Condoms, Pregnancy, and STD's

“Annie’s Mailbox” (Pacific Daily News, March 20, 2009) posted a letter from a 22 year old single woman who had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. The woman asked “Annie” to explain how she could have gotten the disease since her boyfriend “always used protection”. The woman signed the letter “Devastated in New York” because not only did her partner leave her with an STD, he left her altogether: “he suddenly stopped seeing me and wouldn’t return my calls”. “Annie” replied: “While condoms are very effective, they are not foolproof and on rare occasion have been known to break and leak.”


Last week (March 17), Pope Benedict, on a trip to Africa, gave similar advice while responding to a reporter’s challenge as to the Catholic Church's position on the way to fight against AIDS (abstinence and fidelity) as “unrealistic and ineffective."


The Pope’s response was approximately 264 words long and was framed within the larger context of the church's service to those with AIDS and its efforts to promote what he called a "humanization of sexuality" that includes the elements of fidelity and self-sacrifice. The sound byte seized on by the media was only 17 of those 264 words and is as follows: “One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.”


Ignoring the fact that the media isolated only this one phrase and ignored the larger context – a not uncommon practice – the question still is: Does in fact the promotion of condom use increase the spread of AIDS?

“Google” the question and you’ll come up with a myriad of reports and studies that come down on both sides of the answer. But one thing that ALL the studies have in common is that while condoms MAY reduce the risk of an STD infection; they DO NOT eliminate the risk. The question then becomes” What is the risk?”


The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States, and obviously no friend of the Pope’s. In a 1999 report, Guttmacher stated: “Generally, the condom's effectiveness at preventing HIV transmission is estimated to be 87%, but it may be as low as 60% or as high as 96%.”The study presupposes consistent and correct use and proper storage of a condom.


According to Planned Parenthood, here are just some of the factors to take into consideration when using a condom if one is concerned with maximum protection:

• The type of material a condom is made of (some work better than others)
• The expiration date
• It should be stored in a cool dry place- it should not be stored in pocket, wallet, or glove compartment
• Care should be taken when opening the protective pouch so as not to damage the condom
• Use only water based lubricants
• The condom must be put on according to the instructions, etc.

(The instructions are almost comical given that anyone who has ever used a condom has probably paid little attention to any of the above. Then throw in the economic and climate conditions of Africa and the fact that perhaps many people are not literate and unable to read the instructions.)


However, given the Guttmacher study, even if all the instructions are followed, you have at best a 1 in 25 chance of contracting an STD if engaging in sex with an infected person, and at worst, a 1 in 4 chance. Interestingly, the U.S. Center for Disease Control reported that in 2007, 1 out of every 4 teenage girls was infected with an STD, and that number does not include cases of AIDS.


Another facet of the problem to be considered is that the promotion of condom use is inherently a promotion of sex without consequences. But there are always consequences. Sooner or later, even the most ardent condom users will find themselves in an “indiscriminate” moment without a condom. It’s just the law of averages.


The other issue is that condom usage assumes that the man is in charge. Excepting a few cases, it is the man who will purchase the “right” type of condom, make sure it is stored correctly, opened correctly, donned correctly, and then judge during intercourse whether or not the condom is performing correctly. Ahem. Ladies, do you really trust a man to do all that?


The woman in the “Dear Annie” letter is far from alone. Regardless of the human wreckage left by STD’s, there is the untold human wreckage of broken hearts and broken souls as we saw in this sad letter. And there’s also this:


So far we have only looked at the facts regarding condoms and protection from STD’s. The same Guttmacher study reports that the incidence of breakage for condoms is as high as 6.7% and as high as 16.6% for slippage, leading to as many as 15 out of 100 women becoming pregnant.


Since not wanting to have a child is the usual reason for using a condom in the first place, that reason will probably still exist after pregnancy is discovered, and the next step is an abortion.


On Guam (Abortion Report for 2007 – Guam Medical Records) 18% of all reported abortions were on women whose partner was using a condom, and 59% of all reported abortions were on women who were using some form of artificial birth control.


Of course these numbers are only based on the abortion reports. It is assumed that many more pregnancies were carried to term, so the incidence of condom failure is probably much higher.

Fireproof

I think anything that casts marriage in a positive light and gives even the slightest encouragement is to be lauded to the nth degree. After almost a generation of attacks on traditional marriage and family on every front, it is with almost desperate breath that we greet such attempts to resuscitate covenanted love as the movie Fireproof attempts to do.

In watching the movie I certainly found much encouragement for my own journey to grow, deepen, and perhaps even grasp marital love.

However, (unless I fell asleep and missed it) I couldn't help but notice the movie's complete silence about Caleb and Catherine's childlessness.

According to the story line, the couple had been married seven years. A normal couple, Christian or not, would have had at least one child by then. Given the Christian production of the film, it would seem logical that at least either infertility or selfishness would have been addressed. Neither was.

Barrenness due to personal selfishness would have been consistent with the story and could have been easily linked to the devolution of the couple's relationship.

Sure, the movie begins with the marriage already gone bad, and one can easily assume that Caleb and Catherine are no longer having marital relations. But one can also assume that there had to be at least a few years where they were having normal relations, and that barring infertility, the couple was closed to life.

The couple's barrenness would have been totally understandable given the non-covenanted marriage that Caleb and Catherine had. But it is not understandable given the professed Christianity of those who wrote and made the movie.

