The song "Ashes", which has become the unthinking insert into every Ash Wednesday Mass for the last 20 or so years, is tuneful, poetic, memorable...but is it liturgical?
The tune has drawn its share of criticism over the years, especially for the line "we rise again from ashes to create ourselves anew".
I'm sure the writer was just trying to make the syllables fit the meter and not attempting to insert a new doctrine into the Catechism (i.e. we don't "create ourselves" - in the strict sense). And, also, in the wake of post Vatican II "feel-good-ism" in which the tune was written, the song fit the mold: an emphasis on "I", "We", "Us" (God is not mentioned until the 4th verse.)
But most of the hoopla over the supposed heresy of the problem lyric seems to have masked the real issue with the song and that is that it doesn't have anything to do with the significance of the distribution of ashes.
The song repeats over and over "an offering of ashes, an offering to you". However, what happens on Ash Wednesday is the "imposition of ashes", not the offering of them. We are not offering ashes to the Lord. On the contrary, the Lord, through the hand of His ordained minister, is imposing ashes on our forehead, marking us for a season of penance.
While its possible to draw a connection between the offering of ourselves to God and the admission that we are but dust and ashes, the believer would be forced to jump through a couple of doctrinal hoops, a complicated move that just isn't necessary in this simplest of ceremonies.
Most of us probably don't give the problem lyrics a 2nd thought. We like the melody, and the words feel warm and meaningful. Thus it will be sung (probably) at every Ash Wednesday Mass (on Guam, at least), during the imposition of ashes.
The problem is that we have some serious issues in our Church that can be traced to a very simple cause: a lack of catechesis, and in many cases, wrong catechesis. So what's the connection?
Any teacher (or parent) will tell you that the quickest way to teach a child to memorize something is to make a song or rhyme of it. Thus little ditties like "A-B-C..." to help children memorize the alphabet, etc. It's true for adults too. It's called a "mnemonic device".
Thus despite the multitude of hours, resources, and effort poured into classroom catechesis, we pretty much undo it all by the songs we sing at Mass because the song "sticks", the lessons don't. "Ashes" is just one example. The pleasant melody masks "wrong catechesis", but it's what we remember...and repeat. And what we repeat...we remember.
Today (Ash Wednesday, 2010) you'll probably catch yourself humming the tune or playing it over and over in the "tape recorder in your head" (if you went to Mass). Meanwhile, the words are sticking to your brain: "we rise again from ashes...etc."
And by the way, that's another one. We don't "rise". We will be "raised", but we don't rise of our own accord. Only Jesus could do that.
Yes, I'm aware that the "we rise..." is really just poetic language symbolizing our cooperation with God's grace in becoming all that we can be, etc. But once again, it's symbolism over substance. And the real substance of Ash Wednesday is not about what we do or we will do, but about what He is about to do... for us.
Valentines Day is named after one or more early Christian martyrs named Valentine and was established by Pope Gelasius I in 496 AD. To read a rather decent and succinct history of Saint Valentine on Wikipedia go here. For a more lengthy article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, go here.
To the point though of the title of this post. At issue is the fact that Valentine's Day is in fact Saint Valentine's Day, a feast day added to the Roman Calendar, as mentioned above, by a Pope.
As we know, most non-Catholic Christians (actually all non-Catholic Christians that I know of) do not recognize either the authority of Rome (the Pope) nor the Catholic practice of honoring saints, which some consider a form of idolatry.
Yet, just about everbody I know (except Jehovah's Witnesses) "celebrate" Valentines Day - Saint Valentines Day.
Of course, they don't think of Valentines as the feast day of a Catholic saint, and if pressed, would probably respond that they emphasize the expression of love, etc., and the tradition of the day, and are definitely not honoring this early Christian martyr. (One might wonder what could be wrong with honoring an early Christian who suffered and died for Christ - but so be it.)
