There are times when I’m grateful for some parts of having grown up Lutheran. And there are times like this, when it makes me quite ashamed.

I’m not one to defend the Mormon religion, but there are reasonable approaches to use and there are horrible approaches to use. There is a difference! (This really gets my goat as I’ve seen this sort of thing far too often.)

UPDATE -- Apparently the link to the newspaper article didn't work well. The story was about a teenager who got a soccer scholarship to a Lutheran college (Concordia in Seward, Nebraska). She let some people know she was thinking about reverting to Mormonism. Her soccer coach told her "You're going straight to hell!" She's transfering to Brigham Young. Not much chance of getting exposed to a non-Mormon perspective there.

Spiritual Lesson from a big furry mutt –

My dog is wonderful, but he doesn’t care much for other animals. He’s only disliked one person we’ve ever met, but he doesn’t like any squirrels, cats, foxes, raccoons or especially other dogs. When he sees other dogs, he starts to jump around and menace them. Since he’s over 80 pounds, that can be a handful. Not many other dogs back down from him quickly, though.

Yesterday when I took him out for the morning walk, we ran across two other dogs before we’d even left the front yard. He got worked up as always. A few houses down, we ran into a barking boxer. Not much farther was a pointer. In the park were a few small dogs and a labrador retriever.

Since we hadn’t established a nice calm rhythm for our walk, his reactions to the other dogs were even more agitated than they usually would be.

It’s similar for me. If I don’t start my day (or some part within the day) with the right perspective – the perspective of the eternal and of my own brokenness, rather than a perspective of self-gratification – I don’t do very well. If I have the right perspective and the right rhythm to my day or task, though, I don’t do as badly.

May God give me the grace to keep my eyes fixed on that which is important.

Prayer of the day (taken from today’s Mass lectionary) –-

The Lord gives and the Lord takes away,
Blessed be the name of the Lord for ever!

Last night I started thinking about what I was doing at work ten years ago. At that time I worked for a small law firm. One case in particular had a great deal of my energy and interest. Our client (let’s call her Rose) was a sweet young woman with a grade-school aged son. Rose was an evangelical protestant who was naïve in the ways of the world. Some years earlier, her husband had left her. She took a job as receptionist for an orthodontist. Times were tough for her. The father of a patient struck up several conversations with her over several months. He was a rather successful psychologist – call him Lance.

Eventually Lance hired Rose away from the orthodontist. Lance offered Rose a large raise to come work for him and his several associates. As time passed, though, Lance started making very inappropriate advances toward Rose. He had staff meetings where all employees were required to describe (in detail) their most recent sexual experiences and their sexual fantasies. Rose objected to this, though timidly. She was berated by Lance and an MFCC/LCSW who worked for Lance. Rose wondered what she had done wrong. She lacked the means to quit the job outright and lacked the confidence to look for another job so soon after changing jobs.

Lance’s behavior toward Rose got worse, including uninvited physical contact of a sexual nature, though short of rape. Rose finally confided in a friend from her church who helped her to get out of that job and to try to prevent Lance from doing the same thing again. She hired our firm to represent her in a sexual harassment case against Lance.

During the investigative phase of trial preparation, we learned of other past employees that Lance has sexually harassed in sundry ways (including a woman psychologist!) and that he had made sexual advances toward multiple female patients. We found out that while Lance was still a graduate student and a teaching assistant at a leading public university in another state, he was reprimanded (though not expelled) for replacing the appointed lecture with a sadomasochistic porn film.

We were ordered by the court to refrain from publicizing anything about the case. Even the court documents – normally accessible to anyone who comes to the courthouse – were placed under seal and allowed only to the court, the parties and their representatives.

We as Christians are called to a higher calling than that placed on us by the state.

My Lutheran background is bubbling up too, in that I’ve come up with a few theses (Aside – when I first read all 95 theses, I was astounded at how Catholic they are. I just hadn’t thought through that Luther was still Catholic when he wrote them – the events that prompted Exsurge Domine were years away. Many of the 95 theses would be acceptable to even the most ardent traditionalists.)

I know many people will disagree with many of these, but it seems to me that they are orthodox. (Correction welcomed, as always.)

1. The safety of children is of great importance, but seeking to protect children does not justify any sinful behavior.
2. Reasonable precautions should be taken to reduce the possibility of any adult engaging in sexual misconduct with a minor. (Not that many years ago, it was customary to forbid priests from being in a room alone with a woman with the door closed. Same general idea.)
3. The safety of children is not advanced by vengeful behavior toward people who have been involved in sexual misconduct in the past.
4. Not every act of sexual misconduct is of equal gravity.
5. Not every allegation of sexual misconduct is completely truthful or accurate.
6. The term “sexual abuse” as commonly used describes a nonconsensual sexual encounter in which the aggressor uses a degree of force or coercion over the victim.
7. Not all clergy sexual misconduct fits the common understanding of the term “sexual abuse”.
8. The healing process for those who are victims of sexual abuse is of great importance, but does not justify any sinful behavior.
9. The healing process for those who are victims of sexual abuse is not advanced by vengeful behavior toward people who have been involved in sexual misconduct in the past.
10. The reputation of the Church is of importance, but seeking to protect it does not justify any sinful behavior.
11. The reputation of the Church is not advanced by vengeful behavior toward people who have been involved in sexual misconduct in the past.
12. Harming the reputation of the Church reduces the ability of the Church to carry out its mission.
13. The reputation of the Church is subjected to harm when those in authority fail to appropriately address credible allegations of misconduct committed by her representatives.
14. The reputation of the Church is subjected to additional harm when those in authority fail to appropriately accept responsibility for their own failings in addressing the issue.
15. The reputation of the Church is subjected to additional harm when those in authority engage in what may appear to be vengeful behavior toward those who may have done wrong.
16. The good reputation of individuals is of importance, but seeking to protect it does not justify any sinful behavior.
17. When any person has no actual knowledge of the misconduct of another person, that person is obliged not to make salacious conclusions about the wrongdoer.
18. Believing any allegation of misconduct that is not sufficiently substantiated is irresponsible and uncharitable.
19. It is only licit to publicly disclose the sins of others under circumstances of appropriate gravity (e. g. to prevent future wrongdoing, to bring criminals to justice, to promote repentance in the unrepentant etc.)
20. It is only licit to investigate the sins of others under circumstances of appropriate gravity (e. g. to prevent future wrongdoing, to bring criminals to justice, to promote repentance in the unrepentant etc.)
21. The Church exists to reconcile all people to God in Christ.
22. Scripture and the Tradition tell us that there is ONE unforgivable sin: the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
23. Jesus’ expectation that we forgive each other applies especially in difficult circumstances. (In he parable of the merciless servant, the merciless servant was forgiven a debt on the order of Bill Gates’ net worth. He then failed to forgive a debt of about one-third of a year’s wage. How many of us would do better than the merciless servant if someone defaulted on a debt of four months’ salary?)
24. There is still hope for any person who has not committed the unforgivable sin. None of us may presume to stand in the way of any other person’s attempts at reconciliation.
25. If a person gives evidence of sincere repentance and amendment, maintaining a grudge against that person is sinful.
26. Nothing should be used to keep any person from the love of God.

All that being said, we in blogdom know very little about the situation regarding Gerard Serafin. We are obliged not to speculate or dig for dirt and to put the best construction on those things we do know.

We know Gerard did something wrong and admitted to it promptly. We know that Gerard asked to be laicized at a later point and that he says it was over something other than the 1985 incident.

The disclosure of the list was, at the very least, highly careless. At a minimum, the list should have either clearly distinguished the more grave cases from the less grave cases and the ‘accused’ from the guilty. The more appropriate standard of diligence would have been for someone to thoroughly investigate each case and determine whether the totality of circumstances was such so as to justify making the information public. I don’t know the Cardinal’s motivation and I am obliged to put the best construction on his actions as well. I’m reminded of the quote “Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.”