"Be fruitful and multiply" was not a suggestion. At some point I would have thought that the authors would have worked it in if only to show that the couple's denial of God's will in this regard contributed to the demise of the marriage. But of course this assumes that infertility was not the issue. But now we'll never know.

Oh well.

“Why do you Catholics worship Mary?”

I have great sympathy for those who ask this question.

I realize that for many of our non-Catholic brethren, the public processions honoring Mary, the many Marian statues in our churches and homes, our ever present rosary beads, and the great reverence we Catholics give to her, can certainly give the appearance of worship or even idolatry.

A story is told about an elderly Italian woman who was praying in a dark church in front of her favorite Madonna. And as many elderly Italian women are wont to do she was praying rather audibly begging the Madonna for assistance on some family matter. The Lord, Himself, looked down on her and decided to grant her request. So He called to her from heaven, “Maria”, he said. Startled, the woman paused briefly, looked around and went back to her loud supplications to the Madonna. Again Jesus called to her: “Maria, Maria” The elderly lady again paused, looked about, sighed, and went back to imploring the Blessed Mother. Finally Jesus called out in a voice loud enough to shake the church, “Maria, it is I, Jesus. I will grant your request.” Maria, stops praying, looks up to heaven and says with a tone of exasperation, “Hush-a your mouth, I’m a talking to your mother.”

The story is funny because, like all funny stories, there is a streak of truth about it. To the outsider, the sight of someone kneeling before a statue and even talking to it could certainly appear to be idolatry or at least superstitious.

Let's use the story to answer 3 questions:
• Does kneeling denote worship?
• Is praying to the saints the same as worshiping them?
• Do we, Catholics, in fact worship Mary?

Kneeling
Kneeling or bowing does not always denote worship. Here on Guam it is common to bow down to an elder as a sign of respect. We are not worshiping our grandmother when we do so. A man may get down on his knees before a woman and propose marriage, but it is only a posture of supplication, not worship. So no, kneeling and bowing are not always peculiar to worship.

By way of comparison, a Catholic may see a non-Catholic brother or sister kneeling while reading the Bible, but we would not immediately assume that he or she is worshiping the book.

“Praying to”
Next, let us examine what it means to "pray". "Prayer" can certainly be equated with worship when the prayer is directed toward God. But "prayer" is one of those words that has several meanings depending on the context. You've heard the expression "he doesn't have a prayer". In this context, "prayer" means hope, and does not imply worship.

Essentially, "pray" means to ask or implore. In older forms of English conversation it was employed in such phrases as "Pray thee, come hither" (Please, come here). So to "pray" does not mean "to worship".

But even if the woman in our story is only imploring Mary and not worshiping her, why doesn't she just go straight to God? That's a topic called the Intercession of the Saints and we'll address that in another post.

Do Catholics Worship Mary?
For now let us answer the question we began with: Why do Catholics worship Mary? If you are going to be intellectually honest, the question one must first ask is "Does the Catholic Church teach the worship of Mary?"

Paragraph 971 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in part:

The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit...

The Church here makes a distinction between adoration, which is due only to God, and veneration, or the act of showing honor. So, in short, the Church does not teach us to worship Mary. What it does teach us to do is venerate her in a most special way. And why is that?

Essentially, the special claim that Mary makes on our attention is rooted in the words of Luke, Chapter 1, verse 48:

“All generations will call me blessed”

This is not an ordinary claim to blessedness. My wife and I have 11 children. I am often told that I am blest. I thank them and agree. But what would you think of me if I said, "yes, and all generations will call me blessed"? You'd think I had a mental problem.

Yet there it is in scripture. Mary makes this claim for herself, and we, being a member of those generations to whom she refers, are obligated to address her as "blessed" lest we deny the authority of the Word of God and flaunt the clear directive.

Yes, you may say, I may have to refer to her as "blessed", but I don't have to show her special honor as you Catholics do.

Titles are not just adjectives. The title "Doctor" in front of someone's name is not just an honorific. A particular authority is implied. Thus we go to the doctor not because he is called doctor but because he is one. We respond to him (or her) differently than someone who is not a doctor.

Thus, inherent in the title "Blessed" is the instruction to in fact treat her as such. And so it is in obedience to Luke Chapter 1 verse 48 that the Catholic Church instructs the faithful to venerate Mary in both word and deed. And so we do.

Why Abortion is Legal And Why It Shouldn’t Be

(Printed in the PDN, Saturday, October 25, 2008)

A famous local talk show host recently shared his distaste for the topic of Abortion. I agree with him. The word “abortion” scrapes on the brain like the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard.

Distasteful or not, abortion is in the news and is likely to remain in the news at least until Bill 374, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2008 comes to a vote.

Nationally of course, abortion is always in the news, especially with the current election where, on this issue, there is a very clear line between the two presidential candidates. Obama made that line even clearer when in the 3rd debate he declared: “Roe v Wade probably does hang in the balance.”

However, abortion is never a topic in a local election. As a matter of fact it is almost never a topic at all. Recently, it reared its distasteful head when tax payers paid for an “attorney general approved” abortion for a DOC inmate, a story that made news for all of about 24 hours. Prior to that, the last time abortion was an issue was in 1990 when Guam passed a short lived anti-abortion law.

