribed law but must only act in accordance with our new identity." In Italian
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Independence Day
Today is Independence Day and it is time to take a deep and difficult look at our country. We have to be honest with ourselves and see that our self-image no longer corresponds with reality. We are a country in decline. A deep disagreement arises between those who judge our downfall in simple, materialistic terms and those who see cultural degeneration as the primary cause that led to this crisis. The date when the U.S. started to decline as a hegemonic power is no longer debated, it started with the 1973 recession. There were two strategies the United States could pursue to recover and both were difficult. The first involved sacrifice and a re-investment in education and infrastructure. Manufacturing would remain in the United States and wages too would remain high. The second option was to ignore the cultural aspects and simply allow business to correct this deficit on its own terms. We selected the second option and moved capital outside our national borders and set our country on the path of decline.
Culturally, this seemed like an irrelevant option. What was the domestic price we were asked to pay? We saw the ability of workers to organize, which Leo XIII acknowledges is a human right in Rerum Novarum, threatened and unions became unpopular and powerless. The result was the end of a living wage for workers and the ‘economic’ necessity for both parents to work. This destroyed a natural order where one spouse provided economically and the other spouse stayed at home with the children. Politically, the pro-life movement cooperated with policy that brought about the end of a living wage. This is a cultural problem in that we attempted to affirm human life while politically aligning with those who had an interest in paying lower wages. How could we not see that the policies we were sponsoring served the culture of abortion by forcing both parents to work and increasing the difficulty for spouses to bring children into the world? My argument is not that government should have stepped into the process to provide money to families; it is that unions should have been able to guarantee a living wage for workers. This observation will strike at the hearts of those who confuse conservative economic policies with the culture of life. You unintentionally served the culture of death and increased the financial hardships that destroy families. We accepted the reasoning of economists who argued that there was no other way. This case in retrospect was a lie. You also dismissed a human right recognized by the Church for politically expedient reasons.
We cannot affirm a culture of life that places economic reasoning above the family. In his last encyclical, Pope Benedict shows that the financial calamity is primarily a moral crisis. It is no coincidence that the decline of the United States as a hegemonic power started in 1973. This was also the year when the Supreme Court made abortion legal. One could say that from this moment the success of our largest corporations was a higher national priority than human life and, as a result, we allowed a new culture to emerge that sub-ordered the family and the person to the economy. Our civilization became self-destructive and our problem was that we did not see reality in its fullness. As Catholics we need to be politically wiser today than we have been in the past. We cannot cooperate with those who use our pro-life positions to destroy families (and it is inconceivable to support pro-choice politicians). Are we then left to be passive in the political system voting for the party that presents the less-evil position? We should not be resigned to this.
(Originally posted on July 4th, 2009)
Culturally, this seemed like an irrelevant option. What was the domestic price we were asked to pay? We saw the ability of workers to organize, which Leo XIII acknowledges is a human right in Rerum Novarum, threatened and unions became unpopular and powerless. The result was the end of a living wage for workers and the ‘economic’ necessity for both parents to work. This destroyed a natural order where one spouse provided economically and the other spouse stayed at home with the children. Politically, the pro-life movement cooperated with policy that brought about the end of a living wage. This is a cultural problem in that we attempted to affirm human life while politically aligning with those who had an interest in paying lower wages. How could we not see that the policies we were sponsoring served the culture of abortion by forcing both parents to work and increasing the difficulty for spouses to bring children into the world? My argument is not that government should have stepped into the process to provide money to families; it is that unions should have been able to guarantee a living wage for workers. This observation will strike at the hearts of those who confuse conservative economic policies with the culture of life. You unintentionally served the culture of death and increased the financial hardships that destroy families. We accepted the reasoning of economists who argued that there was no other way. This case in retrospect was a lie. You also dismissed a human right recognized by the Church for politically expedient reasons.