I hope that I do not become so carried away with zeal for one good cause that I harm another good cause.

May all of us take this opportunity to reflect on how each of us might help to bring about reconciliation in the lives of people whose lives we touch.

Just learned that the objectionable Sungenis pieces are still on his site, just not on the front page. Soon it will be time to check up again with Boycott CAI.

A little earlier today the 43d President of the United States was across the street from my office. (He was in town briefly to give a speech on behalf of a congressional candidate.) Many people were impressed (or incensed) by his presence. There was a large crowd of people -- some demonstrating support, some their revulsion.

Rather than joining in that fray, I was privileged to spend a few minutes in the presence of the Living God. I should do more to show my appreciation for His real presence.

Two new items are up at Bob Sungenis’ site. The momentary happiness of the previous changes to the site has been dashed.

First new post is a long exposition on a three verse pericope of Romans 11. In case you hadn’t guessed, it’s another of Bob’s attempts to justify his position regarding “the Jews”. It’s also notable for the blurb that forbids any use of the text without Bob’s express written permission. The few small verbatim quotes below are, in my estimation, protected by the fair use doctrine. They are here only to demonstrate the basis for comments regarding his work. (Also Bob’s continued use of the Petersnet logo would weaken any complaint he may have for unauthorized use of intellectual property under the legal doctrine of “unclean hands”.)

The paragraph that begins with the words “suffice it to say” is the most important part of the lengthy piece. Bob says, “God has finally rejected the Jews . . . [t]his was such a major upheaval that most of the NT is centered on this one idea”.

Bob, I think the Tradition would support me in saying that the NT is centered on the Incarnation, the life of Jesus, His propitiatory sacrifice, His establishment of the Sacraments to convey the benefits of grace and His opening the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. I read the in the same letter to the Romans, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel: it is the power of God to salvation to all who believe, to the Jew first and then to the Greek”. That echoes the frequent comment in the gospels that Jesus was sent to save the lost sheep of the House of Israel, but that His grace was so great as to extend also to the gentiles – not that the gentiles have supplanted the children of Israel as the chosen people. I read in the Gospel according to John, “God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” No rejection of anyone.

Bob continues “[f]or God to reject a whole people is a very significant act, if not the most significant act in the history of the world”. Bob – the most significant act in the history of the world was the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ – the act in which He who was without sin overcame sin. This was an act of the God’s immeasurable love – not an act by which God rejected anyone!

The Second Piece “Established by Two or Three Witnesses: CAI Vindicated” is similarly disturbing. In it Bob takes quotes from a Jerusalem Post article as proof that the “Reflections” document is somehow meant to do numerous things, including establishing Israeli rule over all lands that were included in Solomon’s kingdom. (All this without giving any reason why, even if this were true, it would be a bad thing, but I digress.) The closest that the article comes to discussing any territorial claims is the following paragraph:
Sharon even received a positive response when he told the largely Evangelical crowd of visiting Pope John Paul II prior to his visit here in 2000. Sharon said that the pope told him that Jerusalem was holy to Jews, Christians, and Moslems. Then Sharon related, the pontiff added, "But it was promised only to the Jews."
So since Jerusalem was promised to Jews, but not specifically to Christians or Moslems, Bob concludes that the Church is working with the State of Israel to dispossess all Arabs! This when the Pope has often reiterated criticism of the West Bank Settlements. Bob, your credibility continues to diminish.

He then goes on to cite the Council of Florence’s condemnation of those who required Christians to observe Jewish ceremonial law and then, most alarmingly, an unspecified Council of Constantinople’s anathema. (There were three Councils of Constantinople. I was unable to find the quoted segment to place it in its proper context)

Bob – the clearest reading of your piece, in which you criticize the Pope for his statements regarding Jerusalem and the bishops for the “Reflections” document, is that you believe the Pope and the bishops should be excommunicated and anathematized. Bob, I’d suggest that you evaluate your position.

Forgot to mention that Miss Emily Stimpson – a credit to the student body of Franciscan University of Steubenville by her virtue, intellect and charm -- made me aware of the great new blog by Prof. Kevin Miller. Hey, it’s Miller time!

Today I found a great little quote in the alternate Saint of the Day site , regarding Ss. Cosmas and Damien, reputed to have served as physicians who treated the poor without accepting payment::

“For a long time, it seems, we have been very conscious of Jesus' miracles as proofs of His divinity. What we sometimes overlook is Jesus' consuming interest in simply healing people's sickness, whatever other meaning His actions had. The power that "went out from Him" was indeed a sign that God was definitively breaking into human history in final fulfillment of His
promises; but the love of God was also concrete in a very human heart that was concerned about the suffering of His brothers and sisters.”

Quite appropriate to the bad news mentioned in the immediate previous post.

I just found out something horrible: a public accusation of sexual abuse has been made against one of the most respected Catholic bloggers – one who has been notable for his steadfast defense of the Church.

While there probably still aren’t enough prayers for the victims of sexual abuse, there still should be many prayers for those who are wrongfully accused.

A brief note of thanks to Catholic bloggers, for you do something of real value. I especially want to recognize a few who’s commitment of time and effort is truly inspiring:

Amy Welborn; of In Between Naps;
Robert Duncan a/k/a Jesus Gil of ibidem ;
Mark Shea of Catholic and Enjoying It!;
Greg Popcak et al of HMS Blog; and
Gerard Serafin of Catholic Blog for Lovers.

At In Between Naps, Amy Welborn asks what readers would do if they were in charge of programming at EWTN. Just for grins, I’m posting below all the items I included in her comment section.

I’ll let the reader decide which of these are earnest ideas and which are not. They’re in no particular order.

“Hagiography” – Like A&E’s Biography, but with a slightly smaller base of subjects. Could include some dramatic re-enactments.

“Quid Novi” – news in Latin with English subtitles.

“The EWTN True Chancery Story” – Imagine the “E True Hollywood Story” about bishops instead of starlets.

“The Victor Lams Show” – Robots, satire and opinions sure to result in many letters and comments from the viewer.

”Trading Worship Spaces” -- Given six days, a limited budget and help from professional designers, parish leaders from two parishes redecorate each other’s church – no peeking, ‘til they’re done!

“Tolle Lege” – reviews of Catholic books. (Ideally including guest appearances by Nihil Obstat.)

“America’s Funniest Priests” – The funniest excerpts from Masses throughout the country.

“Salvation Air Force” – A determined group of earnest young Catholics obtains an airplane that’s been used for fighting forest fires, fill it’s water tanks with holy water, and head out to “baptize all nations”.

“St. Blog’s Church Basement” – a talk show featuring a variety of Catholic bloggers talking about whatever they’re moved to discuss.

“Gregorian Chant’s Greatest Hits”

“The Alleluia Roundtable” – Fictitious talks how in which various luminaries of Church history are presented in a talk show format. Hosted by that great questioner, St. Thomas Aquinas and the leader of the Heavenly Host, St. Michael.

“Canon Law and Order” – Like Perry Mason, only in Canon Law. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

“Whose Rubric Is It Anyway?” – Modern liturgists scramble to create new worship forms by improvising.

“Dangerous Penance” – A full hour of uninterrupted music by Marty Haugen, Michael Joncas, Bernardine Healy and friends.

“The House of God” – Documentaries on great churches and shrines.

Kathryn Lively IS always good. She could be a leading cast member of "Early Saturday Evening Live" -- a show of music and skits that ends at 8 pm so the viewer can get to bed in time to go to early Mass. Key features include parodies of bad contemporary liturgical music.