But as long as abortion is in the news and the bill is under review, perhaps now would be a good time to take a clear-eyed look at what it is, why it is legal, and why it is controversial.

First, let us clarify that for the present discussion, the term “abortion” refers to the voluntary termination of a pregnancy (versus miscarriage – involuntary).

Next we must establish what it is that we are terminating. Whether we call “it” a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, or a child, the “it” is a human simply because the “it” can’t be a monkey, a dog, or an ear of corn. (Some argue the legality of the “human” label, but here “human” is simply a biological designation.)

The fact that the “it” is alive is self-evident or else there would be no need to terminate “it”. The next question is can human life be terminated legally.

Yes it can. Our society allows for the conditional killing of human beings. Those conditions traditionally have been associated with either personal self-defense or social self-defense (as in the case of capital punishment or war). We also allow for the killing of innocent human beings when the death of the innocent person is not intended such as in an accident.

But in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court had to find new grounds to justify the killing of a human in the womb since self-defense and “accident” wouldn’t work. Justice Harry Blackmun “found” his reasons in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Most people are familiar with the “right of privacy”, but another and less familiar reason was Blackmun’s argument that the word “person”, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. The Court bought it and Roe v Wade became the law of the land.

So why don’t the pro-lifers just sit down and shut up? Because the Supreme Court has been wrong before. Anybody recall Dred Scott?

The crux of the issue and the fuel that drives the debate is that Roe is bad law for the simple reason that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t address personhood at all. The Amendment is concerned with defining “citizen” and not “person”. Blackmun had to extract a definition for personhood from the words “…all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

The wording “all persons born” actually suggests that being born is something an already existing person undergoes and not an event that makes them a person. However, Blackmun and the Court decided for the latter.

The pro-life lobby believes that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, just like the Supreme Court declaration that Dred Scott was Irene Emerson’s personal property and not a free man was a bad decision.

There were those who wanted Scott and his abolitionist supporters to sit down and shut up too. They didn’t. The Scott decision would be overturned. But the Civil War would come first.

Gotta Be Born First

In response to “GATE musical mirrored jubilance of election” - letter to the editor

Ditto on the kudos to the GATE directors. My son has participated in several of these productions and has benefited greatly. The comparison between Obama’s election and the “Hairspray” theme (racial integration) is valid. That we judge “not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character” is a blossoming reality.

I say this as a White man married to a Black woman with children of varying skin hues and as one who knows discrimination. As a bi-racial couple living in the states, we were at times denied housing, threatened by the KKK, and often made to feel unwelcome.

However, my family and I do not share Mr. Hartz’ jubilation. Initially we were puzzled how a Black man who benefited from a redefinition of legal personhood which ended slavery in America could be so radically against the rights of another voiceless minority.

Obama’s promise to Planned Parenthood to sign the FOCA as “the first thing I’d do as president” puts Obama to the left of even Roe v. Wade, which at least had some restraint in killing the unborn. And his refusal to support a Born Alive law and criticism of the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban demonstrates his desire to extend this license to kill to the already born and the mostly born.

Our puzzle was soon solved. Other than his skin color Obama is not a “Black American”. “Black American” connotes a multi-generational struggle which began in the dark holds of slave ships. Obama shares none of that history. In fact, save for the Rev. Wright, whom Obama eventually eschewed, association with influential Blacks in Obama’s political rise is a rarity. The likes of Jesse Jackson and Alveda King were publicly suspicious of Obama’s hijacking of decades of Black struggle but were sidelined by the media.

But most ironic is Obama’s idol status with Planned Parenthood, an organization once openly allied with “The Negro Project”. And while PP today denies any ties to the culling of Negroes openly promoted by its founder, nearly 36% of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on Black Americans who account for just 13% of the population. Yes, Mr. Obama, you CAN be anything in America, but it appears you have to be born first.

Financial Advice from Scott Hahn

(Originally written 07/03/2006)

Scott Hahn gives some rare financial advice on his tape series “Calling All Catholics to Be Bible Christians. And Vice Versa”. Scott advises that if you want to make millions then you should invest in Zondervan, Moody, or any number of top Christian book publishers. He points out that Protestant Christians are ravenous readers and Christian book publishing is booming.

By contrast most Catholic publishers seem to be languishing. One major Catholic publisher recently put out a notice to its customers and resellers that it was going into bankruptcy protection, and I’ve heard (I own a bookstore) rumors of several other looming crises with other publishers with whom I deal. In addition I see the appeals from many Catholic publishers for donations & contributions to help them stay solvent.

So what’s the deal? Why are Protestant publishers booming and Catholic publishers bombing? (Allow the generalization for the sake of the discussion.)

Scott gives two reasons. First, Protestant publishers seem to understand the essence of supply-side economics: “If you build it they will come” In other words, the publishers themselves created the boom by building the business and promoting their books. In addition, Protestant church leaders constantly promote books and individual study. Good evidence of that on Guam is the fact that the only bookstore on this mostly Catholic island for many years was a Protestant bookstore.

By contrast, Catholics seem to be stuck in demand-side economics: “I will build it when they come.” This mentality became quite evident to me when I first floated the idea of a Catholic bookstore. I was told many times that it wouldn’t work because “Catholics don’t read.” Maybe I’m part Protestant but my thought was “well we don’t have anything to read”, and that maybe if we had something to read we might read it! In other words, I was confident that supply side economics would work. (It has.)

