The question that needs to be asked...and answered before Bill 138 can receive serious consideration as a matter of equal rights is why (traditional) marriage has certain rights and benefits under the law in the first place. The government doesn't arbitrarily give out favors. It expects something in return.
The question is "what does marriage and the traditional family contribute to the common good that society has found worth incentivizing?) And since the proponents of Bill138 are asking for the same rights and benefits for same-sex couples, the corresponding question must also be asked "can same-sex couples make the same contribution?"
The government does not grant rights and privileges to married couples because two people love each other. Senator Cruz believes he can make this bill more palatable by making civil unions available to non-married heterosexual couples as well. But the question of whether civil unions should have the same legal status as marriage would remain.
In short, society has determined over the course of centuries that it is more cost-effective and beneficial for that society if the parents who beget children actually raise them. Thus we have (in the U.S.) the deductions for dependents, the child tax credits, the "married filing jointly", and other aspects of the tax code that incentivize the traditional family, and likewise the penalties for parents who neglect that family.
What the proponents of Bill 138 are missing in their appeal to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is that those protections apply to persons, not corporate entities, which any legal union of two or more people would be, regardless of what you call it. That's why a license is required, whether it is to do business or get married.
The government has a whole separate set of rules for legal entities based on the relationship of the entity to the larger community and its value in terms of the common good. Thus the queston: Can same-sex unions make the same contribution to the common good that married couples make (or at least are expected to make)?
Of course we are talking about children here. But since many people think we already have more than enough children, this aspect of the social contribution might be conveniently marginalized. However, such a speculation cannot negate the central fact that the survival of a society at its core is completely dependent on its replacement rate. This should be of particular concern to Chamorros who are fast becoming a minority on their own island. Other races are simply having more babies.
In European countries where the traditional family and marriage went the way of the Romans more than a generation ago, native Europeans are quickly finding themselves disappearing as Muslim immigrants are having 3 babies to their 1. It is predicted that by 2050 Muslims will be the majority population. Countries like Denmark and Sweeden are now paying their own people to have babies.
While, this discussion may seem to be tangential to the original question, it is not. Married couples and the traditional family fulfill a service to society by simply producing the next generation (the obligation to raise them is inherent). And while same-sex couples may believe they can provide that service via medical technology, technology can only manipulate life, it cannot create it. A man and a woman are still needed, be it only their sperm and ovum.
Thus only a man and a woman can produce the next generation without which there is no society - or perhaps a very different society. The fact that in some cases gay couples may make good parents does not mitigate the question.
An honest bill advocating for same-sex rights would take into account that gay couples, regardless of other attributes, are not the biological equals of their married counterparts and can never be. Thus, such a bill would NOT lay claim to ALL of the same rights and benefits that society has reserved for those who serve the special function of producing the next generation.
But that said, legislators need to examine the destructive elements within our legal system that reward irresponsible parenting and dissuade many from marrying and making the lifelong commitment to the very tough job of dying to oneself so that others might live.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Bill 138 - Guam's first foray into civil unions
The moral issue aside, Bill 138 is problematic for several reasons: lack of substantiating data, faulty reasoning, erroneous claims to rights, discrimination on several counts, and useless language.
Lack of data
The bill claims that "there exists on Guam a large group of disaffected persons". No research is quoted to substantiate the claim. The "large group" is simply the author's conjecture.
Faulty reasoning
The Bill appeals to "recent rulings allowing gay marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut" and then apparently its author deduces that two states out of fifty is reason enough to declare that it is now time for Guam to "afford its sizeable number of same sex couples" the right to enter into a similar union. Two out of fifty is hardly an argument. (And again no data substantiating "sizeable" is referenced.)
Erroneous claim to rights
The bill claims that these "disaffected persons" are denied "one of the most basic rights ever given to law abiding citizens: the right to enter into a marriage."
Marriage is not a basic right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are basic rights in the United States. While marriage might make you happy, you don't automatically have a right to it. First, marriage requires that there is someone else who wants to marry you, thus negating any claim to a "basic right. Second, marriage is subject to laws governing such things as minimum age, freedom to marry (not already married), and blood relations. Marriage is also subject to the personal objections of those who believe there is good cause for a couple not to marry, thus the famous phrase still used in some marriage ceremonies: "If anyone objects to this marriage speak now or forever hold your peace". And by the way, one does not have to be a "law abiding citizen" to marry as prison marriages will evince.