We cannot affirm a culture of life that places economic reasoning above the family. In his last encyclical, Pope Benedict shows that the financial calamity is primarily a moral crisis. It is no coincidence that the decline of the United States as a hegemonic power started in 1973. This was also the year when the Supreme Court made abortion legal. One could say that from this moment the success of our largest corporations was a higher national priority than human life and, as a result, we allowed a new culture to emerge that sub-ordered the family and the person to the economy. Our civilization became self-destructive and our problem was that we did not see reality in its fullness. As Catholics we need to be politically wiser today than we have been in the past. We cannot cooperate with those who use our pro-life positions to destroy families (and it is inconceivable to support pro-choice politicians). Are we then left to be passive in the political system voting for the party that presents the less-evil position? We should not be resigned to this.
(Originally posted on July 4th, 2009)
Friday, July 2, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
LifeSiteNews: European Union Reports
LifeSiteNews offers three troublesome reports on developments in the EU.
- The EU tells Google to store all internal internet searches for 2 years
- UK to engage in new surveillance of its citizens and visitors
- Human rights court hints that it may force recognition of gay marriage in all EU states in future
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Political Missteps of US Bishops
A good article today in CatholicCulture.org about how the same miscalculation of the US Bishops that helped passed health care reform (which included federal funding of abortion of course), is now being repeated with respect to immigration.
As soon as US Catholic Bishops throw their support behind deeply flawed legislation, that support is used to boost the bill and confuse American Catholics, even if the bishops simultaneously express reservations or concerns about certain provisions of the bill.
Perhaps some US Bishops are too trusting of current Congressional leadership.
As soon as US Catholic Bishops throw their support behind deeply flawed legislation, that support is used to boost the bill and confuse American Catholics, even if the bishops simultaneously express reservations or concerns about certain provisions of the bill.
Perhaps some US Bishops are too trusting of current Congressional leadership.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
American Censorship
Comedy Central has decided to censor Muhammed, and all mentions of him, from an episode of South Park. This decision is notable for several reasons, not the least of which because Comedy Central would never censor anything else. (Amazingly, the writers of South Park were careful not to actually depict Muhammed at all to begin with- he was always covered up by a truck or a bear costume).
There's a great op-ed that was published in Sunday's New York Times about the implications of this troubling decision. The article ends up being a critique of American culture, and shows how this censure is actually a small indication of a culture in decline.
With God utterly absent from American public life, moral relativism has given rise to a crass, nihilistic free-for-all completely void of Christian morality. America is no longer confident in itself, as American culture is more than happy to mock its history, its past, and its traditions. Just look how de rigueur it is to mock Tea
Partiers and other uneducated hicks who haven't yet figured out that it's not cool to be proud of America.
Not able to stand up for itself, the once proud, free people of America begin to cower in the face of a resurgent Islam.
As Douthat puts it:
"In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.
"Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.
"This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.
You can read the whole article here
There's a great op-ed that was published in Sunday's New York Times about the implications of this troubling decision. The article ends up being a critique of American culture, and shows how this censure is actually a small indication of a culture in decline.
With God utterly absent from American public life, moral relativism has given rise to a crass, nihilistic free-for-all completely void of Christian morality. America is no longer confident in itself, as American culture is more than happy to mock its history, its past, and its traditions. Just look how de rigueur it is to mock Tea
Partiers and other uneducated hicks who haven't yet figured out that it's not cool to be proud of America.
Not able to stand up for itself, the once proud, free people of America begin to cower in the face of a resurgent Islam.
As Douthat puts it:
"In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.
"Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.
"This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.
You can read the whole article here
Monday, April 26, 2010
Pontifical Council for New Evangelization
An article by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter dated Sunday April 25 reports that Pope Benedict XVI will soon announce the creation of a Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization to be headed by Archbishop Fisichella. This council witnesses to the close connection between Pope Benedict and the Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation, which has been a profound influence on the Holy Father for many years now. Here is Allen's article "Report: Pope to launch 'Pontifical Council for New Evangelization'". Also, if you can read Italian, below is the link to the newspaper Il Giornale cited by Allen as his source of information for this news.
Andrea Tornielli, "Benedetto XVI crea un nuovo ministero per Fisichella" (Benedict XVI creates a new council for Fisichella)
Andrea Tornielli, "Benedetto XVI crea un nuovo ministero per Fisichella" (Benedict XVI creates a new council for Fisichella)
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Quick Reference Page to Articles on Sex Abuse Controversy
LifeSiteNews has compiled a list of news reports dealing with the sex abuse controversy. As the disclaimer says, these articles represent a vast array of opinions and range from exceptional journalism to unethical reporting. You can access brief excerpts of each article at this page.