But Scott’s second point is that Catholics seems to have neglected part of Christ’s command in Mark 12:30:

“And thou shall love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.”

What is of GREAT interest here is, as Scott points out, is that Jesus is not just repeating the first commandment from Deuteronomy 6:4-5, He actually is amending it, adding to it. The fact that Jesus actually adds to something as well known as the first of the Ten Commandments is worth noting. Here’s the commandment as stated in Deuteronomy 6:4-5:

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength.”

Now compare this with the above scripture from Mark. We note that Jesus added “and with thy whole mind”! Why did he add this? What does he mean by “our whole mind”? It appears that Jesus doesn’t just want us to love God (heart), have faith in God (soul), and do His will (strength). He also now commands us to KNOW God (mind)!

We must impress upon ourselves that every word that comes from the mouth of God is of eternal significance and consequence. Jesus didn’t just throw in “with thy whole mind” just to round out the paragraph. He obviously commanded something here.

We may claim to believe this, but languishing Catholic publishers tell a different story. Compared to our Protestant brethren we are, in general, not as encouraged to read, study, and invest in our faith.

St. Bud the Wiser

(Originally written and published September, 2000)

Perhaps you’re not familiar with Bud the Wiser. Well, let me tell you. He must have been quite a guy. Unlike other patron saints whose feastday is only celebrated once a year, St. Bud’s feastday is celebrated just about every week. On any given Sunday you can see his name plastered on banners tied to church fences.

Drive through the village and you’re sure to see enormous inflatable statues of this affable saint towering from the rooftops. Stop and join the fiesta and you’ll be handed a small, chilled St. Bud icon. The icons are unique in that they have a pop top and a nice fermented beverage can be found inside.

St. Bud is the patron saint of fiestas, every fiesta. Or at least that’s what it must look like to a non-Catholic who sees his coat of arms (logo) next to whatever real saint the village is honoring. Well you’re probably on to me by now. I have nothing against beer. But I do wonder about the propriety of emblazoning the logo of any commercial product, particularly an alcoholic one, to the same banner that salutes and honors a holy saint.

We’ve all seen the banners and those giant inflatable cans perched on the rooftops at every village fiesta. I’m a businessperson, so I can empathize with the sponsoring companies for wanting to get their brand names in front of the public at every opportunity. But again, it’s a question of propriety and a question of what the signs and inflatable statues actually say about our Catholic values.

For most of us seasoned Catholic fiesta-goer’s, the fact that a banner sports both a beer logo and the name of a patron saint is hardly noticeable. The question I propose though is what does it say to our non-Catholic neighbors? In case you haven’t noticed, the LDS’s, JW’s, SDA’s, and “born-again” churches of all kinds are having a field day on Guam. Our island has become a happy hunting ground for these folks and their scouts are bringing home more and more Catholic trophies every week. Perhaps some of your kids have already “lost their heads” to one of these roving bands.

I’ve been to some of these “spear-a-Catholic” churches, and parading a newly “saved” former Catholic out to witness about the evils of the Catholic Church is usually the highlight of the service. The Catholic Church, they say, is the “whore of Babylon”. The Pope is the “anti-Christ”. We are idolatrous worshippers of Mary and the saints. We are ignorant of the Scriptures. And Catholics are going to hell. Well, some may say it a little nicer than that, but it’s there.

Sadly, most of us are woefully inept at defending even the least precept of our faith. And given the dearth of any form of fellowship at most of our churches, many of us, especially our young, are “ripe-pickins” for the bible-thumpin’, fellowshipin’, pot-luckin’ Church of the Warm-Friendlies down the road.

Why so many of us are unable to defend or even explain our faith is another topic. Meanwhile, we need to be aware that most of these other churches are opposed to the consumption of alcohol and see it as a great evil. They laugh at the incongruity of our attempt to oppose casino gambling while we raise banners to brews on our church doorsteps.

I happen to believe that because we have the true faith and our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist that we don’t have to get all tied up in the moral scruples that other churches seem to impose for themselves. The proper ordering of our faith automatically puts what others may consider vices of great evil into proper and relative perspective. In other words, no problem with a beer or two.

But do we really need to mix the blood of martyrs with “a cold one” and fly it on the same flag? Doing so seems to hand even more bullets to those who already hold their anti-Catholic guns aimed and ready at our young. But perhaps losing our children to a church that doesn’t booze is still better than losing them altogether to the booze itself.

Still, we need to rethink if it’s really wiser to include Bud the Wiser in our calendar of feasts. I think it best we take down the signs and statues and just keep him in the cooler. I’m sure our feasts will not be any less festive.

Our Lady of Wolf River (and the "Diego Code")

No it’s not a new apparition; it’s an old one, and an approved one at that. As a matter of fact, Our Lady of Wolf River is one of the most beloved “Our Lady’s” in all the world. Her appearance occasioned the largest single mass conversion in history (8,000,000 people) and the subsequent conversion of many more millions over the past five centuries.

In 1544 a pilgrimage of children to her shrine resulted in the cessation of a deadly plague that had already killed at least 12,000. A painting of her image played a significant role in the world-turning battle of Lepanto. (We might do well to employ this same “Our Lady” and her sacred image in our modern day Lepanto – look it up if you know not to what I refer.) In 1737 a typhus plague that had claimed 700,000 lives ceases when she is proclaimed Patroness of the country.