Sadly, many Catholics have no clue either...and think nothing of the Saint. The Church itself took Valentine off the calendar in 1969, not because he was demoted from sainthood (can't do that), but because nothing much was known about him, and in the competition for space on the ever-crowding calendar of saints and feastdays, he was let go...or more precisely, left up to local ordinaries (bishops) who are to decide to honor him or not.
One nice thing about being a "Traditional Catholic" (i.e. "Latin-Masser") is that Valentine is still on the calendar and we honor his love for Christ written into history in martyr's blood.
In any event, Valentines is a feast day honoring a Catholic saint, instituted by a Catholic Pope, and kept alive for the better part of 2 millenia by the Catholic Church. Whether our non-Catholic friends, or Catholics for that matter, pay the real Valentine any attention, does not alter the truth about the day and about the man, and about the Church that enshrined him.
But having made a note of this, we should also note that the Catholic Church is responsible for also choosing the dates for both Christmas and Easter (and Easter changes every year). I don't mean to pick a bone here, but the celebration of Christmas and Easter on the dates chosen by the Catholic Church in general, and a Pope in particular, is an implicit admission of the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, at least in this matter.
However, if one is to reject this authority outright, as some non-Catholic demoninations do, then intellectual honesty would demand that such objectors make their own dates for Christmas and Easter. But since that probably won't happen, I'm sure Pope Benedict has no issue with ya'll using his calendar.
The Pacific Daily News lead editorial on January 25 called for the passage of Bill 185 into law. The editorial contends that same-sex couples deserve the same marital rights and privileges as different-sex couples. In response, I would like to make four points.
First, the government is not in the business of arbitrarily handing out rights and privileges. If privileges are granted, then something is expected. In the case of different-sex married couples, the state expects the marital unit to produce, educate, and socialize the next generation (sterile couples notwithstanding). The state is willing to grant certain protections and incentives to the marital unit because the state understands that should the marital unit fail, the burden of of producing, socializing, and educating that next generation would fall to the state.
In fact, producing the next generation is what was emphasized in the oft-cited Loving vs. Virginia and its precedent case Skinner vs. Oklahoma. In these cases, the courts acknowledged marriage as a "civil right" but only in connection with "procreation" (Skinner) and the "survival of society" (Loving). The courts said nothing about the right to marry because two people love each other.
Second, civil rights apply to individuals, not to corporate entities - which a marriage is.The fact that married people can see to the affairs of each other is not a matter of civil rights, but a matter of corporate and legal agreement. There is nothing keeping a same-sex couple, or any arrangement of persons, from doing the same. The fact that an alternative entity must employ an alternative form is no more discrimination than the legal distinction between a sole-proprietorship and a corporation.
Third, if marriage, or its legal equivalent, cannot be limited to one man and one woman, then it cannot be limited to one man and one man, or one woman and one woman. The legal definition of marriage mentions nothing about a caring or loving relationship. Bill 185 would have us believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal status as married couples because the two parties commit to a relationship of "mutual caring".
If "mutual caring" is what qualifies a relationship for marital status or its legal equivalent, then there is nothing to prevent three or more people from "mutual caring". To allow the legal status of marriage to same-sex partners and not allow the same status to those desirous of a polygamous or polyandrous arrangement is an exercise in the same discrimination that same-sex couples now decry.
Fourth, regardless of what it is called, Bill 185 will make same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage. Once that happens, any refusal to accept the representation of same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage will be considered discrimination. School curricula will be made to include representations of same-sex parented families. Sex education will need to include descriptions, illustrations, instructions (and hopefully, precautions) on engaging in same-sex sexual acts. Public Health departments will be required to produce media that equally represent same-sex options along with what is normally produced.
Think this is far fetched? Research the states where same-sex unions are already legal. Look up the California state law (SB777) requiring same-sex sensitivity education in public schools beginning in Kindergarten. Look up the "safe sex" literature that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is now publishing. See for yourself what the future holds for Guam should this bill pass into law.
The number one question I heard during this long debate is "How will this affect you?" Well, that's how it will affect us. Are you willing to present your children with both the "skinny" on homosexual sex and heterosexual sex when you get around to the "birds and the bees"? No? If not, don't worry, the schools will do it for you. They will have to.