Discriminatory
For a Bill that builds upon a claim to equal rights, the following issues certainly seem inconsistent if not discriminatory:
Waiting period: The bill requires that a "couple wishing to enter into such a union must have resided on Guam for a period of five consecutive years". Heterosexual couples only have to be on Guam for 5 days.
Residency: The bill requires these couples to "have their own private residence in the Territory". What about homosexuals who can't afford a private residence? There is no such requirement for heterosexuals.
Citizenship:The bill requires proof of American citizenship for couples desiring civil union. Heterosexuals do not have to be U.S. citizens to get married in Guam. The same for the Social Security number requirement.
Age: The Bill allows for a minimum age of 17 years with parental consent and a court order, however, the minimum age for heterosexual minors to marry is 16 and a female may be as young as 14 (with appropriate permissions).
Useless language
The Bill claims in its Findings and Intent that such unions will not be "recognized as a marriage" but later claims that religious denominations will not be forced to officiate at the ceremony. Since the Bill claims to only advance legislation regarding civil unions and not gay marriage, how is it that a religious denomination would even be involved? Religious denominations may perform a marriage ceremony but are not authorized to grant a marriage license nor a license for a civil union.
I am surprised that Senator Cruz, normally a careful and exacting legislator, allowed this Bill to be introduced under his name.
Lack of data
The bill claims that "there exists on Guam a large group of disaffected persons". No research is quoted to substantiate the claim. The "large group" is simply the author's conjecture.
Faulty reasoning
The Bill appeals to "recent rulings allowing gay marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut" and then apparently its author deduces that two states out of fifty is reason enough to declare that it is now time for Guam to "afford its sizeable number of same sex couples" the right to enter into a similar union. Two out of fifty is hardly an argument. (And again no data substantiating "sizeable" is referenced.)
Erroneous claim to rights
The bill claims that these "disaffected persons" are denied "one of the most basic rights ever given to law abiding citizens: the right to enter into a marriage."
Marriage is not a basic right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are basic rights in the United States. While marriage might make you happy, you don't automatically have a right to it. First, marriage requires that there is someone else who wants to marry you, thus negating any claim to a "basic right. Second, marriage is subject to laws governing such things as minimum age, freedom to marry (not already married), and blood relations. Marriage is also subject to the personal objections of those who believe there is good cause for a couple not to marry, thus the famous phrase still used in some marriage ceremonies: "If anyone objects to this marriage speak now or forever hold your peace". And by the way, one does not have to be a "law abiding citizen" to marry as prison marriages will evince.
Discriminatory
For a Bill that builds upon a claim to equal rights, the following issues certainly seem inconsistent if not discriminatory:
Waiting period: The bill requires that a "couple wishing to enter into such a union must have resided on Guam for a period of five consecutive years". Heterosexual couples only have to be on Guam for 5 days.
Residency: The bill requires these couples to "have their own private residence in the Territory". What about homosexuals who can't afford a private residence? There is no such requirement for heterosexuals.
Citizenship:The bill requires proof of American citizenship for couples desiring civil union. Heterosexuals do not have to be U.S. citizens to get married in Guam. The same for the Social Security number requirement.
Age: The Bill allows for a minimum age of 17 years with parental consent and a court order, however, the minimum age for heterosexual minors to marry is 16 and a female may be as young as 14 (with appropriate permissions).
Useless language
The Bill claims in its Findings and Intent that such unions will not be "recognized as a marriage" but later claims that religious denominations will not be forced to officiate at the ceremony. Since the Bill claims to only advance legislation regarding civil unions and not gay marriage, how is it that a religious denomination would even be involved? Religious denominations may perform a marriage ceremony but are not authorized to grant a marriage license nor a license for a civil union.
I am surprised that Senator Cruz, normally a careful and exacting legislator, allowed this Bill to be introduced under his name.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Music in the Liturgy
Notes from presentation, May 23, 2009 for Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Yigo.
Here are the two power point presentations. I will be adding notes to this post in the future.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, Chapter VI - On Sacred Music
Musicam Sacram, Section Pertaining to the 3 Degrees of Liturgical Music
Here are the two power point presentations. I will be adding notes to this post in the future.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, Chapter VI - On Sacred Music
Musicam Sacram, Section Pertaining to the 3 Degrees of Liturgical Music
Monday, May 18, 2009
Canonical Conundrum
I would like to express my personal appreciation to Archbishop Apuron for reconsidering his decision to close the Friary to public Masses. My family and I, probably more than most, were personally affected by the decision as we have attended the Traditional Latin Mass at the Friary as celebrated by the Capuchins for over ten years. So we are extremely grateful.