In 1921, there was a miraculous preservation of her sacred image when a bomb, planted by an anti-religious government agent, exploded directly beneath the sacred image and did not even crack its glass cover.

Many more miracles and pontifical honors can be accorded the Lady of Wolf River, but perhaps the most wonderful and amazing thing is what she herself has revealed to us through the name she chose. Three hundred years before Lourdes, Our Lady of Wolf River identified herself to a dying Indian as the “Immaculate Conception” and the woman of Genesis 3:15.

The old Spanish word for “river” is “guada” (today it means bog or marsh), and the Spanish word for “wolf”, which today is “lobo”, is etymologically descended from the old Spanish word “lupe”. “Guadalupe” literally means “Wolf River”. Our Lady of Guadalupe! Our Lady of Wolf River! So how did she get this name and what’s the connection with “Immaculate Conception”?

What follows is speculation, but extremely well documented and professional speculation. (See The Wonder of GUADALUPE by Francis Johnston.)

In Spain, there is a statue of the Blessed Virgin holding the Child Jesus in one hand and a crystal scepter in the other. The pose signifies Mary’s Divine Motherhood. Tradition has it that Pope St. Gregory the Great venerated it in his private oratory. He eventually gave it as a gift to the Bishop of Seville where it was venerated until the Moorish invasion of 711 A.D. Legend has it that it was hidden away in a cave on the banks of the Guadalupe, “Wolf River”, and probably so named for obvious reasons. In 1326, Our Lady is said to have appeared to a herdsman and revealed the statue’s location. The statue was entrusted to the Franciscans and a monastery was built on the spot. It soon became the most celebrated shrine in Spain. Christopher Columbus is said to have prayed there before he embarked on his momentous voyage. Indeed, he christened the island that providentially saved him, “Guadalupe”.

Now, back to Mexico. Though Juan Diego became the hero and now saint of the “Our Lady of Guadalupe Story”, it was not to him that Our Lady revealed her name, but to his uncle, Juan Bernardino, whom she visited and miraculously cured at the very moment she was instructing Juan Diego, many miles away, to gather the flowers that were to turn into her sacred image on his Tilma.

Like, his nephew, Juan Bernardino was an Aztec. He did not speak Spanish, but the Aztec language of Nahuatl. Of course our Lady spoke to him in his own language and the word she used to identify herself was most likely not “Guadalupe”. Johnston (in the aforementioned book) points out that not only does the word “Guadalupe” have no connection at all with Mexico; the word itself was not pronounceable in the Aztec language because it had no letter or sound for D or G. (The Aztecs have always rejected the Spanish name and have given their beloved Virgin various Aztec titles.)

In 1666, when depositions on the apparition were forwarded to Rome to Pope Innocent X, it was pointed out by the coordinator of these Apostolic Proceedings, that Our Lady in fact did not use the word “Guadalupe”, but most likely used the phonetically similar Aztec word Tequantlaxopeuh (pronounced Tequetalope), which literally translates as “Who saves us from the Devourer”.

A little bit of Aztec history here in order to understand what a baptized Aztec, such as Juan Bernardino would have understood. The great “Devourer” was the dreaded Aztec feathered serpent god, Quetzalcoatl. Over 20,000 live victims every year had their living hearts gouged out of their chests to appease this fearful, blood thirsty Aztec deity. To the baptized Juan Bernardino, “the great Devourer” meant both Satan and this terrible pagan god, behind whom, of course, was Satan.

A history of the apparitions, “Estrella del Norte”, published in 1688, concurs with the earlier speculation about the use of the Aztec word and its meaning, and the author further inferred that Our Lady had identified herself as the “Immaculate Conception”, the One who would vanquish Satan, indeed the Woman of Genesis 3:15. Though the actual institution of the dogma was yet a couple centuries away, this description of Our Lady was known well enough for the then Bishop of Mexico, Bishop Zumarraga, to refer to her as the “Immaculate Conception” in a communication to Cortes (yes, that Cortes) in 1531, inviting the Conqueror to participate in a procession with her sacred image.

Before we go on and tie this all together, it is important to note and easy to see how the phonetically similar word used by Juan Bernardino in his native Aztec language and spoken through a Spanish translator (Juan Gonzalez) would invoke the word “Guadalupe” from the Spanish mind as devotion to Our Lady of “Wolf River” in Spain was well known, and indeed, at its peek at the time.

More recently (1895) an intensive study of the word Guadalupe was undertaken with the conclusion that the Virgin used the word Coatlaxopeuh, which means “she who breaks, stamps or crushes the serpent”; again, the equivalent of the Immaculate Conception. Johnston also points out that in their catechesis of the Aztecs, the Franciscans at the time referred to the Virgin as “she who crushes the serpent”, knowing that the Aztecs would draw the obvious parallel between Satan, and their own horrific pagan god.

One last study and I’ll get to my point. Helen Behrens, credited as the 20th century’s foremost authority on the sacred image, studied the Aztec word even further and made the following observation. The words “te Coatlaxopeuh” which the Aztec Juan Bernadino probably used, and which sounded like “de Guadalupe” to the Spanish ear, can be translated thus: “te” means “stone”; “coa” means “serpent”, “tla” can mean “the”, and “xopeuh” means “crush, or “stamp out”. Thus the Virgin of the Tilma should be known as “Our Lady who will crush, stamp out, abolish or eradicate the stone serpent”.