This is the text for my talk for the most recent edition of "Catholics on the Move" which can be viewed Sundays on KUAM at 4pm and 8pm.
Hi, I’m Tim Rohr of the Catholic Evidence Guild of Guam and this is “Sharing the Faith”.
In our last episode, we made the point that while the Catholic Church reveres Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God, the Word of God cannot be confined to a book. In other words, if Jesus had wanted us to just follow a book he would have left us one. He didn't. What he did leave us was a Church, and a teaching authority for that Church.
We pointed out that in Matthew 16, Jesus hands Peter the Keys...not a book.
Let's take a look at Mt. 16: 18-19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (By the way, that's right from the King James Version)
In these two verses we see Jesus doing several things:
1. He gives Simon a new name: Peter, which means Rock
2. Then He tells us why he came: to build his Church
3. He then tells us where He will build that Church: on Peter
4. He then guarantees that He personally will protect His Church: the gates of hell will not prevail
5. Next, he confers upon Peter the office of prime minister and (this is important) dynastic succession upon his office
6. And finally, he gives Peter's office ultimate authority over earth AND heaven: what you declare bound on earth will be bound in heaven...
Pretty amazing stuff.
Critics try to explain away Peter as the Rock by claiming that Jesus was only referring to Peter's confession of faith, and not Peter personally. However, if that was the case, there would have been no need for the name change. Amongst the Jews, as in the case of many ancient societies, a name denoted function. The changing of Simon's name to Peter was a role change that was obvious to the rest of the apostles.
Two important things about the name Peter. First, Peter, had never been used before as a name. No one had ever been given the name Rock before. Second, not only does Jesus continue to call him Peter throughout the rest of the Gospel, Paul and the other apostles call him Peter, or Kepha (Rock in Aramaic) throughout the rest of the New Testament. If Jesus had only been referring to Peter's confession of faith and not Peter himself, they would have just kept using his original name, Simon. But they didn't.
And what about the Keys? Was this just a nice literary symbol that Jesus used or did it mean something? Jesus' words are almost verbatim lifted from Isaiah 22:22
"And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."
Again, from the King James version.
The Lord here is speaking of Eliakim. David is long gone. But the house of David is still around. And Eliakim is given the key, the authority. It's still David's house, but someone else is running things, Eliakim. Eliakim doesn't take the place of David. He's not a new David. He's filling an office in David's house, David's dynasty. Eliakim is in effect the prime minister.
Christ's almost verbatim use of Isaiah 22:22 here is not accidental. Christ, himself, is the fulfillment of the House of David. And in Mt. 16 He makes Peter the Prime Minister. The keys imply both authority and dynastic succession just as it was with Eliakim. Peter is the new prime minister, but with a twist. Where as Eliakim was not a new David, Jesus is. It's now his house, Jesus's house. And Peter or Rocky is the new first dude.
But what's really wild here is the power he gives to Peter and to Peter's office: the power to bind and loose, both on heaven and on earth. Jesus is giving this guy power over everything and through his office, the same power to all who inherit the keys...right down to Pope Benedict XVI.
Some will call this a circular argument and claim that if we don't claim the absolute authority of Scripture we cannot claim that this particular Scripture is authoritative in itself.
In short, the Catholic Church does proclaim the authority of Scripture, because the Catholic Church, the Church built on Peter, gave us that Scripture. In other words, the Bible is true because the Church which Jesus founded, built, protected, and empowered...says so.
Jesus didn't give us a book. He gave us a Church, and a teaching authority for that Church. The question is which Church is it? It's the Church built on Peter. And there is only one Church that even makes the claim.
To learn more about this topic and the Catholic Faith, visit us at www.cegguam.org
I’m Tim Rohr of the Catholic Evidence Guild of Guam, and this has been “Sharing the Faith.
Interesting. I was listening to a local talk show this morning. The host and the guest spent quite a bit of time discussing (lamenting) the disappearance - or at least the dilution of - the Chamorro culture.
