Full Speed Ahead

The Rosary is a set of prayers widely said by Catholics. It is made up of traditional prayers well known to most: The Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be, said in a particular sequence. 

But there are variations. Most folks, when they say prayers, say them with a certain pacing. 'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee'. So it is with the Rosary generally.

Yet me Pops, having grown up in a parish staffed by Dominican priests, always said there were Rosaries, and then there was the Dominican Rosary. It was said very, very fast, almost at a machine gun rate. HailMaryfullofgracetheLordiswiththeblessedartThouamongsywomenandblessedisthefruitofthywombJesus.

Could you follow that? Then you might be a Dominican.

The Pope and the President

I am really, truly loathe to address all the ballyhoo surrounding Pope Leo and President Trump. It's simply a morass, and neither one is quite right about matters that I can see.

The President's recent bombast is over the top the point of insult and blasphemy. Someone needs to tell the man to SHUT UP. He owes the Pope an apology for his condescension towards the head of the Catholic Church. Trump isn't helping anyone and is increasingly hard to defend. That he was a better choice than the alternatives (and he was, I say emphatically) is becoming a lame mantra.

At the same time, the Holy Father isn't exactly presenting himself favorably. It's one thing to preach the Gospel and remind us of our moral obligations. It's another to be rather one sided about it. Criticism of the current Iran War is fair and ought to be expected. But to say whose and what types of prayers God will and will not answer is presumption, even from a Pope, and flies in the face of the Church's Just War dogma. Sometimes we must fight. Violence can be a rational moral alternative. Indeed, even an imperative. When that's the case, it's perfectly all right to pray for a successful war.

In light of its criticisms of Trump (and of Catholic Vice President Vance's occasional comments on Church teaching) the Vatican's reticence to be as critical of American liberal politicians is rather galling. To very nearly say Trump is wrong on Iran while not ordering that Catholic politicians who vote for abortion be withheld Communion is, as such, a travesty. Like it or not, the rightness of this War is where minds may in good faith disagree. But direct abortion is murder, every time and with no exceptions. It is settled doctrine and Catholic politicians who support abortion must be censured. I worry that Leo, like Francis before him quite honesty, fails to lead but instead foments confusion among the faithful when spiritual direction goes only one way.

To the President, just knock it off. You have and are going too far and it's time to put a sock in it. To the Holy Father, if you really wish to be bold, preach the entire Catholic creed. Not simply the politically expedient parts.

Baseball Theology

I exchanged several text messages with a good friend of mine yesterday. We're both huge baseball fans and both Catholic, so I knew he would get the joke. But I believe most anyone will appreciate the following quip as well.

At one point Nick texted that it seemed most people's baseball memories begin at about 8 years old. I agreed, citing theology. 

You see, the Catholic Church teaches that the age of reason is 7. Typically it's at seven years old we are able to differentiate and appreciate the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, the well from the ill. So I responded it makes perfect sense that we would learn to love baseball by 8. We've reached the age of reason.

I can't think of a better explanation.

 

Appropriate Pope

Well, there is this about a Pope from the south side of Chicago who's also a White Sox fan. As befits the head of the Catholic Church, he certainly understands suffering. 

Yeah, I know. I'll let myself out.

Right When Wrong

I don't need a Church to tell me I'm right when I'm right. I need a Church to tell me I'm wrong when I believe I'm right. So said Mr. G. K. Chesterton.

He's onto something. What's the point in belief if you're okay exactly as you are? What's the point of anything if we're all all right anyway? And what's the point of a critical institution if it can't be critical?

A parent who never instructs or admonishes their child can't much of a mom or dad. Well, perhaps if the idea of parenthood is to create arrogant and self centered offspring, but that doesn't strike me as a sane way to raise a family. It strikes me as cruel to the kids and inconsiderate of the general society.

But maybe that's just me. 

Not Quite What I Expected

Never fear, dear readers, I'm not going to start typing out Sunday sermons for you, although I do reserve the right to do so occasionally. I suppose, then, this is one of those occasions.