So, in a way, Our Lady was trying to tell us, exactly what the Catholic Church has always told us, and eventually proclaimed, that she is the Immaculate Conception, the Woman of Genesis 3:15, through whom redemption would come. And just as our Redemption did come through her body in the person of Jesus through her to us, He still comes through her to us.

However, we have a modern problem. Modern translation have either virtually eliminated or effectively downsized the Woman of Genesis 3:15 as the One who will “crush and “stamp out” the serpent”. The Bible that the Church has used for 1,600 years, the Old Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome says: “…ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius” , or, in English, as translated in the Doauy Rheims Bible, “…she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”.

This of course fits perfectly with everything our Church has taught about the role of the Blessed Mother in salvation history. All those statues of her crushing the head of the serpent come from this verse. And of course, it fits exactly with what she revealed about herself in the above account. However, perhaps to appease our separated brethren in the name of ecumenism, modern Catholic biblical scholars have opted to leave Jerome and nearly two millennia of Catholic tradition in the following translations:

“He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel” – NAB
“…he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” –CSRV
“It will crush your head and you will strike its heel.” – JB & NJB

Perhaps Our Lady of Wolf River anticipated this rewriting of her redemptive role in her visit to Tepeyac Hill in 1531. Perhaps we should listen to her name. Perhaps we should learn to pronounce “Coatlaxopeuh”.

Debris Field

The following was written on 10/22/2000 and appeared in the Pacific Voice. It was not well received.

The current advent of RU486 on our shores and the upcoming March For Life caused me to think of an article I wrote last year entitled The Evil Beyond Abortion. The evil I wrote about was the practice of contraception. The point of the article was my view that all our efforts against abortion are meaningless without equal efforts against the use of birth control. I posited that abortion is just a more radical form of birth control and is really “the child” (bloody pun intended) of the contraceptive mentality.

In the recent movie U-571 a submarine captain, pursued by a depth charge-dropping enemy ship, shoots a load of garbage out of a torpedo tube in order to create a debris field. He hopes the debris will trick the enemy captain into thinking that he has already hit his mark. The ship’s captain takes the bait and goes to investigate. Meanwhile the sub capitalizes on the distraction and maneuvers to fire its last remaining torpedo at the ship. The tactic works and the sub wins.

I can’t help but think that the Devil is quite pleased with all of our pro-life marches and protests. That’s right, “pleased”. In our fight against abortion the Evil One seems to have succeeded in allowing the debris field of dead and dissected babies to distract us while he maneuvers for a more pervasive and effective evil. For if the Devil’s end is to deny God souls, future citizens of heaven, then contraception is obviously a much more effective means.

So, in my imaginings. the Devil allows us our small, feel-good victories, and he smiles at our marches, sidewalk protests, and our weekly Pro-Life Prayer at Sunday Mass because he knows that many if not most of the pro-life legions and people in the pews are using some form of birth control. How do I know? What’s my evidence? It’s called “family size”. Have Catholics suddenly become naturally infertile in the last 20 years? I don’t think so.

It’s not often that we hear the subject addressed so for those who don’t know the exact teaching on the issue here is a section from Humane Vitae which I believe encapsulates the whole document:

“... the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.[12]

In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.[14]

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman.[15]

Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.[16]

I don’t believe Humanae Vitae is up for debate. Near as I can tell it was a binding pronouncement. As the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano pointed out in an editorial in 1968 soon after the release of Paul VI’s Humane Vitae: “When the Pope, with his authority derived from Christ, has made a pronouncement on a definite question over which theologians are divided, it is irrelevant to consider the numbers of eventual supporters, or the force of their arguments.”

But, and of course this is just further imaginings on my part, where I think the Devil has his most fun is with Catholics who actually think that they can avoid the Humane Vitae radar because they use Church-approved NFP. Yes, Natural Family Planning is approved, but ask how many couples who use it actually know that: “...observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful only under a moral aspect, and that to avoid children always and deliberately without an extremely serious reason would be "a sin against the very meaning of marriage." (Pius XII-"Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives" to warn against the selfish use of natural family planning, Oct 29, 1951)

It all comes back to this thorny question of obedience. If legitimate magisterial authority has proclaimed a teaching, can we disobey? Can we re-interpret based on our personal circumstances? I don’t think so. But again, I’m open to correction by those more in the know than I am. I only ask that the same level of documentation that I am providing validate their corrections.

The Assumption & Immaculate Conception in Scripture

The Assumption

A well known Catholic apologist recently characterized the Feast of the Assumption as that which is "best known to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists as 'the Marian dogma that isn't mentioned in Scripture'." He also rightly conceded: "it is true that Scripture nowhere mentions the Assumption--while noting the antiquity of the belief plus the fact that nothing in Scripture contradicts the Assumption."

The appeal to Tradition ("antiquity of the belief") and the fact that Scripture does not contradict the belief is standard apologetic fare when it comes to defending this dogma. However, I have never been able to make much headway with it.

Non-Catholic Christians pretty much tune out the Tradition argument because it falls into their standard "Catholic box of errors". In other words, they expect us to go there and by our "going there" their Catholic "mis-preconceptions" are reconfirmed.