The usual culprits were named: the military administrations of the past (Spanish, American, Japanese, and then American again), the immigration of many non-Chamorros, and of course the military, with special emphasis on the pending buildup.
The guest brought up the fact that not only is Guam losing its culture but that Chamorros now are an ethnic minority in their own island, only making up approximately 40% of the population.
With the public hearing for another pro-life bill (Bill 309 - The Child's Right to Live Act) set for this Thursday (1:30pm), I couldn't resist calling in and tying the discussion to the upcoming hearing.
You may wonder what the connection is.
While the declining population of Chamorros on Guam is due to many factors (not the least of which by the way is "out-migration" - more Chamorros have left Guam for the states than have non-Chamorros immigrated), there are two factors that are never discussed:
1. Chamorro families are having fewer (much fewer) children than did their forebears.
2. As per 2008 Guam Medical Records, 2/3 of all reported abortions are Chamorro babies.
I called and brought up these two points and noted that Senator Calvo, the author of Bill 309, as well as Bill 54 (The Woman's Right to Know Act - which is still tied up in the Legislature), and the successful ban on Partial Birth Abortion, which was signed into law in 2008, was partially motivated to introduce pro-life legislation as a result of seeing for himself the effects of abortion on the Chamorro race.
There are approximately 3300 births per year on Guam. If we use the 40% figure, that means that approximately 1320 of those births were of Chamorro ethnicity. 191 abortions of Chamorro children were reported in 2008. That means that 0.3% of the entire Chamorro population (1) on Guam was aborted in 2008 alone, and a staggering 14.5% of the "Chamorro class of 2026" never saw the light of day.
When you factor in the exponential aspect - fewer Chamorros who will not be alive themselves to further perpetuate the race - the result is exponentially catastrophic.
While I personally have great sympathy for the passion of native Chamorros who want to preserve their culture, their language, and their land, ultimately, the continuance - not just preservation - of the culture, language, and land depends on the production of successive generations. But at this rate, there will soon be no "successive generations".
The decline of the Chamorro population is a phenomenon not missed by the rest of the world. Note this study published as long ago as 1984 in the Journal of Biosocial Science (1984), 16:231-239 Cambridge University Press. Here follows a summary (emphases mine):
"Since the end of World War II, the Guam native population, who are mostly Roman Catholics, has undergone one of the most dramatic socioeconomic developments ever recorded. They have rapidly become incorporated into the dominant American culture and economy. This accelerated process of modernization has been accompanied bya very sharp fertility decline. One reason for this decline has been the increasing defection of Guam Roman Catholic women from the traditional teaching of their Church on the subject of birth control. This trend of fertility decline, although at higher levels, resembles that of East Asian countries with rapid fertility decline."
But back to our radio show. Both host and guest completely (though politely) disregarded my comment and my invitation for them to consider the actual data which is a matter of public record. The conversation immediately reverted back to the original lamentations about the loss of Chamorro culture due to outside pressures.
So while scholars as far away as Cambridge are aware of the real reason for the decline in Chamorro population, local Chamorro scholars (or at least the one being interviewed) seem not to be aware. So while we continue to blame the military and colonialism - albeit with some legitimacy- the slaughter of the Chamorro people goes on quietly in downtown Tamuning.
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama openly criticized the Supreme Court for its recent First Amendment decision regarding corporate advertising. Such public bullying of the Court by the President is unthinkably crass, petulant, and small, especially given the venue and the event and given that the Court cannot publicly respond. It was also incredibly stupid given Obama's stated support of Gay Rights.
There is no doubt that several cases will reach the Court during the Obama administration that might have been on hold during a more conservative administration. One of those cases is the current Gay Marriage case being championed by big name attorney Theodore Olson in California. Olson is contending that Gay Marriage is a civil right and the case is sure to reach the Supreme Court.