In addition, I would like to express my admiration for the Archbishop. Due to the public uproar over the initial directive, it had to be very difficult for him to make a public retraction. I'm sure he was the recipient of many prayers. I wonder how many of us could have done the same?
But while there seems to be a happy ending, there are many who have been left personally unsettled or further embittered about many things concerning our Catholic Church on Guam.
Many are scratching their heads in disbelief that such a directive could have ever been made in the first place without the expectation of the huge public backlash that followed. This disbelief has given way to speculation of all kinds, and some of it not very charitable.
Some question the Archbishop's advisers, others his wisdom, and others are even suspicious of a political conspiracy.
I won't personally speculate. In business I see management make decisions every day that leave the "guys on the line" shaking their head in disbelief. As the son of a construction worker, I often listened to my dad share his frustration over the "bonehead" decisions of his boss.
As a person in management myself I made a business decision ten years ago that I'm still paying for. A decision that could have been avoided by simply communicating with the people that were at issue. Driving down the road on any given day I find myself slamming the steering wheel and shaking my head at the "stupidity" of my actions, even though it was ten years ago. Perhaps some of you can relate?
Stuff like this happens. What's important is how we respond. Every challenge offers us an opportunity to "get better or get bitter". You choose. I believe that the Archbishop, given the great humility necessary to make the public retraction, has chosen to get better. What we will do is the question.
Meanwhile, this incident has once again laid bare a nerve that threatens our Catholic community at a deeper level. And if I may, I would like to address it from my lay perspective.
The deeper issue I want to address is not "where the money goes", or political conspiracy, or even "Neo vs Non-Neo", all of which have been insinuated or alleged outright. The issue I would like to weigh in on is the proper response to a perceived clerical wrong.
Our Church, in Her deep concern for every soul, has insured that every Catholic, regardless of station, has the right to appeal a perceived clerical wrong. This care and concern is inscribed into the very governance of the Church in the Code of Canon Law, cannons 1732-1739, a section entitled: RECOURSE AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE DECRESS.
A big part of our problem as laity is that we think we are powerless in the face of clerical decisions that we disagree with. Indeed, we are sometimes told that.
In the first days of this recent uproar, several people who regularly attend the noon Mass at the Friary sought an alternative at another Mass held at another religious community. Apparently the crowd grew so large, the priest felt the need to admonish those in attendance and criticized their presence at the Mass as an act of disobedience to the Archbishop. According to the person who shared this with me, the crowd was told that in Guam "the Archbishop is the Pope" and must be obeyed.
In the meantime I was watching emails fly back and forth between those who felt that silent submission should be the only response and others who felt the opposite. At my bookstore there was a long parade of many customers who felt the need to "unload" with considerable angst.
I would venture to say that the wound inflicted by the argument over how to properly respond to the Archbishop's directive was actually more egregious than the hurt caused by the closed doors at the Friary chapel.
This isn't the first time lack of knowledge over the proper response to the Archbishop's position on something has generated a backroom civil war in Guam's Catholic community. Such a war raged over the gambling issue, and continues to rage over the Archbishop's desire to see the Neo-Catechumenal Way welcomed in more parishes.
Not knowing what to do, and being told that any disobedience is improper, offended Catholics simply "blow off" their frustration publicly and the media is quick to grab the story, especially since such "active participation" of the laity is still an anomaly in Guam.
In short, the Church does not tell us to "sit down and shut up" as some might infer. The Church officially says "come unto me". And while the Archbishop's wishes as well as his person and his office should always be respected, he is not the "Pope on Guam".
And even if he was, where one can attend Mass, how one should vote on gaming, and even the decisions regarding the Neo-Catechumenal Way, do not qualify for the "infallible" category.
But that said, I now must spend a minute on what is meant by Faith and Morals. Some thought that the Archbishop's decision qualified for the infallible Faith category, because it concerned the "practice" of the Faith. Not true, Faith in the infallible sense refers to the magisterial Teaching of the Church on such things as the Trinity, the Real Presence, and the Marian Dogmas. Mass schedules and locations don't qualify.
As for Morals, some think that because gambling is a moral question that the Archbishop has infallible authority in this regard. Not true. While, it is a moral question, the Church does not magisterially proclaim that gambling is immoral as it does such issues as abortion and artificial contraception. (Would that we laity be just as concerned about those things our Church DOES magisterially teach!)
Where the Church does not officially teach the morality or immorality of something, Catholics are obliged to inform their consciences and grapple with the moral dimensions of the issue on a personal level.