Catholics should also understand that the Dogma of the Assumption is a favorite target not only because "it's not in Scripture", but also because it is a "Defined Dogma" (a Catholic MUST believe it and cannot hold otherwise). It is also the most recent "Defined Dogma" (Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII) - thus it is fairly "fresh meat" for the antagonist.

I'm a great advocate of challenging the "it has to be in the Bible" but I have often wondered why we (Catholics) don't make more use of Scripture in the defense (and advocacy) of what the Catholic Church teaches when it is quite easy to do so.

As we know, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are not in conflict and everything the Church teaches (Tradition means "teaching") can be found either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. However, there is little need to resort to the "implicit" when the "explicit" is readily available. And the Scriptural basis for the Assumption (I think) is actually quite "explicit".

Perhaps I can offer a little help with how to explain the Assumption to folks who do not accept the authority of Church, but who do accept only the "authority of Scripture".

The word "assumption" (small "a") means a thing supposed, a postulation, or proposition. The word derives from the Latin "assumere" which means "to take". The Ecclesiastical use of the word, with which we are concerned here, means a "taking into heaven".

Though the word "assumption" does not appear in Scripture (at least in the English versions), the act of a person being taken into heaven (assumed) does.

In Genesis 5:24 we read: "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (KJV)

Here we see that Enoch was "taken", "assumed". Taken where? We have to "assume" that he was taken into heaven since Scripture states that he "walked with God". Even if you refuse to "assume" that Enoch was taken into heaven, you still have to admit that he was in fact "assumed", "taken".

In 2 Kings 2:11 we read about a better known instance of an "assumption": "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (KJV)

We don't have to wonder where Elijah was taken as we did with Enoch, for Scripture explicitly says where he went. We also have a confirmation that he was taken body and soul for we have an eye-witness: "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…" (the very next verse)

Before we move on we should mention that there is also clear evidence for the assumption of a third Old Testament prophet. Though we don't have the clear reference to an "assumption" of Moses in Scripture as we do with Enoch and Elijah, we can be fairly sure that Moses was assumed otherwise it is difficult to explain how he came to be one of the two Prophets present at the Transfiguration (the other being Elijah - Matthew 17:1-9)

Note: There is also an ancient book entitled "Assumption of Moses" - a book that didn't make the cut for the Canon (books of the Bible) but is nevertheless thought to have been referenced in the canonical epistle of Jude. (Actually a discussion of this book and St. Jude's allusion to it, as well as his use of the Book of Henoch -another canon loser, bears on the whole issue of who got to decide what went into the Bible in the first place.)

So now to the Assumption of Mary. We have established that "assumption" has clear biblical precedent. The next step is to pose the question: If God could take Enoch and Elijah into Heaven, do you think he could have also taken Mary? The answer is of course, yes, since God can do anything. So the next question is: Do you think He would have wanted to?

Summary:
1. There is biblical precedent for bodily assumption into heaven
2. God could have done the same for Mary that He did for Enoch and Elijah and given who she was, would have had greater reason to do so.
3. There is no evidence from Scripture or history that contradicts the assumption of Mary.
4. The belief in Mary’s assumption extends back to the earliest centuries of Christianity.


The Immaculate Conception

Happily, an honest look at the reality of Assumption of Mary in the Bible lays the foundation for an easy explanation, if not proof, of the other favorite target: the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Having recounted the Biblical accounts of the Assumption in the cases of Enoch and Elijah the next question is "How is that Enoch and Elijah got to go to heaven before Christ died to open it?"

Enoch and Elijah were stained by original sin, "unclean", as was all mankind after the Fall. And since Revelations 21:27 tells us that nothing unclean shall enter heaven: "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth…" (KJV), how did they get in?

We also know that the only way that one could be cleansed of the stain of original sin and restored to God's friendship would be through the merits of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection. But of course that hadn't happened yet.

So what to make of Enoch and Elijah? Is God not true to His word? Did He "cheat" in their case? Of course not. But how to reconcile? Catholicism offers the only available answer…an answer incarnated in the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception holds that Mary was in fact "saved": ("I rejoice in God my Savior") from original sin at the moment of her conception. She was saved in the only way that she could be saved, as we all are saved, by the passion, death, & resurrection of Jesus. But that hadn't "happened yet" either.

The words "happened yet" are the key. As we know, God, being the creator of Time is not subject to it. As an eternal being there is no past or future for Him. All is an eternal present. So though for us the salvific mission of Jesus on earth happened at a particular point in historical time, the merits of that mission are not subject to historical time and can be applied by God as He wills.

This is the only way to explain how Enoch and Elijah could be taken up into Heaven to “walk with God". Since God's Word will "not be mocked", we have to acknowledge that Enoch and Elijah were "saved". And since the only way to be "saved" is through the merits of the Paschal Mystery; and since that Saving Event hadn't "happened yet" (in time), the only answer left us is that God, who is not subject to time, chose to apply those merits to Enoch and Elijah, which, in effect, meant that they were "pre-redeemed".

The Church hasn't defined this "pre-redemption" of Enoch and Elijah, but She has defined it in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The saving merits of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection are applied to Mary by God at the moment of her conception.

Why Obama Is Not a Black American

Obama's radical aborticide agenda has puzzled me. How could a Black American so radically oppose the basic right to life when the same Supreme Court argument - that the unborn are not legal persons - was used to justify slavery in the Dred Scott decision.