It is fairly certain that there are four no votes on the Court: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. The yes votes are not as certain but probable: Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Beyer, & Stevens. The swing vote, the unknown, is Anthony Kennedy. If gay marriage is to have any chance before the nation's highest court, Kennedy's sympathies will need to be courted.
Obama's unthinkable, low class swipe at the Court in front of the whole nation and the world will not soon be forgotten by the Court. One Justice that will particularly remember Obama's insult is the author of the majority opinion in the case that Obama criticized: Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Regardless of Obama's personal opinion about the Court's ruling, the State of the Union speech was not the place to express it. The Court was officially present at the speech as a "guest" of Congress. It's like inviting friends to your party and then openly insulting them. This was a very bad move simply as a matter of professional manners. But it was a disastrous move for Olson and Gay Rights.
By the way, I'm going to anticipate that some who read this will focus more on the Court's opinion that they disagree with than the point of this post. The primary criticism of the ruling is that the Court has made corporations citizens. At least that's the talking point for the liberal press. What they fail to mention is that the Court has simply made businesses equal to Unions, since they already can do what businesses have been denied.
In any event, Obama's public claim that the ruling allows for foreign corporations to intrude on national politics is false. Right now it looks like the best thing going for Conservatives is Obama himself.
As you may know, a Synod is a gathering of church leaders, convened under hierarchical authority, to discuss matters of the Faith: a strategy meeting of the church brass, you might call it.
The Synod of Capua was convened awhile ago, in the year 392, as a matter of fact. Among other items on the agenda, the Synod condemned the teachings of an ex-monk named Jovinian.
Now why are we bothering with an obscure synod and a heretical ex-monk, especially during the Christmas season?
As we shall see, the Synod of Capua and the Jovinian heresy are intimately connected to what exactly happened on that first Christmas when Christ left His mother's womb, or more precisely, HOW He left His mother's womb.
All Christians accept that Jesus was miraculously conceived when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary as we read in Luke 1:35.
But what about the actual birth of Christ? Did he actually pass through the birth canal like all other humans or did he miraculously just pop out? This is actually a very serious question with a very serious answer...and our ex-monk, Jovinian, got it wrong; and many modern theologians still do!
One of the 4 Marian Dogmas is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In Catholic practice, a dogma is a doctrine that has been solemnly defined and must be believed if one is to be fully Catholic.
The Church defines Mary's Perpetual Virginity not just in terms of the miraculous conception of Jesus, not just in terms of her not having had any relations with a man and therefore no other children, but also in terms of the integrity of Mary's body during childbirth. In other words, Mary remained physically a virgin before, during, and after childbirth. The Synod of Capua says it like this:
"...the miracle of the Virgin Birth consisted concretely in the absence of physical lesion, viz., maintenance of the integrity or incorruptibility of the body of the Mother of God.
And lest we think that this is just some ancient dusty old doctrine, we should note that in 1992, Pope John Paul II assisted in the celebration of the 1,600th anniversary of the Synod of Capua and commended its teaching on the integrity of Mary's Body during child-birth as the perennial belief of the Church, a teaching he also reaffirmed in his 1987 Encyclical Redemtoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer).
This is a topic that most of us haven't spent much time considering. But a couple of years ago the movie THE NATIVITY STORY forced the issue into public discussion. The movie portrayed Mary in the throes of labor as she gives birth to Jesus.
In this scene, two Marian dogmas are challenged if not outright denied: Mary's Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception. As noted, the Church has solemnly declared the miraculous nature of the birth of Christ, not just His conception.
But the Immaculate Conception, Mary's own conception in her mother's womb without the stain of original sin, is also challenged, for as you know the penalty for Original Sin that was given to Eve, and thus to all women, was the pain of childbirth: "...in pain shalt thou bring forth children" (Genesis 3:16). However, Catholic Dogma asserts that Mary was preserved from Original Sin and thus also from its penalty.
For the Protestant makers of the film, the portrayal of Mary in labor posed no problem since the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, bodily integrity or otherwise, is not a dogma most non-Catholics subscribe to.