Now that we have got that out of the way. Let's take a look at what we are SUPPOSED to do when we disagree with a clerical decision made by any member of the clergy, not just a bishop. This is a process known as "Hierarchical Recourse".
The first line of recourse is always:
“If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. If he does not listen, summon another, so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. If he ignores them, refer it to the Church.” - Mt. 18, 15-17
It is the "refer it to the Church" that is the subject of the following:
1. A written request must be made by the aggrieved party seeking from the person who issued the decree of the following:
• a request that the original decree be revoked;
• a request that the original decree by somehow changed or amended. (Can. 1734 §1)
2. The person making the challenge must do so within ten “useful” or available” days after receiving notification of the decree. (Can. 1734 §2)
3. If the author of the decree being challenged is directly responsible to the bishop, the recourse is made directly to the diocesan bishop (Can. 1734 §3)
Note: In this case, since the author of the decree was the diocesan bishop, recourse may be made directly to the appropriate Roman Congregation (usually through an apostolic nuncio).
4. The issuing authority has thirty days to respond to the request by the petitioner to modify or amend the original decree (Can. 1735)
After receiving the petition, the issuing authority has three options:
• Revoke original decree
• Amend the original decree in some manner
• Ignore the decree and not respond
If the author of the decree does not respond within 30 days, or if the aggrieved party is still not satisfied with the response of the issuing authority, the petitioner may appeal directly to the hierarchical superior of the decree's author; i.e., to the appropriate Roman congregation.
5. The author of the decree can decide to suspend the effects of the decree voluntarily. If the author does not suspend the effects of the decree within ten days, the petitioner is free to request suspension from the hierarchic superior (Roman Congregation). (Can. 1736)
6. The recourse can be transmitted directly to the Roman Congregation or sent to the author of the decree for immediate transmittal to the appropriate Congregation (Can. 1737 §1)
7. Those seeking to make recourse have the right to be assisted by an advocate. (Can.1738)
8. The hierarchic superior may respond to the recourse in one of several different ways:
• Confirm the original decree
• Declare the act invalid
• Order rescinding or revocation of the decree
• Amend the decree
• Replace the decree with one of its own
• Issue a new decree contrary to the original (Can. 1739)
9. If there is no response by the Congregation within three months, or if the complainant or the bishop has been notified by the Congregation of its decision in the matter, the case can be appealed to the next hierarchical level, the Apostolic Signatura, within thirty available days.
10. The complainant to the Signatura may seek recourse against what is believed to be violations of the law or against the procedures used by the Congregation in making its decision.
11. Recourse to the Signatura does not automatically suspend the previous decision of the Congregation (unless the universal law of the Church states otherwise.)
The bottom line is that there is always a door open to anyone who feels wronged by a clerical decision. But in order to make "hierarchical recourse" our "last recourse", may I suggest the following:
1. Clergy should do their best to communicate first with all parties that can be possibly affected by a forthcoming decision. While it is to the credit of the Archbishop and the Friars that an amicable solution was arrived at in the current matter, perhaps much of the damage control could have been done ahead of time.
2. A commission or council as suggested in Can. 1733 (below) to handle grievances is a good idea. If we already have one, then I don't know about it. If we don't have one, then we should.
3. Clerics should use incidents like this one to further educate the public on what the Church actually teaches about their rights instead of leaving them in the dark or worse, educating them wrongly as demonstrated above.
4. Lay people need to hold off on the media speed dial and pursue grievances according to the will of the Church. But of course, this presupposes that we know what to do and that is the responsibility of our pastors.
For your reference here are the applicable cannons:
Can. 1732 What is established in the canons of this section concerning decrees must be applied to all singular administrative acts which are given in the external forum outside a trial excepting those which have been issued by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council.
Can. 1733 §1. Whenever a person considers himself or herself aggrieved by a decree, it is particularly desirable that the person and the author of the decree avoid any contention and take care to seek an equitable solution by common counsel, possibly using the mediation and effort of wise persons to avoid or settle the controversy in a suitable way.
§2. The conference of bishops can determine that each diocese establish in a stable manner an office or council whose function is to seek and suggest equitable solutions according to the norms determined by the conference. If the conference has not ordered this, however, the bishop can establish a council or office of this kind.
§3. The office or council mentioned in §2 is especially to be of assistance when the revocation of a decree has been requested according to the norm of can. 1734 and the time limits for making recourse have not elapsed. If recourse has been proposed against a decree, however, the superior who deals with the recourse is to urge the person making recourse and the author of the decree to seek a solution of this kind whenever he sees hope of a favorable outcome.