Read also a letter by Fr. Julian Carron, president of the Fraternity of Communion and Liberation, to the editor of Italian newspaper La Repubblica. It is titled "Let Us Return Wounded, to Christ."
Read also a letter by Fr. Julian Carron, president of the Fraternity of Communion and Liberation, to the editor of Italian newspaper La Repubblica. It is titled "Let Us Return Wounded, to Christ."
Monday, April 12, 2010
How to spot GMO fruit and vegetables
Did you know that the labels on fruits and vegetables can tell you whether the produce is genetically modified or not? I had no idea, so for those of you who like me, did not know, here is how to find out:
labels with four digit numbers (beginning with 3 or 4): denote conventionally grown produce (with pesticides and fertilizers)
labels with five digits beginning with 8: denote GMO, genetically modified produce
labels with five digits beginnin with 9: denotes organic produce
labels with four digit numbers (beginning with 3 or 4): denote conventionally grown produce (with pesticides and fertilizers)
labels with five digits beginning with 8: denote GMO, genetically modified produce
labels with five digits beginnin with 9: denotes organic produce
Unveiling the lies of the New York Times
"Vaticanist" journalist Sandro Magister, from the Italian weekly magazine L'Espresso, wrote this very good piece on the current attacks against Pope Benedict and the lies behind the New York Times. Read "Decoding Accusations Against Pope Benedict" from the website of Our Sunday Visitor.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Precedent for Managed Anti-Catholic News
In our current trial, it is helpful to remember that the BBC and NYT have managed anti-pope hatred in the recent past. When these leading media sources publish articles, other news organizations pick-up the story and the news is reported throughout the country and world as though it were credible while no one checks the original evidence. The fake stories launched in 2006 generated such hatred against the Church that some women religious were murdered as a result.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Exposing the Lies in the New York Times
In an article posted yesterday, Doug pointed out that the New York Times, which to some is the most authoritative source of news in this country, has been engaging in a campaign to discredit the Holy Father. The story mostly involves a U.S. priest, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, who abused many boys at a Church-run School for the Deaf in Wisconsin. The Times has implicated the Holy Father in what it paints as a conspiracy to cover-up the case and to refuse to bring Fr. Murphy to trial.
Now Fr. Thomas Brundage, JCL, the priest who presided over the canonical criminal trial against Fr. Murphy, has written a rebuttal in which he points out serious factual errors in the Times account.
"With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people.' Also quoted is this: 'Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.'
"The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
"Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
"Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."
Read it all-- well worth your time.
Now Fr. Thomas Brundage, JCL, the priest who presided over the canonical criminal trial against Fr. Murphy, has written a rebuttal in which he points out serious factual errors in the Times account.
"With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people.' Also quoted is this: 'Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.'
"The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
"Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
"Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."
Read it all-- well worth your time.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Prophetic Words from a (sort of) Protestant Friend of Catholics
From the blog of Anglican priest Fr. John Hunwicke, published almost two months ago:
"Well, the news that the Pope is to visit Britain is hardly news, is it, and we still know absolutely nothing about the itinerary. A month or two ago, I speculated on what might happen if the Holy Father comes - as rumour had it he would to Oxford. . . .
"More speculations from me: the media are distinctly more overtly hostile now than they were during the last papal visit in 1982. For one thing, John Paul's lifetime opposition to varying forms of totalitarianism tended to restrain the secularists a little at a time when memories of Stalinism were a trifle fresher. No such considerations apply now. And they've got a real head of steam going. I don't suppose the Hitlerjugend question will be much good except for a few sneers and cartoons; unless the "investigative journalists" who are undoubtedly even now burrowing away can come up with something really new and dramatic in this field, to make very much of it would just cause yawns. But one possibility is that they will attempt to smear the Sovereign Pontiff by suggesting that he was involved in paedophile cover-ups. They might use their familiar weapons of suggestio falsi and suppressio veri by examining all the cases that might have passed over his desk, and then testing whether any of the characters involved might have crossed the pontiff's path in other contexts: so as to suggest that he protected a vast network of iffy cronies."