It was interesting to note, though, that the makers of the film were in fact aware of the Catholic dogma they were violating as they expressed concern over a possible Catholic backlash in an interview released prior to the movie's debut. But as it turned out they had little to worry about. Most of the Catholic press gave the film rave reviews, and almost all the major Catholic apologists brushed off the labor pains issue.
Given the gravity of the offense to two Marian dogmas, plus the novel portrayal of Mary as a rebellious teenager (hardly becoming of the Immaculate Conception), devout Catholics can rightly be appalled.
This is one of the reasons why we (Catholics) must never solely take the word of even the most respected theologians, apologists, or authors when it comes to matters of the Faith. We certainly can listen and learn, but we must always verify by seeking out the authentic magisterial teaching of the Church. And the authentic magisterial teaching of the Church on the issue of the "virgin birth" is "incorrutibiter genuit" which means: "whom Mary virginally conceived, she bore or begot incorruptibly."
Several Popes since the Synod of Capua have pronounced on this doctrine: Pope Leo the Great in 449, Pope Hormisdas in 521, and Pope Pelagius in 527. And at the Lateran Synod in 649, Pope St. Martin I, solemnly defined "incorrutibiter genuit" and asserted that anyone who denied this truth is "anethema" (condemned).
More recently, Blessed Pope John XXIII forbade any further public discussion of the issue. In other words, the bodily integrity of the Virgin Mother is a NON-NEGOTIABLE.
Sadly, and in defiance of magisterial teaching, some Catholic theologians continue to bat the topic around with the skeptics among them claiming that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was not actual but symbolic.
However, authentic Catholic doctrine proclaims that Mary is the: “unopened door of the Temple” through which only the Lord enters and exits without opening it, either at His conception or at His birth.
So in the words of Pope St. Martin I "virgo concepit, virgo peperit, virgo post partum remansit".
Mary "remained a virgin at conception, birth, and after the birth"…of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. God came to us through Mary. God continually comes to us through Mary. God set it up that way. Blessed be God forever and blessed be his handmaid, Mary, every virgin.
Catholics have great jokes. And we should. Heck we’ve been around 2000 years, so we’ve had lots of time to come up with them. Jokes about confession are probably the most numerous, but purgatory ranks right up there.
Here’s one for you:
A recently departed soul reaches Heaven’s gate and is advised that he’ll be needing to spend a little time in Purgatory before he can get into the Big House. An Archangel escorts the man to Purgatory where they enter a long hall with three doors. The angel explains that there are three ways to spend one’s time in Purgatory and each soul gets to choose his own form of discomfort.
The angel opens the first door and the man sees many poor souls up to their necks in mud. Not particularly excited about spending his time in such a manner he asks the angel to show him what’s behind the 2nd door. The angel opens door #2 and the man sees the poor souls clanking about in chains and carrying rocks.
The man then requests to see behind door #3. The man sees all sorts of folks walking about with cocktails, chatting, and carrying on. The only down side was that they were knee deep in sewage. “Well”, thought the man. “This can’t be all that bad.” So he informs the angel that he’ll take door #3.
“No problem” says the angel and he leads him into the room, introduces him to the rest of the folks, hands him a martini, and the man joins the party. About 10 minutes later the angel claps his hands and says “Okay, folks. break's over - everybody back on your heads.”
Purgatory, like confession, and other uniquely Catholic practices and beliefs, provide fodder for many such stories, probably because such things are mysterious and often little understood.
So let’s take a quick stab at Purgatory, especially since its existence is rejected by most non-Catholic Christians and little understood even by most Catholics. As a matter of fact, many Catholics are under the impression that Vatican II “did away” with Purgatory. I’m afraid that’s not the case.
If you want to read exactly what the Catechism says about Purgatory you can go here and begin reading at paragraph 1030. But essentially the Church teaches 3 things about Purgatory:
1. That there is such a "place" or state. 2. That most of us will need to spend some time there. 3. That there is suffering in Purgatory though we do not the nature of it.