Can. 1734 §1. Before proposing recourse a person must seek the revocation or emendation of the decree in writing from its author. When this petition is proposed, by that very fact suspension of the execution of the decree is also understood to be requested.
§2. The petition must be made within the peremptory period of ten useful days from the legitimate notification of the decree.
§3. The norms of §§1 and 2 are not valid:
1/ for recourse proposed to a bishop against decrees issued by authorities subject to him;
2/ for recourse proposed against a decree which decides a hierarchical recourse unless the bishop gave the decision;
3/ for recourse proposed according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 57 and ⇒ 1735.
Can. 1735 If within thirty days after receiving the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734 the author of the decree communicates a new decree by which he either emends the earlier one or decides that the petition must be rejected, the time limits for making recourse run from the notification of the new decree. If the author makes no decision within the thirty days, however, the time limits run from the thirtieth day.
Can. 1736 §1. In those matters in which hierarchical recourse suspends the execution of a decree, the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734 also has the same effect.
§2. In other cases, if the author of the decree has not decreed the suspension of execution within ten days after receiving the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734, an interim suspension can be sought from his hierarchical superior who can decree a suspension only for grave reasons and always cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.
§3. If the execution of the decree has been suspended according to the norm of §2 and recourse is proposed afterwards, the person who must deal with the recourse according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1737, §3 is to decide whether the suspension must be confirmed or revoked.
§4. If no recourse is proposed against the decree within the established time limit, the interim suspension of the execution given according to the norm of §§1 or 2 ceases by that very fact.
Can. 1737 §1. A person who claims to have been aggrieved by a decree can make recourse for any just reason to the hierarchical superior of the one who issued the decree. The recourse can be proposed before the author of the decree who must transmit it immediately to the competent hierarchical superior.
§2. Recourse must be proposed within the peremptory time limit of fifteen useful days which in the cases mentioned in can. 1734, §3 run from the day on which the decree was communicated; in other cases, however, they run according to the norm of can. 1735.
§3. Nevertheless, even in cases in which recourse does not suspend the execution of the decree by the law itself and suspension has not been decreed according to the norm of can. 1736, §2, the superior can order the execution to be suspended for a grave cause, yet cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.
Can. 1738 The person making recourse always has the right to use an advocate or procurator, but useless delays are to be avoided; indeed, a legal representative is to be appointed ex officio if the person making recourse lacks one and the superior thinks it necessary. Nevertheless, the superior always can order the person making recourse to be present in order to be questioned.
Can. 1739 The superior who deals with the recourse, as the case warrants, is permitted not only to confirm the decree or declare it invalid but also to rescind or revoke it or, if it seems more expedient to the superior, to emend, replace, or modify it.
In addition, I would like to express my admiration for the Archbishop. Due to the public uproar over the initial directive, it had to be very difficult for him to make a public retraction. I'm sure he was the recipient of many prayers. I wonder how many of us could have done the same?
But while there seems to be a happy ending, there are many who have been left personally unsettled or further embittered about many things concerning our Catholic Church on Guam.
Many are scratching their heads in disbelief that such a directive could have ever been made in the first place without the expectation of the huge public backlash that followed. This disbelief has given way to speculation of all kinds, and some of it not very charitable.
Some question the Archbishop's advisers, others his wisdom, and others are even suspicious of a political conspiracy.
I won't personally speculate. In business I see management make decisions every day that leave the "guys on the line" shaking their head in disbelief. As the son of a construction worker, I often listened to my dad share his frustration over the "bonehead" decisions of his boss.
As a person in management myself I made a business decision ten years ago that I'm still paying for. A decision that could have been avoided by simply communicating with the people that were at issue. Driving down the road on any given day I find myself slamming the steering wheel and shaking my head at the "stupidity" of my actions, even though it was ten years ago. Perhaps some of you can relate?
Stuff like this happens. What's important is how we respond. Every challenge offers us an opportunity to "get better or get bitter". You choose. I believe that the Archbishop, given the great humility necessary to make the public retraction, has chosen to get better. What we will do is the question.
Meanwhile, this incident has once again laid bare a nerve that threatens our Catholic community at a deeper level. And if I may, I would like to address it from my lay perspective.
The deeper issue I want to address is not "where the money goes", or political conspiracy, or even "Neo vs Non-Neo", all of which have been insinuated or alleged outright. The issue I would like to weigh in on is the proper response to a perceived clerical wrong.