Read it all.
"Well, the news that the Pope is to visit Britain is hardly news, is it, and we still know absolutely nothing about the itinerary. A month or two ago, I speculated on what might happen if the Holy Father comes - as rumour had it he would to Oxford. . . .
"More speculations from me: the media are distinctly more overtly hostile now than they were during the last papal visit in 1982. For one thing, John Paul's lifetime opposition to varying forms of totalitarianism tended to restrain the secularists a little at a time when memories of Stalinism were a trifle fresher. No such considerations apply now. And they've got a real head of steam going. I don't suppose the Hitlerjugend question will be much good except for a few sneers and cartoons; unless the "investigative journalists" who are undoubtedly even now burrowing away can come up with something really new and dramatic in this field, to make very much of it would just cause yawns. But one possibility is that they will attempt to smear the Sovereign Pontiff by suggesting that he was involved in paedophile cover-ups. They might use their familiar weapons of suggestio falsi and suppressio veri by examining all the cases that might have passed over his desk, and then testing whether any of the characters involved might have crossed the pontiff's path in other contexts: so as to suggest that he protected a vast network of iffy cronies."
Read it all.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Health Care Observations
After being profoundly disturbed by the passage of the health care bill, I will offer several posts dealing with the reality the American people have chosen. With this move, we as a culture have embraced nihilism and chose to eliminate all authority separating the person from the national government. This may signal the beginning of a post-federal government in the United States as all local authority is eliminated and power is concentrated in the massive central governing machine. Our founders warned us specifically against this as it endangers freedom and ultimately our humanity.
While the administration and democratic leaders were busy attempting to mislead the faithful as to the Church's teaching, they were able to find willing religious who unfortunately collaborated in publicly orchestrated campaign to oppose the bishops to pass this legislation. Our Church leaders failed by allowing the manufactured confusion to deceive the faithful and did not recognize the political reality. The bishops seemed to act through fear and did not understand American culture or the media. Their silence against those who sought to confuse the faithful almost showed that our leadership was itself divided. We let the presidental administration deceive the Catholic faithful concerning Church teaching and did not sufficiently oppose this movement. We have to admit that our bishops failed us.
This is the first of several posts that will explore our failings that led to the passage of this bill. This is a sad day for the United States.
Medical Science Under Dictatorship
Dr Leo Alexander traces the origin of the concentration camp to the German medical community whose professional association advocated for the sterilization/euthanasia of mentally ill or physically disabled persons. This movement emerges and gains consensus among physicians before the Nazis come to power and, through this, the medical profession offers their consent to Hitler’s extermination plan. The consequences of this move are disturbing as the original orders to kill German citizens corresponded to the direct petitions of the medical community. This sets in motion the programs that will later be used to murder men and women in the millions and the Jews were specifically targeted. Perhaps the most important element of this paper was that Hitler’s extermination plan was set in place through the ‘compassion’ of the medical community. The end of the article examines the role of eugenics in American society leading up to World War II. If you only read one article on this page, please read “Medical Science Under Dictatorship” which was first published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1949.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Please Pray for Life
Rep. Bart Stupak and his coalition of 12 pro-life Democrats are facing enormous pressure from the extreme left to pass a bill that would require taxpayers to fund the destruction of life. Apparently a few of Stupak's coalition have caved and are now willing to vote for the Senate's version of "healthcare" reform, which will not bar the use of federal funds for abortions.
Although some of the Democrats have tried to mislead the public and insisted that federal funds will not be used to fund abortions under the Senate bill, other Democratics have been more honest. Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (which helped draft the latest bill) admitted to Rep. Stupak that "we want to pay for abortions."
Rep. Stupak's fragile coalition (and the country) desperately need our prayers!
Although some of the Democrats have tried to mislead the public and insisted that federal funds will not be used to fund abortions under the Senate bill, other Democratics have been more honest. Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (which helped draft the latest bill) admitted to Rep. Stupak that "we want to pay for abortions."
Rep. Stupak's fragile coalition (and the country) desperately need our prayers!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Communion and Liberation Easter Poster
Another beautiful poster by Communion and Liberation to accompany us during this Lenten season.
