Non Confundar in Aeternum

Religion, Public Service, and Voting

2012-02-27T11:45:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

When John F. Kennedy ran for the Presidency, there was great concern about him being a Catholic. Conspiracy theories abounded that he might secretly be governing the country as a puppet of the Pope. Such concerns are again being heard in the current Presidential race about the Republican candidate Senator Rick Santorum. The Senator is not only a Catholic, he is outspoken about his Faith and the fact that it governs his life. He says, in effect, his Faith comes first, and this would be seen in his Presidency if he won the election. How refreshing in this age of ever-increasing secularism. Yet, this raises the question in many people's minds as to whether or not a person has any business being in office if he puts his Faith first and, according to his religious beliefs, he must always act in accordance with Church doctrine. A large segment of the population, include many Christians, believe that a person's religious beliefs have no place in their decision process as a public official. The trouble is, can we really expect or demand that public officials violate their conscience simply because they are public officials? Must they lay aside their religious beliefs and obligations when they take the oath of office? Does the oath of office as a public official supersede their duty to God?

Let us consider a hypothetical scenario. Imagine that the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments to repeal Roe v. Wade, thereby effectively rendering abortion illegal. Can we expect the Catholic Justices to vote any way other than for the abolishment of abortion? Can we expect them to rule by some means other than the Church doctrine that governs their conscience? Of course not, if they are to be truly Catholic. Really, this applies to all Christian Justices on the Court. They have the power to stop the murder of approximately 1.5 million children per year. Their Christian Faith says this is wrong. Why should they not stop it merely for the sake of being able to say that their Church's doctrine did not enter into their decision? To ask them to lay aside their Faith because they sit on the Supreme Court bench is wrong in the extreme. Furthermore, in such a case as this hypothetical example, a Justice who was fully aware that abortion is wrong in the eyes of God, but ignored the teachings of his Faith would take on the guilt for the murder of all those innocent children, for those were murders that he could have stopped.

Many politicians, judges, and officials say they voted a certain way or rendering a certain decision or did a certain thing because they thought it was the right thing to do. Some might question the veracity of those statements, believing instead that the politicians, judges, and officials who said that were acting in reality in their own best interest or taking the politically expedient position. Yet, for the sake of argument, let us take them at their word. After all, we should all hope and desire that our government officials would always strive to do the right thing. Why, then, should it be acceptable for a politician or an official to state that his decision or position was taken because he believed it to be the right thing, but it would not be acceptable for him to state that the reason he believes it to be the right thing is because that is what the doctrine of the Faith teaches him? Why would it be acceptable for a politician to say he voted a certain way because he believed it to be the right thing, and that his belief came from some general sense of morality, yet it would not be acceptable for him to state that this morality came from the doctrine of the Faith? That amounts to nothing more than discrimination against people of strong faith in public office. Indeed, strictly interpreted, those who believe a person's faith should have no bearing on decisions in their efforts to do the right thing would deny public office to any person of strong faith.

This is not to say that those in public office should impose their religious beliefs on others. Yet, not imposing one's own views on others does not mean that one should or must violate one's own conscience or beliefs in rendering decisions and carrying out the duties of public office. Everyone in public office is internally governed by something, whether it be the Christian Faith, political expediency, personal interest, secularism, or something else entirely. Why are all other guiding principles accepted, but not the Christian Faith? Even corruption, personal interest, and political expediency are acknowledged as an inherent facet of the government to be tolerated, but not liked. Why, then, are many people afraid of a public official who is a person of Faith, openly and unapologetically stating that the Faith governs his moral compass for the benefit of the public?

The simple truth is that the Faith is contrary to the ways of the world. The world loves that which is of itself and hates all that which is not of itself. Those who are unapologetically Catholic in all that they do, including public office, will naturally find opposition from society if that society has become secular and of this world. Remember that it was not too long ago that public officials regularly and openly about the Christian Faith. Sadly, things have changed. Christian blasphemy laws remain on the books in several States, though they are no longer enforceable as Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment struck them down. School prayer, once a common thing, is being challenged time and time again. Christianity is being marginalized in favor of not only secularism, but Islam and all the societal problems it brings. Abortion is legal. The government is trying to force religious institutions to violate their consciences. The list goes on and on. Though we in the United States were once a strongly Judeo-Christian nation, there is absolutely no denying that we have effectively descended into secularism.

There is a philosophy out there that says that an official who commits adultery is considered by many to be unworthy and unqualified to be a public official. The logic goes that if said official cannot remain faithful to the promises made to his spouse and to his duties required by that promise, he cannot hold the public trust. Yet, a public official who violates his promises made to God and ignores his duties required by those promises in favor of purely secular duties is somehow considered to be the ideal public official. This simply does not make sense. A promise to God is of more value than a promise to a spouse. A duty to God is of more importance than a duty to a spouse. Therefore, how can anyone who claims to be a Christian consider a public official who fails in a duty to his spouse to be unworthy, yet consider a public official who fails in his duty to God to be ideal?