Our Church, in Her deep concern for every soul, has insured that every Catholic, regardless of station, has the right to appeal a perceived clerical wrong. This care and concern is inscribed into the very governance of the Church in the Code of Canon Law, cannons 1732-1739, a section entitled: RECOURSE AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE DECRESS.
A big part of our problem as laity is that we think we are powerless in the face of clerical decisions that we disagree with. Indeed, we are sometimes told that.
In the first days of this recent uproar, several people who regularly attend the noon Mass at the Friary sought an alternative at another Mass held at another religious community. Apparently the crowd grew so large, the priest felt the need to admonish those in attendance and criticized their presence at the Mass as an act of disobedience to the Archbishop. According to the person who shared this with me, the crowd was told that in Guam "the Archbishop is the Pope" and must be obeyed.
In the meantime I was watching emails fly back and forth between those who felt that silent submission should be the only response and others who felt the opposite. At my bookstore there was a long parade of many customers who felt the need to "unload" with considerable angst.
I would venture to say that the wound inflicted by the argument over how to properly respond to the Archbishop's directive was actually more egregious than the hurt caused by the closed doors at the Friary chapel.
This isn't the first time lack of knowledge over the proper response to the Archbishop's position on something has generated a backroom civil war in Guam's Catholic community. Such a war raged over the gambling issue, and continues to rage over the Archbishop's desire to see the Neo-Catechumenal Way welcomed in more parishes.
Not knowing what to do, and being told that any disobedience is improper, offended Catholics simply "blow off" their frustration publicly and the media is quick to grab the story, especially since such "active participation" of the laity is still an anomaly in Guam.
In short, the Church does not tell us to "sit down and shut up" as some might infer. The Church officially says "come unto me". And while the Archbishop's wishes as well as his person and his office should always be respected, he is not the "Pope on Guam".
And even if he was, where one can attend Mass, how one should vote on gaming, and even the decisions regarding the Neo-Catechumenal Way, do not qualify for the "infallible" category.
But that said, I now must spend a minute on what is meant by Faith and Morals. Some thought that the Archbishop's decision qualified for the infallible Faith category, because it concerned the "practice" of the Faith. Not true, Faith in the infallible sense refers to the magisterial Teaching of the Church on such things as the Trinity, the Real Presence, and the Marian Dogmas. Mass schedules and locations don't qualify.
As for Morals, some think that because gambling is a moral question that the Archbishop has infallible authority in this regard. Not true. While, it is a moral question, the Church does not magisterially proclaim that gambling is immoral as it does such issues as abortion and artificial contraception. (Would that we laity be just as concerned about those things our Church DOES magisterially teach!)
Where the Church does not officially teach the morality or immorality of something, Catholics are obliged to inform their consciences and grapple with the moral dimensions of the issue on a personal level.
Now that we have got that out of the way. Let's take a look at what we are SUPPOSED to do when we disagree with a clerical decision made by any member of the clergy, not just a bishop. This is a process known as "Hierarchical Recourse".
The first line of recourse is always:
“If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. If he does not listen, summon another, so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. If he ignores them, refer it to the Church.” - Mt. 18, 15-17
It is the "refer it to the Church" that is the subject of the following:
1. A written request must be made by the aggrieved party seeking from the person who issued the decree of the following:
• a request that the original decree be revoked;
• a request that the original decree by somehow changed or amended. (Can. 1734 §1)
2. The person making the challenge must do so within ten “useful” or available” days after receiving notification of the decree. (Can. 1734 §2)
3. If the author of the decree being challenged is directly responsible to the bishop, the recourse is made directly to the diocesan bishop (Can. 1734 §3)
Note: In this case, since the author of the decree was the diocesan bishop, recourse may be made directly to the appropriate Roman Congregation (usually through an apostolic nuncio).
4. The issuing authority has thirty days to respond to the request by the petitioner to modify or amend the original decree (Can. 1735)
After receiving the petition, the issuing authority has three options:
• Revoke original decree
• Amend the original decree in some manner
• Ignore the decree and not respond
If the author of the decree does not respond within 30 days, or if the aggrieved party is still not satisfied with the response of the issuing authority, the petitioner may appeal directly to the hierarchical superior of the decree's author; i.e., to the appropriate Roman congregation.