Recently I've been following the vlog of a young priest, Fr. Mark Goring. I like his style, presence and charisma. He's not fire or brimstone, and when he speaks, he makes easily understandable points. Too many priests can't seem to manage that. At least, they can't manage it without resorting to shallow, saccharine pablum which simply can't pass muster as rational thought let alone ideals which might actually inspire the troops. Further, Father Goring can express deep thoughts in around four minutes while the mindless drivel of many of his peers can profoundly bore us for upwards of twenty. But I digress.

One of Fr. Goring's recent talks was on Purgatory. Catholics believe that Purgatory is a place between Earth and Heaven where the dead not quite ready for Heaven go to be 'purged' of their residual sinfulness. And do you know what Fr. Goring said is the reason most folks are in Purgatory? Complaining about rather accepting and working with their lot in life.

I'm in trouble.

Catholic humor

You gotta hand it to the Catholics. They have a sense of humor about themselves. Of course, so do conservatives in general, but that is an issue we'll take on another time.

What brings this up is the discovery of a funny little website called Eye on the Tiber. It promises to deliver all Catholic news as it happens, when it happens, and before it happens. And it does a very good job of it. Check it our for yourself: http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/

You don't have to be Catholic to find Eye of the Tiber hilarious. That might help at times, yes, such as the article which tells us that Irish bishops are lengthening opportunities for Confession into 8 hour blocks due to 'gargantuan' demand, a manner which neatly lampoons supposed Church authoritarianism and Irish guilt at the same time. Then there's the piece about the Mars Rover discovering a Jesuit seminary...but we digress. The point here is that serious Catholics can joke about themselves. Let's face it: they aren't expected to by the world at large. Catholics are supposed to be staid, stolid types.

But there are greater points than that at work. Perhaps first on that list is how the site demonstrates how little the media know or understand Catholics and Catholicism. How often in recent months have we heard the media chirp that Pope Francis is leading the Church in a new direction, into the 'modern' world, away from all that mythology and God stuff. He isn't, of course, and EOTT cleverly mocks that attitude. There's a recent article, if that's the right term for it, which gleefully reports that Francis has split with the past in announcing that gravity is true. This comes on the heels of media assertions that the Church had traditionally opposed evolution when the Holy Father said that it was compatible with Catholic doctrine. Yet Pius XII said so in 1950; what's up wit dat?

Simply that the media and the population at large don't understand Catholics and Catholicism. In fact, it's probably safe to say that they don't care to understand religion beyond their own straw men which they use to knock it. To actually take religion seriously would require a feat which they would not find humorous at all, because it might challenge their lifestyle choices. It might make them have to become introspective. They don't want to have to answer the questions that that might entail.

Yet the people who try to answer those questions honestly about themselves are the ones with a comic streak about something very dear to them. We believe that that tells us all we need to know about the secular world, and that it should instruct the secular world on the real Church.

The religion of Mr. Lewis

If it isn't obvious enough by now, I am a huge fan of Mr. C. S. Lewis. My wife found a copy of The Screwtape Letters at a garage sale almost 30 years ago: I read it and was hooked. As is my usual habit when I discover an author I like, I proceeded to seek out and read all of his books.

I haven't quite made it. Not being particularly interested I have never read any of his books in his academic specialty, Medieval and Renaissance literature. And two of his books, Dymer and Spirits in Bondage, being published early on in his career and before his reconversion to Christianity, well, I haven't honestly looked very hard for them. I have read a passage from Dymer and it sounds interesting, though.

I cannot begin to tell you enough about a later edition of Screwtape which includes the addendum Screwtape Proposes a Toast. As it happens he was addressing American education, and was dead on in his assessment. I have used his arguments there quite often in my dealings with, ahem, modern educators.

The Abolition of Man may be the best work of nonfiction outside of the Bible. Mr. Lewis' defense of the doctrine of objective knowledge is far more fantastic and profound than the small book in which he delivers it. In short, I adore the man, and must credit him to a great degree in cementing my belief in God.