"Roamin' Catholic" - a look at how Mass is celebrated in different parishes with discreet commentary. Based on the web feature found at http://www.losangelesmission.com Special occasional feature -- "Blue Stone Toads". It's kind of like jazz, if you have to ask, you may never quite understand.

"Fr. Bryce Sibley ARCHIVED!" - Further explorations of items raised on the blog of the sadly silenced priest.

"The Strongest Link" -- Representatives of various orders compete against each other in performing works of mercy to determine which order best exemplifies its charism and the Christian ideal.

"Emergency Exorcist" - Follow an actual exorcist as he combats the powers of darkness!

"Reeves and Booster"? (By John da Fiesole of disputations.blogspot.com)

"Liturgical Dance Fever" - a 50ish nun and a 60ish priest in tights teach you more than you'd ever thought possible about liturgical dance.

"SSPX Files" - Actual Catholic apologists on the trail of rad-trads, working to bring them back to the Church.

"Incense-smoke" - The first Catholic western - about the first Catholic bishop of Denver, with occasional flashbacks to his earlier days as a priest in Santa Fe.

"After Homeschool Specials" - Shows to get kids scared silly of the thought of attending any school outside their own home.

"My Favorite Marcionist" - Sitcom about an ordinary suburban family that has a heretical uncle living in the attic.

"The Tender Trappist" - Reality show about a monk who's taken a vow of silence.

"The Crypt" - A game show about NCCB/USCCB social teachings. The grand prize is a tomb in the crypt beneath the new LA cathedral.

"Davey and Bathsheba" - Claymation show about the Lutheran boy who's all grown up now.

And, while this horse has been beaten to a sticky pulp, let me put in just a couple more.

“Is Eight Enough” – rigorist perspectives of NFP.

“Jackass” -- Each episode a new Jack Chick tract is read and refuted line-by-line.

Bob Sungenis ‘ site has changed appreciably since yesterday.

Deletions:

Wounded in the House of Them That Love Me;
Part 2 -- The Jewish Talmud: A Sacred Book?:
No More Monkeying Around;
Spouse of the Spirit;
Papal Gold: Rationalism and Indifferentism;
The Issue of Assisi II; and
Rescuing Romans from the Reformers.

Addition:

The New Mass II: Our Faith in Hymn.

The newest post reiterates the charge that the Novus Ordo Mass is “objectively inferior” to the Tridentine, but beyond that is actually a relatively cogent contrast between contemporary hymns and ones that were once common but have fallen into disuse. As I often say, time is the best editor on earth. I’m sure there were bad hymns at the time of the Council of Nicaea or the Council of Trent, but we’ve been spared them. Still, the bad hymns of our time are more than sufficient.

It’s good to see the positive changes underway – even if a public acknowledgement of past wrongs is still pending (and the unauthorized Petersnet icon remains).

It still seems like much of CAI’s focus is on complaining about anything in the Church that wouldn’t have been found at the time of the Council of Trent.

“If one part [of the body of Christ]is honored, all share its joy” (I Cr 12:26b)

So even as I “acknowledge and bewail my manifold sins and wickedness with which I have offended” God, I rejoice with Sean Roberts since the discussion he so dreaded – in which he told his parents of his conversion – went well.

I Confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault. Therefor I ask the blessed Mary, ever virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

(N. B. -- this is not about anything I have posted or will post here, it's about a private sin from yesterday that, God willing, I'll get to confess today.)

Two great paragraphs from VodkaPundit:

I believe the Constitution, even with a few faults, is the finest political document ever willed into existence and actually practiced by Man. I believe part of its near-perfection lies in the fact that unlike dreamy works of fiction like Communism, Socialism, Welfare Statism, Islamism, whateverism, is that the Constitution is designed to let Man be Man. Those other Isms don’t work because they start from the premise that Man can be reprogrammed into Islam Man, or New Soviet Man, or Man About Town.

Fact is, Man is a pretty nasty creature. The best we can hope for – and what our Constitution achieved – is to create enough legal barriers to tyranny, and enough economic carrots to keep people living under the law, so that everyone has a bunch of their own apples on the community applecart.

(I excerpted them since the reader may find other posts of Mr. Green’s -- or even other parts of the excerpted post -- to be offensive in one way or another.)

Interesting that an agnostic like Mr. Green is so close to understanding the doctrine of Original Sin.

Of course Man can be changed, but this takes extensive cooperation between him and his maker.

There’s been a great deal written about Bob Sungenis and his site both here and by better writers such as John Betts, Bill Cork, Mark Shea and Pete Vere. Most of what the other gentlemen have written pertains specifically to the inaccurate and uncharitable remarks that have been contained in CAI’s posts regarding the “Reflections” document on the evangelization of the Jewish people.

I’ve touched on that vital issue, but I’ve spent more time and space on other issues. That’s not meant to in any way diminish the importance of calling Mr. Sungenis to task regarding the anti-Semitic comments. It’s to demonstrate that, for whatever good has come from Bob Sungenis’ work over the years, it’s being overshadowed by a larger pattern of behavior – a pattern that seems to detract from his ostensible purpose at the site.

His site opens: “CAI is a Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to the teachings of
Jesus Christ preserved by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It stands on the forefront of Catholic Apologetics in North America today, explaining Catholicism to fellow Catholics and defending it against her opponents.” I heartily endorse that stated purpose. Let’s take a look to see to what degree his site does what it claims to do.

The current list of items linked from the main page:
Tape of the Month: -- The New Mass: Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite;
If He’s an ant-Semite, Then I’m U Thant;
Wounded in the House of Them That Love Me;
No One Comes to the Father Except Through Jesus (in multiple parts);
Part 1 -- Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary?;
Part 2 -- The Jewish Talmud: A Sacred Book?:
Part 4 [sic] – All New Converts Who are Scandalized (not posted yet);
Scientists and Scholars Dispute Darwin;
No More Monkeying Around;
Bible Light;
Spouse of the Spirit;
The New Mass: Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite; (so nice they list it twice!)
Burnin’ for your Love, a Biblical Primer on Purgatory;
Papal Gold: Rationalism and Indifferentism;
The Issue of Assisi II;
Rescuing Romans from the Reformers;
Is Einstein out of Sync;
A series of notices of coming features on the site and requests for financial support;
A great motto from Vatican II: “A Catholic who does not work at the growth of the body to the extent of his possibilities must be considered useless both to the Church and to himself”;
The Petersnet icon, as a seal of approval (despite Petersnet’s de-linking of Sungenis’ sites).

How does all this fit in with “the teachings of Jesus Christ preserved by the Magisterium”? What topics are emphasized?

Two mentions are made of the long piece denigrating the Novus Ordo Mass.
Four posts arise from the “Reflections” document and resultant criticisms of Bob Sungenis.
Three posts pertain to creationism
One post focuses on the deuterocanonical books.
One post is on Marian doctrines.
One post is on Purgatory.
Two posts criticize ecumenism (indifferentism and Assisi).
One post is an exegetical study of the Epistle to the Romans.

I don’t see any mention of the teachings of Jesus Christ that I read in the Gospels. I see no mention made of the corporal works of mercy and very little mention made of any spiritual works of mercy. I see little reference to repentance, redemption, or the sacraments and no mention made of the necessity of submission to appropriate spiritual authority.

I note two pieces that I saw as recently as yesterday that have been tacitly removed:
The Velvet Glove (a criticism of Mr. Sungenis’ bishop regarding a potential sex scandal in his diocese and a potential pre-emptive slam against the bishop who may be moving to discipline him); and
Part 3 of ”No One Comes to the Father”, an attack on Pete Vere’s eloquent post on canon law and its pertinence to “irresponsible opinions”.