"The Christian Good News responds positively to man's thirst for justice. What then is the justice of Christ? Above all, it is the justice that comes from grace, where it is not man who makes amends, heals himself and others. Conversion to Christ ultimately means this: to exit the illusion of self-sufficiency in order to discover and accept one's own need-the need of others and God, the need of His forgiveness and His friendship." Benedict XVI
"This is the point: God was moved by our nothingness. Not only that. God was moved by our betrayal, by our crude, forgetful, and treacherous poverty, by our pettiness. Like a father and mother who cry with emotion, a cry that is totally determined by the desire for the child's good, the child's destiny. It's compassion, pity, passion. He had pity on me." Luigi Giussani
To find out about Ways of the Cross on Good Friday in major US cities, please check the CL website.
"The Christian Good News responds positively to man's thirst for justice. What then is the justice of Christ? Above all, it is the justice that comes from grace, where it is not man who makes amends, heals himself and others. Conversion to Christ ultimately means this: to exit the illusion of self-sufficiency in order to discover and accept one's own need-the need of others and God, the need of His forgiveness and His friendship." Benedict XVI
"This is the point: God was moved by our nothingness. Not only that. God was moved by our betrayal, by our crude, forgetful, and treacherous poverty, by our pettiness. Like a father and mother who cry with emotion, a cry that is totally determined by the desire for the child's good, the child's destiny. It's compassion, pity, passion. He had pity on me." Luigi Giussani
To find out about Ways of the Cross on Good Friday in major US cities, please check the CL website.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Bishop Wuerl and the Crisis of Heroes
The DC Council voted to recognize same-sex marriage and created a crisis for Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Washington by forcing them to provide health benefits to homosexual couples. The Diocese could not extend this coverage and the Washington Post suggests that the Church had two options: it could expand benefits to include same-sex partnerships or it could eliminate spousal benefits. Both of these responses are problematic and unjust. Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl has decided to comply with the law by eliminating benefits for the spouses of new employees in the Catholic Charities office. While this does allow the Church to continue to receive the $22 million in support from the city, this choice makes life more difficult for families who will work for Catholic Charities in the future. Although current employees may continue to receive spousal benefits, the actual cost of compliance will be felt by the families of future employees. The WP reports that currently less than 100 of the 850 employees use the spousal benefit, it is reasonable to expect that this number would grow as the nation’s economy worsens. Current spouses suffering future unemployment will not be able to gain coverage. The bishop’s solution is to make it more difficult for families who will come to work for Catholic Charities in the future.
Archbishop Wuerl, there is another option: you can refuse the city’s money. Twenty-two million dollars is not enough to sacrifice your conscience and make life more difficult for families that fall under your stewardship as pastor of the Archdiocese. Your willingness to receive this money is a sign of weakness. You have reacted to one injustice by choosing another. Our culture has few heroes; as a bishop you are called to a higher standard. You cannot be afraid to stand-out and oppose our civilization when it directly challenges you. You did not seek this battle, but you are called to confront it. Do not be afraid of the criticism you will receive and do not forget your responsibility to the faithful. The organization you command, Catholic Charities, does not exist only for those who receive its services; it also exists for its workers and their families. Today, you have chosen to hurt those who will work for Catholic Charities in the future. You have chosen an easy solution that will hurt families. Is this really the result you want? Will you let the DC Council harm your worker's families? You have another option.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Carrón: Talk to Companionship of Works
This talk was published in Traces and is available online in its entirety.
__________________
The December CLU spiritual exercises are available online as well.
Access Traces Archive Here
__________________
The December CLU spiritual exercises are available online as well.
Access Traces Archive Here
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Polycarp, Martyr
Along with Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp is one of the three chief apostolic fathers. These were early church leaders from the latter half of the first century and the first half of the second century who are credited with keeping the Christian faith alive in a time of persecution. They were each personally acquainted with one or more of the apostles. Polycarp was at least for a time a disciple of the apostle John. Polycarp’s pupil, Irenaeus, was an early proponent of the tradition holding that the apostle John was in fact the author of the fourth Gospel that today carries his name. Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp had been personally converted to Christianity by some of the apostles.
Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna, an important congregation in an area where the apostles had labored. As they matured, and with the apostles no longer alive to personally keep Christian teaching on an orthodox path, Polycarp and other church leaders were inevitably confronted with various novel and heretical teachings. Polycarp is particularly credited as an important voice against the ideas of Valentinus, an early Gnostic, and those of Marcion, who taught that Jesus was not the son of the “bad” God of the Jews, but rather the son of another, “good” God.
A contemporaneous description of Polycarp’s martyrdom was written by the church of Smyrna in a letter to the church of Philomelium. It is historically an important account because its authenticity is unquestioned and it paints a vivid picture of the persecution of early Christians in Rome.
Because Christians refused to worship the emperor, they were considered criminals. The practice when a Christian was captured was to demand his public apostasy, to release him if he did, and to punish him with death if he refused. Polycarp had been in Rome converting heretics when a particularly fervent wave of persecution arose. He was urged by his friends to leave the city and go into hiding. He went to a farmhouse where he spent three days in prayer and fell into a trance in which he saw his pillow burning. He told his companions that it was necessary for him to die by fire. A body of men came to arrest him, and though escape was possible, he refused. He came down to meet his pursuers, talked with them affably, and even served them dinner. While they ate he prayed for them and for the church. After dinner, he was led away.
The captain of those who captured Polycarp attempted to persuade him to save his life, but he refused. He was led into a stadium in Rome, where a great crowd had assembled. As he entered, a voice from heaven said, “Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man.” Other Christians present in the crowd attested to hearing the voice but not seeing the speaker. The proconsul was present in the stadium, and urged Polycarp to curse Christ. His famous reply was: “Fourscore and six years have I served Him, and he has done me no harm. How then can I curse my King that saved me?”
It was decided that Polycarp should be burned alive. The fire was said to have made a wall around his body, but Polycarp was unscathed. The executioner was then ordered to stab him to death, and the Smyrnian account is that this resulted in so much blood that the fire was extinguished. His body was then burned. The likely date of his death was February 23, 155.
Spend time today giving thanks to God for the witness of Polycarp. We could not be Christians today if it were not for these early church fathers who so willingly gave up their lives to Christ.
Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna, an important congregation in an area where the apostles had labored. As they matured, and with the apostles no longer alive to personally keep Christian teaching on an orthodox path, Polycarp and other church leaders were inevitably confronted with various novel and heretical teachings. Polycarp is particularly credited as an important voice against the ideas of Valentinus, an early Gnostic, and those of Marcion, who taught that Jesus was not the son of the “bad” God of the Jews, but rather the son of another, “good” God.
A contemporaneous description of Polycarp’s martyrdom was written by the church of Smyrna in a letter to the church of Philomelium. It is historically an important account because its authenticity is unquestioned and it paints a vivid picture of the persecution of early Christians in Rome.
Because Christians refused to worship the emperor, they were considered criminals. The practice when a Christian was captured was to demand his public apostasy, to release him if he did, and to punish him with death if he refused. Polycarp had been in Rome converting heretics when a particularly fervent wave of persecution arose. He was urged by his friends to leave the city and go into hiding. He went to a farmhouse where he spent three days in prayer and fell into a trance in which he saw his pillow burning. He told his companions that it was necessary for him to die by fire. A body of men came to arrest him, and though escape was possible, he refused. He came down to meet his pursuers, talked with them affably, and even served them dinner. While they ate he prayed for them and for the church. After dinner, he was led away.
The captain of those who captured Polycarp attempted to persuade him to save his life, but he refused. He was led into a stadium in Rome, where a great crowd had assembled. As he entered, a voice from heaven said, “Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man.” Other Christians present in the crowd attested to hearing the voice but not seeing the speaker. The proconsul was present in the stadium, and urged Polycarp to curse Christ. His famous reply was: “Fourscore and six years have I served Him, and he has done me no harm. How then can I curse my King that saved me?”
It was decided that Polycarp should be burned alive. The fire was said to have made a wall around his body, but Polycarp was unscathed. The executioner was then ordered to stab him to death, and the Smyrnian account is that this resulted in so much blood that the fire was extinguished. His body was then burned. The likely date of his death was February 23, 155.
Spend time today giving thanks to God for the witness of Polycarp. We could not be Christians today if it were not for these early church fathers who so willingly gave up their lives to Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