5. The author of the decree can decide to suspend the effects of the decree voluntarily. If the author does not suspend the effects of the decree within ten days, the petitioner is free to request suspension from the hierarchic superior (Roman Congregation). (Can. 1736)
6. The recourse can be transmitted directly to the Roman Congregation or sent to the author of the decree for immediate transmittal to the appropriate Congregation (Can. 1737 §1)
7. Those seeking to make recourse have the right to be assisted by an advocate. (Can.1738)
8. The hierarchic superior may respond to the recourse in one of several different ways:
• Confirm the original decree
• Declare the act invalid
• Order rescinding or revocation of the decree
• Amend the decree
• Replace the decree with one of its own
• Issue a new decree contrary to the original (Can. 1739)
9. If there is no response by the Congregation within three months, or if the complainant or the bishop has been notified by the Congregation of its decision in the matter, the case can be appealed to the next hierarchical level, the Apostolic Signatura, within thirty available days.
10. The complainant to the Signatura may seek recourse against what is believed to be violations of the law or against the procedures used by the Congregation in making its decision.
11. Recourse to the Signatura does not automatically suspend the previous decision of the Congregation (unless the universal law of the Church states otherwise.)
The bottom line is that there is always a door open to anyone who feels wronged by a clerical decision. But in order to make "hierarchical recourse" our "last recourse", may I suggest the following:
1. Clergy should do their best to communicate first with all parties that can be possibly affected by a forthcoming decision. While it is to the credit of the Archbishop and the Friars that an amicable solution was arrived at in the current matter, perhaps much of the damage control could have been done ahead of time.
2. A commission or council as suggested in Can. 1733 (below) to handle grievances is a good idea. If we already have one, then I don't know about it. If we don't have one, then we should.
3. Clerics should use incidents like this one to further educate the public on what the Church actually teaches about their rights instead of leaving them in the dark or worse, educating them wrongly as demonstrated above.
4. Lay people need to hold off on the media speed dial and pursue grievances according to the will of the Church. But of course, this presupposes that we know what to do and that is the responsibility of our pastors.
For your reference here are the applicable cannons:
Can. 1732 What is established in the canons of this section concerning decrees must be applied to all singular administrative acts which are given in the external forum outside a trial excepting those which have been issued by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council.
Can. 1733 §1. Whenever a person considers himself or herself aggrieved by a decree, it is particularly desirable that the person and the author of the decree avoid any contention and take care to seek an equitable solution by common counsel, possibly using the mediation and effort of wise persons to avoid or settle the controversy in a suitable way.
§2. The conference of bishops can determine that each diocese establish in a stable manner an office or council whose function is to seek and suggest equitable solutions according to the norms determined by the conference. If the conference has not ordered this, however, the bishop can establish a council or office of this kind.
§3. The office or council mentioned in §2 is especially to be of assistance when the revocation of a decree has been requested according to the norm of can. 1734 and the time limits for making recourse have not elapsed. If recourse has been proposed against a decree, however, the superior who deals with the recourse is to urge the person making recourse and the author of the decree to seek a solution of this kind whenever he sees hope of a favorable outcome.
Can. 1734 §1. Before proposing recourse a person must seek the revocation or emendation of the decree in writing from its author. When this petition is proposed, by that very fact suspension of the execution of the decree is also understood to be requested.
§2. The petition must be made within the peremptory period of ten useful days from the legitimate notification of the decree.
§3. The norms of §§1 and 2 are not valid:
1/ for recourse proposed to a bishop against decrees issued by authorities subject to him;
2/ for recourse proposed against a decree which decides a hierarchical recourse unless the bishop gave the decision;
3/ for recourse proposed according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 57 and ⇒ 1735.
Can. 1735 If within thirty days after receiving the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734 the author of the decree communicates a new decree by which he either emends the earlier one or decides that the petition must be rejected, the time limits for making recourse run from the notification of the new decree. If the author makes no decision within the thirty days, however, the time limits run from the thirtieth day.
Can. 1736 §1. In those matters in which hierarchical recourse suspends the execution of a decree, the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734 also has the same effect.
§2. In other cases, if the author of the decree has not decreed the suspension of execution within ten days after receiving the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734, an interim suspension can be sought from his hierarchical superior who can decree a suspension only for grave reasons and always cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.
§3. If the execution of the decree has been suspended according to the norm of §2 and recourse is proposed afterwards, the person who must deal with the recourse according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1737, §3 is to decide whether the suspension must be confirmed or revoked.
§4. If no recourse is proposed against the decree within the established time limit, the interim suspension of the execution given according to the norm of §§1 or 2 ceases by that very fact.