Many posts display great deal of effort placed into defending Mr. Sungenis and attacking those who have criticized him (I’ll refrain from commenting on their effectiveness or lack thereof). As even his associate Jacob Michael admits, Mr. Sungenis has surreptitiously revised posts after receiving criticism. There’s still no acknowledgement of any mistake on the part of Mr. Sungenis. Why? Has he arrogated to himself some degree of infallibility? (Hey, isn’t that the ultimate Protestant heresy – every man his own pope?)

Why, in seventeen posts, can I find nearly no mention of the main points of the Christian faith? How does that explain or defend Catholicism?

The focus of the site is clearly on the issues where Catholics and other Christians differ. To focus solely on these differences without acknowledging the Lord of all, though, gives rise to a risk of losing sight of Him entirely.

The acrimony displayed in contentions with fellow-Catholics regarding a discussion document produced by duly consecrated bishops does not demonstrate the charity to which Christ calls His people.

Mr. Sungenis’ site mentions that the Church is in need of reform. Yes, the Church is constantly in need of reform. We constantly need to be reminded of Him who came for us, of why He came for us, of what He came to do for us. If we fix our eyes on Him, follow His words and the sacraments, we will reform the Church.

To be Catholic requires, as I understand it, that one assent to the truthfulness of “all that the Catholic Church teaches”, participation in the sacraments, respectful submission to the authority of the apostles’ successors (and, by extension, to the successor of the prince of the apostles) and striving to follow the two great commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.

While I can’t claim to do any of those things to the degree I know I should, I still can exhort us all to follow to the difficult path to which we are all called.

Mr. Sungenis: Please restore your focus to “all that the Catholic Church teaches”, not just those issues that will inspire the maximum degree scorn from outsiders. There are too many people in the world who lack contact with Christ’s sanctifying grace – is it not more important to reach them with the knowledge of Him who is the perfect sacrifice – the sacrifice of Calvary and each Catholic altar – than to dispute the mechanisms by which we were made, the relative merits of writings you haven’t even read or other points of doctrine that the Fathers of Nicaea didn’t deem central enough for inclusion in the Creed? Please strive to build your relationships with fellow-believers in love. I encourage you to re-read the First Letter of St. John.

I end by quoting a Psalm that applies to me and to all: “Return to the Lord, your God, for he is gracious and merciful – slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.”

May I follow in the path He has set for me!

Prayer of the week Novena in Honour of St. Francis of Assisi. With the celebration of St. Francis coming up on October 4, a preparatory novena would be proper beginning this week.

I didn't post here because (a) it's copyrighted and I didn't think of it soon enough to get permission and (b) it's quite long.

One article on Bob Sungenis’ site that hasn’t received much attention is the article about the Novus Ordo Mass. It’s an article by Jacob Michael entitled The New Mass: Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite

While Bob Sungenis himself didn’t write the article, I point out that his front page says: “Our Apostolate is directed at supporting the work of Catholic Apologist, Robert Sungenis, to propagate and defend the Catholic faith. There are no paid staff here at CAI and all funds are pumped into supporting Robert, his family, and the apostolate.” For all intents and purposes, then, Bob Sungenis is the owner of the site and bears ultimate responsibility for everything posted there.

The descriptive paragraph found on the front page, (scroll down to find) mentions that the article “explains how the New Mass is objectively inferior to other approved, legitimate rites”. The key words are “objectively inferior”. If information is truly objective, no reasonable person can dispute it. The dictionary definitions for “inferior” that have any pertinence to the issue at hand include “(a) of low or lower degree or rank; (b) of poor quality, mediocre; (c) of little or less importance, value, or merit”.

Thus the article is claiming to explain how no reasonable person can differ that the Novus Ordo Mass (“NOM”) is one or more of the following:
(1) of lower degree or rank than the Tridentine Mass (“TM”);
(2) of poorer quality than the TM to the point of being mediocre when compared with the TM; or
(3) of less value or merit than the TM.

There’s not a measurable scale that could determine clearly, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, the “degree or rank” of Mass texts. Thus the last two are the only possible conclusions drawn from the use of “inferior”.

I won’t be going line-by-line, as the base article itself is over thirteen thousand words in length. The article makes many comparisons between TM and NOM. The following seem to be the largest points of contention in the article:

1. The NOM offers more options than the TM;
2. ICEL translation of the NOM does not match the author’s understanding of the Latin text;
3. The NOM does not maintain a sufficient distinction between the priest and the laity;
4. Some items that were repeated multiple times in the TM are not repeated in the NOM;
5. The NOM does not include any corporate absolution;
6. The NOM does not include as many phrases and concepts that are “uniquely Catholic” and amounts to a tacit surrender to Protestantism; and
7. The NOM is not sufficiently respectful toward the Host prior to the consecration.

No one could question that the NOM offers more options than the static text of the TM. The reasons for this are made clear in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI (April 3, 1969): “the eucharistic prayer has been enriched with a great number of prefaces-drawn from the early tradition of the Roman Church or recently composed-in order that the different facets of the mystery of salvation will stand out more clearly and that there will be more and richer themes of thanksgiving” and “particular care has been taken with the prayers. Their number has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources.” (Full text available here.) Where the article sees constant use of the same texts as a high value, Pope Paul instead requests that texts vary. There’s a good cognitive reason for this as well. When one hears the same thing over and over, one often has some difficulty in paying close attention. When, though, one encounters something less familiar, more concentration is necessary. That greater concentration may be a valuable teaching moment.

Attacking the NOM because of ICEL translation issues is not intellectually honest. The Holy See is aware that there are issues with the translation and is acting accordingly. If, rather than promulgating the NOM, the hierarchy had simply authorized translations of the TM, many of the same issues raised by the article could still have developed. If one were to compare the NOM and the TM, use of only the normative texts for each would be more appropriate and more honest. (To be fair, I should note that I too have issues with the ICEL’s translations.)

The role of the laity in the Church was a major point in the Second Vatican Council. Bob’s own front page quotes a conciliar document (Apostolicam Actuositatem) regarding the importance of the laity’s mission. For several centuries, the Church had undergone a highly clericalist focus. The importance of the role of the laity in the mission of the Church can be underscored by the role of the laity in liturgy. Priests are, after all, sinners just as the laity are, the unique powers and responsibilities placed upon them by virtue of their ordination notwithstanding. To give too lofty a position to priests vis a vis the laity also may lead to unreasonable expectations regarding the sanctity of the priest and damage to the faith of the laity in light of sins committed by priests. In the end, though, rejection of the increased role of the laity in the Mass is a rejection of Sacrosanctum Concilium which directed the modification of the liturgy such that “devout, active participation by the faithful more easily achieved”. Repetition of prayers within the Mass was also discouraged by the conciliar fathers.

The deletion of corporate absolution seems like an odd thing to rankle a traditionalist. Wouldn’t the corporate absolution make a person less likely to go to confession? Wouldn’t the deletion of corporate absolution actually encourage more frequent confession on the part of the conscientious layman? Isn’t that a good and desirable result? Also the use of corporate absolution is central to the liturgical Protestant worship service. Not using corporate absolution makes the Mass significantly different from Protestant celebrations.

The items that are “uniquely Catholic” that were mentioned in the article are all good and laudable – the saints and angels, especially. The Mass, though, does not exist to give glory to saints and angels, it exists as the Sacrifice of the Living God. Maintaining focus more exclusively on Him and less on His creatures should not give pause to anyone, regardless of their degree of devotion to any saint or angel.

The Host prior to the consecration is a special object, but it is nothing compared to what comes after the consecration. Paying special reverence to the Host prior to consecration could lead the faithful to have less regard for the immensity of the miracle of the consecration. What is brought to the altar is not what is ultimately sacrificed upon the altar and then given out as the very Bread of Life, it only maintains that appearance to mortal senses. Any failure in catechesis regarding the Eucharist is tragic, but it cannot reasonably be attributed to a diminution in reverence toward a non-consecrated Host.