The very fact that a Black Man could even run for president is a direct result of our nation finally seeing the fallacy of that decision and eventually granting Black People full personhood.

The struggle against aborticide mirrors the struggle of Black People against slavery in almost every way. So how could someone who benefited so directly from the correction of the gross injustice that justified slavery turn so violently against another segment of our society and deny them the very rights that his ancestors were denied and fought against??

And then it hit me. The word is "ancestors". Barack Obama is not a descendant of slaves. Barack Obama is not a "Black American" in the sense of the historic struggle in this country. He is of partial African descent but other than that he shares no history with the Black Americans of this country.

Black Americans everywhere are celebrating his election and seeing his election as a statement, even a final victory, on the long road from slavery. But the victory is as symbolic and as hollow as Obama himself.

Trace Obama's history and you will be hard pressed to find any truly influential Black American leaders. The one exception could be "Rev." Wright, but Obama claims to have never even heard any of Wright's "black power" sermons, essentially eschewing any influence by Wright and the Black Ameican struggle, however skewed Wright's racism may be.

Black Americans, wake up. This man is a partner with the white supremacist establishment that was founded to elimnate Black People form the earth. It's called Planned Parenthood, and Obama is the greatest advocate they've ever had.

Obama is an imposter. That's already known on many levels. His birth certificate is in question. His health records are incomplete. There are no appointment calendars or records of his time as a state senator. There is no record of his billable hours as a supposed attorney. He refuses to release his college transcripts. His supposed dissertation at Columbia U. has mysteriously disappeared. He refuses to release his application to the Illinois state bar which could clear up allegations that his application was inaccurate. He has never released his records from his time at Harvard. He has all of 143 days work experience as a U.S. Senator, a number that wouldn't even get you a management position at McDonalds. He has written two memoirs but no significant legislation. The list goes on.

But the most glaring thing that's missing is Obama's Black pedigree. It's not there. Save for the fact that he is a darker shade than other presidents there is nothing that is "Black American" about him. This should be an insult to the memory of Martin Luther King and the many Black Americans who suffered the many long decades to help Blacks become truly free in America.

But now we've elected a man who said that the first thing he will do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, a law that would allow Planned Parenthood to renew their black genocide without restraint.

Congratulations.

Why God Doesn't Answer Our Prayers

As the possible election of a president who had vowed to remove all limits on killing children, both born and unborn, approached, there was a flurry of internet activity among Christians encouraging prayer and fasting.

The sheer volume of email was evidence that Christians were definitely aware of what such a presidency would mean to millions of more babies. For not only will there be the aggresive pro-death policies of the next 4 years, but a pro-death judiciary for decades to come.

However, God, did not answer these prayers and we now face the Culture of Death in all three branches of government.

What happened. Was God sleeping? Why didn't he hear us?

I pondered this question at Mass on election day and had a private revelation that I will share.

There are somethings that God cannot do. I will qualify that statement. Of course there is theoretically nothing that God cannot do since He is omnipotent, but there are somethings that God cannot do by His own design.

God "cannot" make any new human beings without the coorperation of a man and a woman. For God has given the power of creating new life wholly over to us. His unlimited desire for souls is completely at the mercy of our willingness to create new people for Him to love and populate Heaven.

In the same way God's infinite mercy and grace is contingent on the righteousness of souls who invoke His mercy and grace.

James 5:16 tells us that the "prayer of a righteous man availeth much". This short phrase tells us that the "much" that can be "availeth" is dependent on the righteousness of the man who is aksing.

Again, we see that in the mysterious designs of God, He has willed that his infinite well of mercy, grace, and love that He wishes to pour out upon the world is limited by the righteousness of those who pray.

The silence of God in this election is a referendum on either the amount of praying we do or on our state of righteousness.

Given that in this election the level of exhortations to pray was without precedent, I think we need to take a look at our "righteousness" as the culprit.

I don't think its an exaggeration to say that 95% of praying Christians are using some form of birth control. Take a quick survey of your immediate circle of family and friends and you will easily come up with a similar number.

No you don't have to ask them. Just look at the number of children that a yet fertile couple has. It's highly doubtful that they're all using NFP (Natural Family Planning - Ovulation Method). And even if they are, NFP is to be used ONLY for grave reason, otherwise it is simply birth control. And grave reason for most normal healthy couples is rare, yet small families are common.

At the root of abortion is the contraceptive mentality simply because contraception is anti-life at its core. Aborticide is simply the logical result of the moral order of contraception.

Contraception is evil simply because you are saying NO to God and YES to you. Contraception makes you God. Now it's YOU who gets to decide who lives and who doesn't.

For those Christians who think that this is just a Catholic thing, let me put it in language you can understand.

The common claim of a Born Again Christian is that he or she has "given my life to Jesus". That's a lie if you are using contraception. You have not given your WHOLE life to Jesus. You are keeping your reproductive power to yourself and under your control.

By nature (God's design), sexual intercourse between a male and a female is designed to make another male or female. You don't have to believe in God to know that.

In order for that not to happen you have to intervene mechanically, surgically, or chemically. You have to interrupt nature which in Christian parlance is simply denying God both His right to your body and His creative design.

The bottom line is that we are praying with diseased souls. We are no match for Satan and his minions in the battle against the Culture of Death, because mechanically, surgically, or chemically, we are already a part of it.

Thus we got the president we deserved because our prayers are as fruitless as are wombs.