Most non-Catholic Christians will be too scandalized by now to read further, so we'll just continue with the Catholics...or at least some of them. Let's work backward on our 3 points.
Not much more to say about #3. The word Purgatory implies "purgation", cleaning, purging, etc. So you know something's going on there that probably isn't too pleasant. We do find some references to a purgatorial type of suffering in Scripture:
1 Cor 3:15 speaks of being saved "but only as through fire": "But if someone's work is burned up, that person will suffer loss, the person will be saved, but only as through fire."
Luke 12:58 tells us a prison that we may have to endure until we "pay the last penny": "If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny."
Luke 16:19-31 gives us the story of the poor man, Lazarus, and Dives, the rich man, who calls out from a place of torment after his death and asks Lazarus to warn his brothers. We know that Dives cannot be in Hell, because in Hell one is no longer capable of doing or desiring good, which Dives tries to do (warn his brothers). This is an interesting story because it comes from the lips of Jesus himself. The story also refutes the so-called "soul sleep" that some believe. Dives is very much alive in this parable.
As for #2 and why we'll need to spend some time there, Church teaching is based on 5 words in Revelation 21:27: "nothing unclean will enter it". The "it" is Heaven and the "unclean" is most of us, since most of us will not die in a state of complete perfection except for genuine martyrs which the Church defines as those who have shed their blood for the Faith. However, only God can judge the heart so we know not who else God may have allowed to reach a state of perfection while still in this life.
Many of our non-Catholic Christian brethren believe that regardless of the woeful state of our soul at death, Christ's blood will cover us, and so long as we believe in Jesus, we'll skip right into Heaven. While they are welcome to believe that, believing it doesn't necessarily make it so. Discussing that here would take us into a separate discussion into what constitutes "salvation". So for now we'll need to suffice it to say that while Catholics also believe that we are covered with the Blood of Christ, we believe that we are also called to take up our cross and may indeed to have to shed a little blood of our own.
Now to the first point: there is such a place or state. Yes, we know the word Purgatory is not in the Bible and we're not going to get into a discussion here about "solo scriptura", but let's take a look at Revelations 20:13-14:
"The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire."
What is "Hades"? Most will say it is "Hell", or more precisely, Gehenna, the place of eternal torment. But it's not, for we see that Hades itself is "thrown into the pool of fire" (lake of fire in some translations). Can't throw Hell into Hell, so Hades has to be something other than Hell. It's obviously a THIRD place.
What's more is that there are people in it since it says that "Death and Hades gave up their dead". We are well aware of the existence of a third place called "the bosom of Abraham" where the righteous went to await the coming of the Lord. But there was no need for the "bosom of Abraham" after Christ opened the gates of Heaven.
So here we have a "third place" with people (souls) in it at the end of time (at the time of the Final Judgment). So what could it be and why are there souls in it? They're obviously not in Heaven, and as we explained, Hades isn't Gehenna.
So, maybe the Bible doesn't call it Purgatory, but there is certainly a "Third Place" in Scripture, and we can only imagine that since these souls are not yet with the Lord after their death that there must certainly also be suffering...if only the suffering of waiting.
Conclusion:
1. Scripture shows us a place that is not Heaven and is not Hell. 2. Souls are in this place. 3. The souls are not damned or they'd be in Gehenna and the "Hades" that they are in is not Gehenna. 4. This New Testament "Hades" is not the "bosom of Abraham" of the Old Testament. 5. The existence of this place of waiting is consistent with the Scripture references to "paying the last penny", "being saved as through fire", "this place of torment", etc., but especially with Revelation 21:27 which reminds us that "nothing unclean shall enter it."
Because most of us will die in a state of imperfection but still desirous of union with God, God's Mercy demands that we be allowed a state of final purgation so that we CAN "enter it". This is not the second chance that some think Purgatory is, just a final state of purgation for those who have already sought God's Mercy.
But even if you dont' accept the need for a Purgatory, Scripture clearly shows that there is one. Guess we'll find out for sure some day. I already am sure.