What’s more important, though, than the individual points is the implication drawn that the NOM is “objectively inferior”. Had the author posited that there are reasons for individuals to prefer the TM, there’d be no problem. I can understand why a person might, for reasons of their own devotion, have a strong preference for the TM, the Latin NOM or the vernacular NOM. What causes the problem is the use of the term “objectively inferior”.

If the NOM is truly inferior to the TM, it is either “of poorer quality” or “of less value”. To say that any valid Eucharist – the source and summit of Christian life – is of less value than another is to sit in judgment on Him who comes to us in His body and blood. I would not presume to place myself upon that judgment seat. To question the quality of Jesus’ prayer to the Father is beyond what I could arrogate myself under any circumstance.

Lastly, our spiritual fathers duly promulgated the NOM. To accuse our spiritual fathers of denigrating the liturgy (and how else could one describe a change from the previous form to one that is “objectively inferior”?) is to show a degree of disrespect and dishonor to those whom Christ has selected as our superiors that is not becoming to His disciples. A great saying that was oft-repeated by Pope John XXIII and attributed to St. Augustine is a fitting conclusion: “In essentials, unity; in other matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”

I reiterate my request that Bob Sungenis re-evaluate the frequency and degree to which the writings he publishes dissent from the teachings of the Church.

New blog: Boycott CAI-- the place to find out the latest on Bob Sungenis.

On a related note, yesterday I received a reply from my bishop to the letter I sent him on September 10. Archbishop Chaput said he would take up this up with Bishop Loverde.

Great HMS Post by Greg Popcak this morning on the whole genuflection controversy. My take is “when in Rome, do as the Romans”. I don’t find it appropriate to do anything too conspicuous. If others are genuflecting, then it isn’t too conspicuous. If only one person does it, though, it could be a problem.

When in Los Angeles, I noticed that many people simply sat when returning from communion. That bothered me. Of course kneeling into the neck of someone sitting in front of you isn’t very inconspicuous either.

Odd side note, Greg P uses a term of endearment for his wife that I use for mine, though I spell it “Pookie” rather than “Pooky”. Must be a "G thang."

I’ve had a bit of experience dealing with people whose brains have been damaged by injury or illness. My maternal grandfather (from whom I inherited my irascibility) died of a brain tumor in the early 70s. A few years later, my paternal grandfather (from whom I inherited my looks) developed what was then called senile dementia. A few years later my mom started having strokes. Ten years ago this week, my then boss was in a car crash that gave her head injuries that prevented her from ever working again.
A few years ago my dad got a tumor that has really smashed up his brain.

I bring this up because all of those people had some degree of delusions as a result of their illness or injury. I’ve noticed a few things about delusions:

1. each person tends to develop a typical pattern to his or her delusion (happy, apprehensive, hurried, etc.);
2. most delusions I’ve seen involve the person going back to his or her past. For instance, my paternal grandfather worked as a night watchman for several years after leaving the farm life behind. Many years after he retired, his delusion pattern was to get ready for work and head out as if he were heading to work. My mother’s frequent delusions were that she was being called by her parents (who were by then long since dead).

I think it would be reasonable to require anyone who spouts PoMo ideas about there being no objective measure of reality should be required to spend a few days with a profoundly and stubbornly delusional person.

The estimable Instapundit quotes a letter that succinctly points out much of the problem with any discussion regarding the middle east: “ People supporting the Palestinians do not believe in a free exchange of ideas. They believe in intimidation and violence.” Like any generalization, there are exceptions. The exceptions, though, are far too rare.

Today I was fortunate to find two excellent pieces regarding Iraq, one long and one short.

The long one is by the formidable Steven Den Beste. As befits writing by a devout atheist, it is from a wholly secular perspective. It doesn’t take much, though, to see how the facts he presents build the case for a just war even in Catholic doctrine. The facts he presents are unpleasant and generally unspoken as they are politically incorrect in extremis. I’d be very intrigued, though, to find anyone anywhere who could challenge their veracity or pertinence to the question at hand.

The second is a quote attributed to the Secretary of Defense: “The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes [only] after it has been fired. " Courtesy of Lucianne.com.

As I mentioned in a comment on another site (don’t remember with certainty which site, though), forgiveness of past sins is no license for future sins and sometimes forgiveness must also include some outside assistance to keep the newly-forgiven person far from the opportunity to sin again. Seems to me that this clearly applies to pedophiles, people who claim to speak for the Church while saying things that are at best inaccurate and uncharitable and for international tyrants. (Finally, a post that touches on most everything I ever blog about!)

Recent Mass readings (both Sunday and daily) are relentlessly addressing forgiveness. Today’s reading includes the juxtaposition of a parable and an event in the life of Jesus to show the importance and the value of forgiveness – especially the forgiveness of the gravest offenses.

The Pharisee in today’s reading was scandalized that Jesus allowed a notorious sinner to follow Him into the Pharisee’s home. He didn’t see a guest or someone whom Jesus Himself implicitly invited. He didn’t’ see a fellow-member of God’s chosen people, or someone who was in need of help. He didn’t see his own sin either – only hers.

Many of the best achievements of the Protestants have been in vernacular hymnody. One of the better lines is: “Chief of sinners though I be, Jesus shed His blood for me.” The line readily transforms to “Chief of sinners though I be, there are still some worse than me.” Too often our attitudes make that transformation, regardless of what we say. We become like the merciless servant in this past Sunday’s reading, or the Pharisee in today’s reading, when all of us are in need, even if the degree of need we perceive for the forgiveness of any given person may vary.

The woman in today’s reading showed admirable contrition. It’s worth remembering that Jesus, while He walked among us, did most of that walking in sandals in a hot climate with rather few paved roads. The feet she tenderly washed with her tears, dried with her hair and kissed would have been calloused, sweaty and dirty. She didn’t just say she was sorry, she showed in a concrete way that she understood the magnitude of what Jesus offered. May I do the same.

I just simply don’t read Dave Pawlak often enough!

The within post (an obscure usage to be sure, Nihil Obstat, though familiar to those who read legal documents) has to do with the materials he used in teaching RCIA classes. Those must have been good classes with that much (and that good) material. They would have been much more theologically-oriented than were mine.

My RCIA experience, as I mentioned before, witnessed to the breadth of the Church. That was even included in class materials. We didn’t always use the same Bible translation, for example, but tried many approved translations so that each person could find appropriate to him. We had a forgettable book by a Premonstratensian who, IIRC, was from Wisconsin. I think the book was originally intended for use with high school students. Then again, we didn’t use it much. We saw some rather old videos with an endearing (and orthodox) Jesuit. We had several laypeople from the parish give presentations on areas of particular interest to them – the St. Vincent de Paul society, a Rosary group, etc. The parish priest gave a memorable presentation on conscience. The RCIA leader individualized our readings to a high degree by providing different books to each of us, keyed more to our own particular areas of concern.

We were a large group, so it was common to split into small groups for discussion. Each group would have several candidates/catechumens and at least one experienced Catholic. Having so many people involved in the process was a good way to address the easily adopted fallacy that there’s only one way to be Catholic. (More to come on this later.)

I went to a couple of the early sessions of the next year’s RCIA, but family circumstances prevented me from going more often. So far it doesn’t look good for me to participate on a regular basis this year either. I would very much like, though, to talk with this year’s group a bit about church history and the saints. So many converts have a difficult time with the saints’ intercession (and too few modern Catholics seem to give it enough thought) that it seems like a topic ripe for some high-energy attention.