Yet there is a skeleton in the closet which most of his admirers, Catholic and Protestant alike, tend to downplay or ignore. And that is his refusal to make pronouncements about certain particulars of Christian doctrine. He asserts that he is not enough of a theologian to do so.

I am not aware that one must be a theologian in order to understand most theology. I understand, as a Catholic, that the consecrated host is really the Body of Christ. Lewis famously says in regards to this that Christ's directive is, take, eat, not take, understand. I say with all due respect that he rather begs the question. Why would God not want us to understand? Wouldn't we want that closer relationship with Him?

Much of it can be linked to the psychology of Mr. Lewis I'm sure. Dr. Joseph Pearce wrote a very good book called C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome which deals with the issue of why Lewis never became Catholic as he certainly was very close to it. Dr. Pearce's answer was, essentially, because of Lewis' background and his Ulster stubbornness (he was from Northern Ireland).

I would have to agree. And I don't mean that without sympathy: sometimes, and I say this with absolutely no disrespect intended, invincible ignorance gets in our way. Lewis may not have had the capacity to take that next step; it's the same as I think of my dear maternal grandfather who, though he came to accept and respect my father's Catholicism, could not be expected to easily let go of his Southern Baptist background. Thankfully, God will accept us on those terms, if the situation is real and sincere, and not an intentional blindness.

That question, can anybody get to Heaven?, used to plague me yet now I can accept it. But even in that light, we still must address our skeletons as honestly and openly as we can. C. S. Lewis did what he could with what he had, and has accomplished with it a far sight more than anything most of us have managed. So he perhaps could not take that last step towards full Christianity. How many of us can? It is an area in which we must be supremely grateful for God's mercy.

Keeping the Faith: Pope Francis I

We have a new Pope: Francis I. There is little more which can be said here which hasn't likely already been said. He appears a holy and humble man, steeped in the tradition of the Church and intending to carry forth those traditions in an increasingly hostile world.

Those hostilities will raise their ugly heads. After all, all those liberals, atheists, and secularists who cry so loud for tolerance aren't about to tolerate anyone not like them.

And Pope Francis certainly isn't like them. While preaching for the poor and the sick he has yet insisted that Church teaching is true and must be followed. Though he is seen as a personable man, there is no amount of personal goodwill which the left holds for those who work against them.

The celebrations are still happening; the masses of thanksgiving and the prayers for the new Pontiff still fall from the lips of the faithful. The grace period has only just begun. Yet it will end soon enough, as soon as Pope Francis has to remind the world of the errors of her ways. That is when the prayers of the faithful really begin to matter, when we pray for him to have the strength to speak for Christ in an increasing relativist world.

We trust that he will have that strength. All the evidence, all the tradition; all of our faith says so.

Abortion and Capital Punishment: not the same

In the great and ongoing debate about abortion, it is often suggested that opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty go hand in hand. Perhaps so; capital punishment should no longer be a shirt sleeve issue for Catholic conservatives, seeing as Rome has spoken so forcefully about it in recent years. Still, it does appear that the one question does not so easily blend with the other.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#2267)

While this is obviously a very strong statement against capital punishment, it does not condemn it. Indeed it seems to say that, though 'practically nonexistent' the right of the state to use the death penalty does exist. It almost sounds like the admonition against violence or war: it should be used as a last recourse, when no other option exists.

So tying abortion to capital punishment, especially in a state such as right here in Michigan, where capital punishment has not existed since the middle of the 19th Century, indeed to place the death penalty under the umbrella of 'life issues' seems nothing short of a brazen attempt to call conservative anti-abortion activists hypocrites. Don't misunderstand this: if getting rid of capital punishment would in turn rid us of abortion, then we should do it.

But it won't. It would only force the pro-abortion crowd to find another bad name to call the right wing. Because they, unlike the Church and true conservatives, do not want what's right. They want what they want because they want it. They want it, not on grounds of true morals, but on the selfish grounds of mere human will.