Can. 1737 §1. A person who claims to have been aggrieved by a decree can make recourse for any just reason to the hierarchical superior of the one who issued the decree. The recourse can be proposed before the author of the decree who must transmit it immediately to the competent hierarchical superior.
§2. Recourse must be proposed within the peremptory time limit of fifteen useful days which in the cases mentioned in can. 1734, §3 run from the day on which the decree was communicated; in other cases, however, they run according to the norm of can. 1735.
§3. Nevertheless, even in cases in which recourse does not suspend the execution of the decree by the law itself and suspension has not been decreed according to the norm of can. 1736, §2, the superior can order the execution to be suspended for a grave cause, yet cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.
Can. 1738 The person making recourse always has the right to use an advocate or procurator, but useless delays are to be avoided; indeed, a legal representative is to be appointed ex officio if the person making recourse lacks one and the superior thinks it necessary. Nevertheless, the superior always can order the person making recourse to be present in order to be questioned.
Can. 1739 The superior who deals with the recourse, as the case warrants, is permitted not only to confirm the decree or declare it invalid but also to rescind or revoke it or, if it seems more expedient to the superior, to emend, replace, or modify it.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Stem Cells May Free Diabetics From Insulin
From Newsmax Health
Type 1 diabetics may be able to free themselves from insulin shots with injections of their own stem cells.
A research team from the University of São Paulo in Brazil and Northwestern University near Chicago has treated patients with Type 1 diabetes by treating them with their own stem cells.
In 2007, Dr. Julio Voltarelli of the University of São Paulo reported the successful treatment of 15 patients with Type 1 diabetes who were able to eliminate the daily, painful grind of insulin injections. In the new study, which included an additional eight patients, the stem-cell treatment led to the resurgence of insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas.
“I wouldn’t use the word cure,” said Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University, a co-author. “But it appears we changed the natural history of the disease. It’s the first therapy for patients that leaves them treatment-free — no insulin, no immune suppression for almost five years,” he told Time magazine.
The treatment extracts and stores a patient’s stem cells. Patients then receive drugs, similar to those cancer patients receive, to destroy their immune systems. During the procedure, the elements in their immune systems that destroy the insulin-producing cells also are destroyed. When the stored stem cells are re-injected into patients, the cells regenerate a new immune system free of the elements that attack and kill the insulin-producing cells.
The treatment helped 20 of the 23 diabetics. Patients were free of insulin injections in an average of 31 months, and 12 remain insulin-free. Even though eight had to return to using insulin, the amounts needed were reduced. In some patients the levels of C-peptide, a component that is a result of insulin being produced, tripled.
Type 1 diabetes occurs when a patient’s immune system attacks itself and begins destroying cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, the hormone that keeps blood sugar levels even. In the past, it was referred to as “juvenile diabetes” because the majority of cases were diagnosed in children. More than 1 million Americans, both adults and children, have the disease.
Type 1 diabetics may be able to free themselves from insulin shots with injections of their own stem cells.
A research team from the University of São Paulo in Brazil and Northwestern University near Chicago has treated patients with Type 1 diabetes by treating them with their own stem cells.
In 2007, Dr. Julio Voltarelli of the University of São Paulo reported the successful treatment of 15 patients with Type 1 diabetes who were able to eliminate the daily, painful grind of insulin injections. In the new study, which included an additional eight patients, the stem-cell treatment led to the resurgence of insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas.
“I wouldn’t use the word cure,” said Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University, a co-author. “But it appears we changed the natural history of the disease. It’s the first therapy for patients that leaves them treatment-free — no insulin, no immune suppression for almost five years,” he told Time magazine.
The treatment extracts and stores a patient’s stem cells. Patients then receive drugs, similar to those cancer patients receive, to destroy their immune systems. During the procedure, the elements in their immune systems that destroy the insulin-producing cells also are destroyed. When the stored stem cells are re-injected into patients, the cells regenerate a new immune system free of the elements that attack and kill the insulin-producing cells.
The treatment helped 20 of the 23 diabetics. Patients were free of insulin injections in an average of 31 months, and 12 remain insulin-free. Even though eight had to return to using insulin, the amounts needed were reduced. In some patients the levels of C-peptide, a component that is a result of insulin being produced, tripled.
Type 1 diabetes occurs when a patient’s immune system attacks itself and begins destroying cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, the hormone that keeps blood sugar levels even. In the past, it was referred to as “juvenile diabetes” because the majority of cases were diagnosed in children. More than 1 million Americans, both adults and children, have the disease.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
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 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.
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.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
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.
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 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:
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