In the middle of July, my mother died after a long illness. My father’s in the hospital for the third time since late June, and I don’t expect him to live until the end of the year. While saying goodbye to them is difficult, it’s in many ways more difficult to see the extensive debilitation to which they’ve each become subject. I can understand how someone might thus approve of euthanasia. I’m glad that I was given the grace to understand why euthanasia is wrong and I hope, in time, to convey that understanding to others as this will be a contentious issue in years to come.

Great item and comments at Gerard Serafin’s re: the future of Christianity. One comment predicts a general persecution in the first half of this century. I’ve long expected that and it had something to do with my coming to the Church – no protestant group has the same experience in dealing with persecution.

The more immediate picture, though, has to do with the observation that the more liberal churches consistently lose members and those that are more conservative grow (discussed well at ibidem, BTW). The liberals have control of several denominations (Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S., ELCA and whichever set of Presbyterians that are “mainline” come to mind first and foremost), but aren’t able to (a) bring people in either by evangelization or other means or (b) even keep those they have. Why? I’d like to propose that “liberal” religion – religion stripped of its ancient moral context and even of its tangible symbols (see Lileks for more on this) might seem to be more comfortable and contemporary for a time, but after the novelty wears off, it shows itself to be lacking. Religion that focuses on the natural (and only on what is wrong in the world around us) wears us down. Religion that focuses on the supernatural and those miraculous instances when something is right in the world around us, inspires.

We’ll wait out the “liberals” well enough (not to mention that the next generation is likely to contain a great many more children raised by conservative parents than those raised by liberal parents or whatever new non-sexist, fully-inclusive term they’ll devise).

When I give in to a vice once after a good amount of time away from it, it’s amazing how quickly I want to resume the vice at full speed. I pray that I succeed in avoiding that very thing today.

Bob Sungenis still has the PetersNet icon on his site, despite the fact that PetersNet deleted its links to him. Bob, that could be construed as an unauthorized use of the intellectual property of another person -- a crime. It could also be construed as deceit. Please remove the graphic.

So Saddam Hussein says he’ll allow weapons inspectors. Hostage-taking has a long history in southwest Asia. You do the math.

Sean Roberts has some good observations and comments on RCIA. I was hoping that RCIA would have a lot of discussion of theology. At first I was disappointed that it didn’t. Later I came to appreciate that RCIA is meant for everyone – even those who aren’t drawn to theological discussion. RCIA is an opportunity to get to know other people who are drawn to the Church and the countless reasons that draw them. It opened my eyes to see aspects and attributes of the Church that may not so visible from a strictly theological viewpoint, but that are still vital. It (to use an overused phrase) built community. I keep in touch with some of the people from RCIA. We pray for each other and help each other in the journey. Community can't be built alone, but it's possible to study theology alone (or by use of modern communications technology).

Rarely in the New Testament are any of the disciples or apostles shown solo. Christianity calls us to give up a great deal of our isolation. That’s difficult for me.

Had lots of good ideas for posts today, but circumstances intervened. For the third time in 13 weeks, I spent Monday taking my dad to the hospital. Hoping for a good chance to post tomorrow as there's still some good stuff kicking around my skull.

Prayer of the week

Discovered this prayer, which is from the Orthodox, while I was Anglican. Still think it's worthy of attention:

Prayer of Philaret:

My Lord, I know not what I ought to ask of Thee.
Thou and Thou alone knowest my needs.
Thou lovest me more than I am able to love Thee.
O Father, grant unto me, Thy servant, all which I cannot ask.
For a cross I dare not ask, nor for consolation;
I dare only to stand in Thy presence.
My heart is open to Thee.
Thou seest my needs of which I myself am unaware.
Behold and lift me up!
In Thy presence I stand,
awed and silenced by Thy will and Thy judgments,
into which my mind cannot penetrate.
To Thee I offer myself as a sacrifice.
No other desire is mine but to fulfill Thy will.
Teach me how to pray.
Do Thyself pray within me.
Amen.

I’m looking forward with eager anticipation to Sunday night. Yes, I’ll admit it: I’m a big Sopranos’ fan. I realize many might blanch at this given the show’s violence, foul language, nudity and general portrayal of moral chaos. Look closer. This show doesn’t glorify the criminal life (as do so many other items of pop culture). It isn’t some vapid thrill ride. It’s great because of the depth of characterization and because of its moral element.

Yes, that’s right, the show has a significant moral element. This program demonstrates very clearly that people who do things that most of us find repugnant aren’t that different than we are. Tony Soprano can, in the course of day, murder someone, rob someone else, commit adultery and be a loving father to his children and an unremarkable homeowner in suburbia. In this culture we need a reminder that not everyone driving down the road is a “nice” person – someone indistinguishable from you or me (maybe even you or me) can do things that are beyond the pale.

The next significant moral element is that nearly every character has some moral absolutes. None of them happen to be the right moral absolutes, but in our culture to have any moral absolutes is a step out of the gutter. To most of the crew, loyalty and obedience are absolutes. What a contrast with society at large!

Another great moral element is that, as in life, actions have consequences. The consequences may not be immediate, but they are there.

The show depicts people who, for all their faults, actually care about each other. Sal Bompensiero faced a real moral dilemma as he was torn between his hopes for his children and his loyalty to Tony. His care for his children won out and he paid with his life. Tony wants to do everything he can to keep his son from turning out like he did. He wants his daughter to be happy, even if he can’t demonstrate that in a way she can understand. Contrast that with, say, Seinfeld – the show where no one cares about anything other than self-gratification. It’s no coincidence that Seinfeld was the most popular show in the country.

The foul language can be offensive. This series, though, is an attempt to depict the life of crime in a way that is realistic. Hardened criminals aren’t likely to say “oh my goodness”.

The nudity and depictions of sexual behavior can also be offensive. They are, though, integral to the plot and the producers are generally thoughtful enough to keep such scenes brief. It’s also unique in that it doesn’t demonstrate promiscuity as glamorous and fun – it shows the vapidity, the inconvenience, the danger and even a hint of the shame of it. I’d rather have the Sopranos’ depiction of sex than that found on most fully-clothed major network shows..

The violence is jarring. It pales in comparison to what is shown on commercials on many other shows and it’s generally presented in such a way as to de-glamorize violence. More often than not, the violent scenes clearly indicate the devastation that violence wreaks.

So now you know a little about why I’m looking forward to Sunday night. Salud!

‘Tis a good thing that I had surgery when I did and am more or less back to full health, as the circumstances that now face me could be much more hazardous with a severely constricted coronary artery. This morning, though, I was reminded of a time a few years ago when I faced strikingly similar daunting circumstances. (A family member who is seriously ill, my wife probably losing her job, that sort of thing, in case you were curious.) Providence used such circumstances for great good a few years ago. I hope that such happens again. So far I’m glad to say I’m less apprehensive about the circumstances than I remember being a few years ago. I hope I can maintain that attitude.

Bill Cork has great further details on Sungenis-palooza Bob Sungenis (whom I’ll start referring to by his all-too-fitting initials, “BS”) has come out with his latest diatribe against the Talmud and, by extension, the Jewish people. As for me, with each passing day I become yet more glad that I contacted my bishop, entreating him to intervene with BS’ bishop. I don’t know whether my bishop will find the time to do so, or even choose to do so, but I know that I’ve done some small part in trying to remedy this horrible sickness in the body of Christ.

I mentioned in a post below that in the wake of 9/11/01 I became consumed with rage at the perpetrators and those who celebrated their actions – and that this rage prevented me from effective prayer and led directly to my participation in several sinful acts that weren’t directly related to that rage and which needn’t be described in detail here. Of course I’m reminded of St. James’ admonition that the anger of man does not lead to the righteousness of God. Of course anger that stews too long can congeal into hatred. Some discussion at Mark Shea’s site seems to fit in well here too – on hate and on the appropriateness of the Pope’s prayer for forgiveness of the barbarians who murdered so many innocent people on that fateful day.