A This and That Saturday

Military experts believe that China now has a stealth fighter jet which is better than the top US fighters. We need to keep things like this in mind when we discuss cutting our military budget. The United States are likely the only nation with the resources to stand up to Beijing if the need should ever arise. If you don't believe that that will ever be an issue, just look at how the Chinese treat their own people. Why should they care about the rest of the world?

The GOP read the Constitution in front of the Congress the other day. It may be little more than symbolism, but it's a great symbol. Hopefully it will have the desired effect and help the Republicans remember why they were elected. If not, then it would be a hollow gesture indeed.

Parent 1 and Parent 2 on passports? That just goes to show that our government has no understanding of family but an awful lot of PC in its veins. The move is an insult to any and all moms and dads out there. You're simply an interchangeable number after all.

Andrew Cuomo was allowed to receive communion at Mass despite being pro-death and while living with a woman outside of marriage. The Church has got to start standing up against this sort of effrontery, from both its laity and clergy. If you don't stand for something, you soon will not mean anything.

Ah well. Bye for now!

Gaga over Gaga?

Lady Gaga, apparently a pop icon of some sort, apparently also has a reputation for over the top activity in her music videos. Her most recent one has her doing variously disgusting acts with symbols of Catholicism.

That isn't surprising. One sure way to call attention to yourself is to use religious imagery in anti-religious fashion. Years ago a so-called artist made a name for himself by photographing a Crucifix in urine. In short, shocking use of religion is nothing new, and the Catholic Church, which has so much imagery, is quite easily the common victim of such abuse.

Why? Or perhaps an even better question is, why not employ the more regular use of the icons of other faiths?

For starters, other faiths, particularly non-Christian belief systems, are somehow exempt for different reasons. It is not PC to use images of Islam or Buddhism, one because people are afraid of it and the other because Buddhism seems accepted as simply a creed of peace and harmony. It is not viewed as hierarchical or tied down by theology.

But the chief reason that the Catholic Church is so often mocked so savagely is because she is not only the biggest religious institution in the Western world, but the one with the most comprehensive morality. The intellectual and cultural elite, especially, it seems, those who want to do as they please when they please (entertainers are high on that list) do not want to be told what they can and cannot do. They want to be their own judges about what is right and what is wrong.

So they belittle and disrespect in any way they can that one shining example of absolute and objective morality: the Church of Rome.

Do not confuse the priest sex abuse scandal with the teachings of Christ through his Church. The sins of an individual, any individual, are not in themselves a reflection of the espoused teachings of any given institution, let alone Catholicism. Even Catholics of rank and distinction are still human and subject to human failings. It is the rightness of Her teachings which are under attack with videos such as Ms. Gaga's.

Perhaps she is doing it simply for fame and fortune. But seeing as she already has an audience, there seems little point to mock the Church except to mock Her. That is not art. That is drivel of the worst kind: self interested behavior for no other reason than sensationalism. It is like swearing for the mere sake of swearing, and below the dignity of any human person.

Patrick Kennedy and the Church

So it appears that the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island has barred Representative Patrick Kennedy from receiving communion within its borders. It is high time that the Catholic Church has begun to reign in those who flaunt Her teachings, as it is an embarrassment to the Church to allow those who claim to be members to act in ways opposed to her teaching authority.

The onus of the issue is, of course, abortion. Mr. Kennedy supports abortion rights and the Church opposes them. At some point a line must be drawn and if crossed, the proper actions must be taken. Catholics need to learn that there is no real practicing of the faith if you will not support its teachings in all that you do. Especially in your public acts.

Many around here believe that our own Governor Granholm ought to be prohibited from the reception of communion on similar grounds. Be that as it may, what should be noted is that this is not a church/state question. The Church, any church for that matter, has the right to define what it is and what it stands for. If those who claim to be one with them talk and act against them, the given religion has the right to address the question and act.

That Mr. Kennedy has chosen to seek elective office and oppose his faith is his choice. The Church isn't telling him how to act, but rather telling him how to act Catholic. Further, the Church is not telling the State how to act either. It does what it does.

But that does not mean Catholics must aid and abet that. Hopefully, errant members of the flock will begin to realize the importance of faith in action, and follow suit.