GOOD BYE, UNCLE PAUL
Died, December 11. 2004, Age 75
Every boy needs a hero or two. And after my dad I’d have to say it was Uncle Paul. There was something magical about those two words…Uncle…and Paul.
Visions of beautiful farmland, horses, old wagons, tractors, cows, milk cans. Lying in my bed in the house of a smoggy big city I dreamt of “going to Uncle Paul’s”.
And he had been a cowboy, a real one, in Oklahoma. Being a real cowboy, he had a white horse. And being a real cowboy, that white horse was his first love.
Lady was her name. She was already old when I first saw her as a boy. Already out to pasture. But I remember how she stood out amongst all the other horses, how you could easily spot her out in the field, still proud, still a cowboy’s horse.
Uncle Paul made me proud to be a Rohr. I had an uncle who had been a cowboy. I would come back to the dirty streets of Los Angeles after a beautiful Ohio summer believing that to be a Rohr, to have a Dad who was the strongest man in the world, to have 10 incredible uncles and aunts, to be one of 61 grandchildren, and to have an uncle who was a cowboy, was…well what else could a boy ask for.
This was the best life, the best fortune that anyone could ever dream of. I was a Rohr. I am a Rohr. And so are you cousins. You got royalty in your blood cause you too had an uncle who was a cowboy.
So Uncle Paul, saddle up your white Lady once more, and ride her into heaven. And when you get there, say hi to Uncle Ernie, Uncle Frankie, and Uncle Elmer, and of course Grandpa and Grandma. Tell ‘em we won’t be long. Tell ‘em that with their prayers we’ll all make it to that one last Rohr reunion, to that one big “cattle call” in the sky. And, oh yah, when I get there can I have a ride on Lady?
Good-bye, Unc. Thanks for the opportunity to grow up in the shadow of your woods, in the wide-open spaces of your fields, and atop those great machines they called John Deere. And lastly, thanks for those encouraging words that made me famous back when I only knew 3 chords: “C’mon, Tim, play Dead Skunk one more time for us, will ya?” You got it, Unc. You got it.
- By his nephew, Timothy J. Rohr and read at his memorial service, December 18, 2004 by my sister, Michelle Rohr Gerber
Catholic bishops in New Jersey have launched a campaign to stop expected legislation this coming November legalizing same-sex marriage.
Their efforts, though admirable, are too late and will most likely fail.
Why?
The bishops' Achilles heel is in their statement. In their efforts to defend marriage they make the mistake of distinguishing between same-sex "unions" and same-sex marriage.
In their statement they acknowledge that all the rights of marriage are already available to same-sex couples under the state's current law allowing same-sex civil unions.
They state this without any opposition or challenge to the law which recognizes same-sex couples as "married" in all but the word itself.
Thus, "marriage" is reduced to nothing more than a term. There is no legal distinction and thus it is an easy step to simply co-opt and apply the term since the actual legal effects of marriage have already been co-opted and applied.
Apparently the bishops had no problem with civil unions...."just so long as they don't call it marriage".
This is just one of the traps that same-sex proponents set for the opposition, and sadly in this case, the NJ bishops were easy prey.
By not challenging the legal status of same-sex unions in their statement in defense of marriage, and even granting it official sanction by referencing it in a positive light, the bishops have no grounds for their defense, at least in the public square, and perhaps in the religious realm also.
The document released by the Congregation of the Faith in 2003 addressing the legalization of same-sex unions, is adamant that all Catholics "must oppose" the legalization of same-sex unions regardless of what they are called.
By distinguishing between marriage and "unions", the NJ bishops have officially ignored the CDF directive and opened the door wide to the final destruction of that which they wish to defend.
We on Guam have already made the same mistake as evidenced by a recent poll. While the majority of people on Guam would oppose same-sex marriage, the majority would also support legal recognition of same-sex unions.
As per the law, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. We Catholics MUST OPPOSE the legalization of same-sex unions, not just because we are obliged by our Church to do so, but because if we don't, we will be defending nothing more than a definition and not the institution itself.