In I John 1:5, we’re reminded that “Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all.” In I John 2:8b-11 we read: “the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining. Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall. Whoever hates his brother is in darkness; he walks in darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” We continue with I John 3:14-15a: “We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. Whoever does not love remains in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer“. Hatred is, then, the darkness that is the antithesis of the God Who is love (I John 4:8). (I see this as a dispositive answer to the comment at Mark’s site regarding God having hatred for some of His children.)

While I don’t presume to know with certainty what’s in BS’ heart, I can’t see how anyone could BS’ latest comments and not see them as strongly indicative of hatred for the Jewish people. (I’d be glad to be proven wrong.)

The “brothers” mentioned in I John must include all people – not just those we like, not just those who share our faith.. (After all, Christ hasn’t been stingy with His love to people whose lives are characterized by sin and even “disgusting practices” (to use a favorite BS term).

At the risk of promoting speculation that I might be Nihil Obstat, I must point out that BS’ comments are riddled with factual errors. His “quotes” from the Talmud have been shown to be fabrications (a fact he refuses to address). His “expert sources” are notorious for their bias and falsity (ditto). In a great touch, he attributes a quote about Christians to Julius Caesar (must have been quite a prescient moment on behalf of a man who was murdered 40 years before Jesus’ birth!)

What makes this all the more sad, is that there’s no evident benefit to BS’ comments on the Talmud. Just as in his comments on geocentrism , he’s publicly stating as fact, in his capacity as a self-appointed expert on Catholic teaching no less, items that are not demonstrably true and that do nothing to promote the credibility of the Church or to demonstrate that any of her members is capable of anything other than stubbornness and hatred.

Bob Sungenis, may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

On the lighter side --
I think the next "Which (fill in the blank) are you?" quiz should be about the Trading Spaces crew. That could be a fun one. Coming soon: the Trading Spaces drinking game . . . .

Yesterday turned out to have many indescribably depressing moments and a few better ones.

Most uplifting moment: attending a midday Mass for Peace and Justice with hundreds of my neighbors.

First horrifyingly sad moment: going to school and seeing the campus inundated with unspeakably vile posters of which I won’t speak more for now – if ever I do. (Was happy to see that a significant percentage of these were removed by the time I got out of class.)

Lighter moment: passing the bookstore and seeing a display of travel books in the window. One in particular caught my eye. It had the usual traits of a travel book cover: a photo of lovely scenery, an impressive building and someone in picturesque costume. The title was “Guide to Spam”. I thought this was an inspired piece of humor writing – making a faux travel guide about mystery meat all over the world! Alas, I was wrong. It was just bad typography for “Spain”.

Next series of horrors: Reading the assignment for a class on international public health only to learn that the UN estimates there are approximately 50,000,000 abortions in the world every year. Fifty million. Nearly as many people as died in the entire Second World War -- about one-sixth of the population of the United States -- killed in one year. Strike that. That many innocents are killed EVERY year. On average, every second sees more than one abortion. The problem in the U.S. is huge, but even it pales in comparison to so many other countries. Note: I’m not trying to diminish the American role in promotion of abortion. We bear grave responsibility for promoting the abortion/contraception culture worldwide. (N.B. These figures are estimates that include only “medical” abortions, not the even larger number of abortions wrought by abortifacient means of contraception – that being all but the “barrier” methods – but of course there’s no credible way to estimate the number of people killed by IUDs, pharmaceuticals and the like.) Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine! Miserere nobis, Domine.

Hard as it may be to believe, going to class it got worse. We were told the rules for conduct with our guest speaker – basically that we could not discuss any “political” issues and that the speaker was only going to “share facts” which we could discuss as long as discussion was “safe”. The implication was clear – no substantive questions were allowed. Our guest was from Planned Parenthood, speaking on the triumphs of international family planning.

She had studied Vietnam, since it has had “such great success in family planning” and since it currently has the highest reported rate of abortions in the world at nearly 3 abortions on average for each woman in her lifetime. (From what I have read, the former Soviet bloc was actually worse than this. Another reason to be glad that the wall came down and to hope, pray and work for the liberation of those countries that still maintain reverence for Marx)

We were told how Vietnam was “more clever” than China, as China’s one-child policy has “upset some people”. Vietnam has a “one or two child” policy. She actually said, “This gives people a choice.” So now I guess we find the deeper meaning for “pro-choice”.
The speaker bristled when asked what the consequences were for violation of the policy, but reluctantly admitted that they included loss of employment for those parents who work, directly or indirectly, for the state or the party (about 40% of the population) or reduction in farmland allocation for farmers (over 50% of the population and most of whom produce just enough to support four people at a normal land allocation). That’s right, less food for more people: starvation to enforce an unjust law. They punish not only the parents, but all of the children. There’s also severe ostracism for those who dare to have a third child. (No mention and no question as to what happens with multiple births – say a woman has one child followed by twins.) But wait, there’s more.

Since the early 1980s, “the foundation of Vietnamese health and economic policy has been to maximize the availability of contraception and reproductive health services [abortion]. Even when money has been short, family planning has been fully funded, unlike here in the U.S.” (Of course there had to be a dig that the U.S. doesn’t provide unlimited free contraception and abortion.) As a result, contraceptive dispensaries are located conveniently for everyone in Vietnam. Even people in the most remote areas have only a short trip to find an abortion. You’d think PP would be happy, but they aren’t. You see, the majority of those who obtain contraception are married women.

“One of the biggest problems in Vietnam is that there’s so much shame and guilt associated with pre-marital sex.” That’s not a typo. That’s the “enlightened” position – that it’s a bad thing that people realize when they do something wrong and act accordingly. PP isn’t happy with killing babies; they also need to kill what conscience is left in the living!

“There had been some resistance to family planning in the south because [former RVN President] Dien was Catholic.” Just because the long-deposed politician was Catholic, mind you. Never mind the consciences of the millions of Vietnamese Catholics.

A lengthy discussion of the necessity of “spacing births properly” followed. The underlying assumption was that only through use of contraception could births be properly spaced to maximize maternal and (selected) child health. That’s right, the goal of PP is that EVERY WOMAN use contraception other than at those few moments when she is actively seeking conception, which moments are not left to her discretion, but are dictated by some central authority.

The speech ended with a screed against the President for his executive order that federal funds not go to entities that (a) provide abortions or (b) advocate abortion.

We then got to see slides of her trip to Vietnam, including several children who were born with horrible birth defects that she attributed to Agent Orange. Of course I have no idea if her attribution of the cause of the defects is correct, but these poor children are in a heartbreakingly bad way. Given Vietnam's poverty, they're not likely to live long. Sad to say, they may ultimately be more fortunate than many of their contemporaries.

In trying to fix a post below in which Nihil Obstat found yet another link error, the post got further garbled to the point I can't edit it. Anyway, I feel better about the Bob Sungenis dissent/schism/hatred episode now that I have done what seems right to me -- notifying the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities. Perhaps this is a subtle sign that it's time for me to shake the dust off my sandals regarding Bob Sungenis.

So I guess I’ll join the throng and post about my own 9/11 experiences. While I was getting ready for work, my wife pointed my attention to the TV showing the first tower billowing smoke. We watched for a stunned moment and I got the dog ready for a walk. When we reached the end of the driveway, I heard a scream. I ran back to learn of the second crash. My wife was sobbing as she thought her cousin (who worked on the 100-something floor) had been killed. We later learned that he happened to be away from his office that day, at a charity function. My first thoughts after the second crash (of which I’m still not completely dissuaded) were that it was at least in part the work of Yassir Arafat. I stewed in rage for many months. I was so angry I really couldn’t pray for a long time. I reverted to much of my worst behavior. I thank God that His mercy eventually overcame my rage.

So many people say that “everything’s changed since 9/11”, but really too little has changed for those who did not lose loved ones at the hands of the barbarians.

Too many people in Asia and Africa live under the tyranny of either Islamofascists such as bin Laden or secular Arab nationalist fascists such as Saddam Hussein who still work relentlessly to slaughter and enslave as many innocent people as they can. Too much money and deference goes to these despots.

Too few people in Israel, be they Jewish or not, have the opportunity to live anything resembling a normal life as Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah attempt to complete what Hitler started.

Too few people stood up to condemn the blasphemy committed by Fatah terrorists in the Church of the Nativity or the blasphemy committed by media goons and their hangers-on in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

Too many people exploit the shock and grief of innocent people to promote their pre-existing pet causes.

Too few people who don’t live in the immediate shadow of the twin towers of Arab terror take their threat seriously. Too many people in Europe and America coddle and appease the barbarians who would like nothing more than to make our lives into hell on earth.

Too many people believe Hanan Ashrawi and too few read Daniel Pipes. For that matter, too few read James Lileks.

Too often the people of God betray Him.

Too many Catholics spend their time and energy either (a) criticizing the Church for not being enough like the dying liberal protestant denominations, (b) criticizing the Church for not looking sufficiently like it did in the 16th century or (c) try to subvert the Church into a vehicle for their own pet political causes, rather than in trying to perform corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

Too many people everywhere live in ignorance of the Gospel. Too many people live in uninformed hostility to the Church.

Too many people are too ready to rationalize sin – be it their own sex drives, the bloodlust of Arab terrorists, a cowardly reluctance to give the barbarians what they’ve invited by their actions, blind rage at the perpetrators or pride at their own absence of anger.

Too many still wall themselves off from their neighbors – both literally and figuratively.

Too rarely do I do what I ought.

Spiritual lesson from a big furry mutt for September 10, 2002

The other day I was eating some strawberries. The dog wanted some too, without regard to his usual dislike of fruits and vegetables, just because I was having them. Jesus willingly took on suffering and associated with sick and sinful people. Would that I had my dog's inclination to want what my Master takes in!

Interesting that

In the lessons yesterday, we're called to task for our failure to intervene in the lives of our fellow Christians when they fall into error. The Bob Sungenis website continues to trouble me, not only because of its anti-Semitism, but because of an apparent endorsement of schism (comments that the Novus Ordo Mass is "objectively inferior" to the Tridentine and a prominent invocation of St. Pius X). I struggle to determine what I should do.

I've noticed on Sungenis' site, and on many other "ultra-traditionalist" schismatics, a tendency to focus on various saints and their writings to the virtual exclusion of Our Lord and what He says to us. May I never follow such a path!

New Feature:: Prayer of the week!

I've wanted to do this for some time, and there's no time like the present. I'll be posting each week a prayer (or portion thereof) that seems especially well-suited. Preference will be given to prayers that aren't among the best-known. This week, apropos of my recent angioplasty and stent emplacement and of my affinity for the Franciscans, a lesser-known prayer that St. Francis is alleged to have prayed before the crucifix: (My apologies if there are better translations available of Summe Gloriose Deus.)

Most Glorious God,
illuminate the darkness of my heart;
grant me a right faith, a certain hope,
perfect charity, perception and insight, O Lord,
that I may fulfill Thy holy and true commandment.
Amen

It includes nearly every aspect of prayer in so few words: praise to the Praiseworthy One, acknowledgement of my unworthiness, a request for what I truly need, and a recognition of what I need to do.

Thanks for kind comments below and for info on centering prayer and alternatives thereto [oops, my inner geek just escaped for a second!]. FYI -- I think I may try some other forms of prayer and meditation first rather than centering prayer.

Thanks especially for pointing me toward the Jesus prayer. It seems like something I should have been doing all along and it goes remarkably well with walking the dog.

Mark Shea's site is again stirring things up with Bob Sungenis.

A few weeks ago Bob showed up on Mark's site with an encomium on the importance of geocentrism to orthodox Catholicism. Now Bob is ripping up the USCCB committee's "Reflections" document that explores the idea that maybe, just maybe, Catholics should be focusing what evangelism exists at people other Jews who, after all, worship the same God we do.

Bob didn't stop at criticizing the idea on its merits, but threw in just about every anti-Semitic slur ever flung. On Mark's comments, he had several defenders.

On the off chance you see this, Bob, please take a look at Matthew 15:24-28, where Jesus mentions that the children of Israel are God's children and we gentiles merely the dogs who get the scraps. I'd be reluctant to contradict Him on that and be grateful just to be a furry mutt in His house.

Seems to me that on geocentrism and on hostility to our elder brethren of the covenant, Bob feels his judgment is superior to that of the magisterium. There's a term for that -- Protestant. Wear it proudly, Bob, and please quit defaming the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by trying to impose your opinions as Her truths.

Each of the last two Sunday gospels have pointed to the importance of subjecting our judgments and our opinions to the revealed truth. In Matthew 16:13ff, Jesus asks "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The disciples give the various opinions, then Peter speaks the truth of which Jesus says, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven".

This past Sunday (Matthew 16:21-23), Jesus reveals to the disciples the necessity of His suffering and death, but the same Peter who had just received a blessed revelation from God spouted his own opinion, "God forbid it!". Jesus rebuked him for placing his own judgment above the revealed truth.

Repetition is often used to make a point to those who refuse to listen. May God grant us all the grace to subject our own judgments and opinions to the Truth He reveals in His holy Church.

Again apropos of surgery, my cardiologist recommended that I look into "Centering Prayer" since it's apparently a good way for someone as irascible as me to become less of a hazard to himself. Anyone have any good resources on it?

Thanks!

As noted below, I had a brief blogging hiatus occasioned by surgery. Seems like a good time for some reflections on Catholic healthcare.

There are Catholic bloggers whose previous posts indicate a desire to either eliminate or substantially curtail Catholic healthcare. I don’t believe that would be a reasonable or wise thing to do.

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Facilities remind us that Catholic healthcare is the continuation of the healing ministry of Jesus. I don’t support curtailing our continuation of his sacramental or teaching ministries, why should I condone reduction in the healing ministry?

As a student of healthcare, though, there’s more yet to my objection.

Infection control is one of the biggest challenges faced by any healthcare provider. As old germs develop resistance to the standard courses of treatment and as new pathogens emerge, hospitals and other healthcare facilities will have an ever-increasing incentive to follow the most effective (and cost-effective) means of reducing infections among patients. There seems to be little hope for developing a drug that would simultaneously combat a full range of potential infectants. The best hope is for boosting the patient’s immune system. If cost weren’t an issue, intravenous immune globulin would likely be used in just such a way in hospitals today.

The recent push for therapeutic cloning opens up the possibility (I’d call it the likelihood) that researchers will work toward a cost-effective immune boost, probably based on cloning technology. This development will place a grave ethical situation in front of doctors, nurses, pharmacists and patients. Are all Catholics, then, to abandon the healthcare system? Should Catholics take the cafeteria view and simply divorce medical decisions from religion?

There must be a strong presence in healthcare that represents respect for human life. Only Catholic healthcare can fulfill that mandate. It has had too many failures in the past three decades, but we would do better to improve what we have than to abandon it!

Welcome to all you good folks who've come here from HMS Blog. Sorry about the lapse in posting, but I was busy having heart surgery. To the surprise of some, I indeed have a heart and it is functioning. Thanks especially to those of you who remembered me in your prayers!