One is either a Christian or not. There is no middle ground, as I have remarked on numerous occasions. One either strives to fulfill one's Christian duty, or one does not. Anyone who places his perceived duty as a public official, or a corporate officer, or anything else above his duty as a Christian is not in reality a Christian. In all truth, we as a Christian nation should desire public officials who do not violate their sacred duties, but instead let the doctrine of the Faith guide them, as it is intended to do, in fulfilling their duties as public officials.

The First Amendment establishment clause was intended to prevent the government from imposing religious beliefs on the people. Yet, it never was intended to require public officials to suppress their religious duties upon taking public office, for that itself would be an imposition of government control over religious beliefs. A public official's duty is first to God and then to the public. Anyone who claims they want a public official who has the best interests of the populace and the nation at heart must necessarily want a candidate who understands his duty is first to God, for no law may be just without God. It is time that we have a new generation of statesmen, judges, and public officials who understand that their duty truly is to God first above all things, and in so doing, they best serve the public.

Patriarchal Letter to the Clergy of the ARRCC at the beginning of Lent 2012 regarding the wear of clerical dress

2012-02-27T09:34:00.001+09:00

As we begin Lent, the Christian witness of the clergy becomes even more important. It is, of course, important each and every day. If the faithful observe the clergy not acting in accordance with the obligations of the Faith and their obligations as clergy, it can easily have a negative impact on the resolve of the faithful to do their own Christian duty. In this Lenten season, a time of penance, preparation, and denial, it is all the more important that the clergy set a good example for all the faithful to aid them in their efforts. If the clergy embrace the world rather than the Kingdom of God, then it communicates to the faithful that this is what they should be doing. If, however, the clergy deny the world, take up their own cross, and follow Jesus, this may inspire the faithful to do likewise. This applies to all ranks of the clergy, from those at the First Tonsure, the very beginning of the clerical state, through Bishop, those who share in the fullness of Christ's priesthood.

One of the most important mechanisms of Christian witness for the clergy is the constant wear of clerical dress. It is a very visual and obvious symbol of the Catholic Faith. Clerical dress communicates many important facets of the Faith to the people. It is for this reason that it makes such a good form of witness. Unfortunately in our modern, secular society, many clerics feel as if they should not or do not need to wear clerical dress outside of the walls of the church or outside of overtly religious activities. This is precisely the opposite of what clerics ought to do. We all can and should do better. Let us resolve to do better during Lent and continue throughout the year.

It is the obligation of clerics, particularly those in the Major Orders, to wear clerical attire as their normal or standard dress. This is both Sacred Tradition and laid down in Canon Law. There are some exceptions that exist. For example, priests who also work in the secular world generally ought not wear their clerical habit while engaged in commerce. Also, the clergy need not wear their habits while engaged in sports or athletics (though some religious orders retain their habit during these times as well). These exceptions aside, the clerical habit is the standard attire for all clerics. All else that is worn is merely an exception. It is not the other way around, in which clerical attire is merely something donned when "acting as a cleric." The clerical state is a state in life that is always and everywhere part of the inherent nature of the cleric. A cleric should, therefore, always and everywhere act as a cleric just as a man who is married to a woman should always and everywhere act as a married man.

Wearing there clerical habit, whether the cassock or the civic habit, out in public and to social events may seem difficult or highly out of place in today's society. Yet, it should be done and must be done anyway. The secular influences of the world seek to suppress Christianity, and Christians are feeling increasingly unable to express and practice their religion. By wearing the habit in public, the clergy may bolster the spirit of the faithful, comfort them, energize their faith, and strengthen their resolve.

Also, clerical dress marks the individual person as a cleric and does set him apart from the populace. That separation is one of special service, for the cleric's duty is to serve God and his people. For a priest, it is the equivalent of his wedding ring, representing his spiritual marriage to Christ's Holy Church. The habit reminds everyone that the cleric is striving to live his vocation at all times and in all places, as he should. It marks the cleric as a person to whom the faithful may turn for support and assistance. Clerical attire is a symbol of the public ministry which is present always and everywhere. It cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. It is a fallacy to suggest that a priest better serves the people by appearing like them and "breaking down the barrier." The so-called barrier between the clergy and faithful is not in reality a barrier, but a boundary in terms of specific roles ordained for the Kingdom of God, both here on earth and in heaven. It is, therefore, a great disservice to the faithful for a cleric not to wear his habit. A cleric must always relate to other people as a cleric, for his life is not his own.

Also, given the great decline in social decorum, wearing the clerical habit is a clear reminder to all people to dress modestly and act appropriately. Society would benefit greatly from a return to manners, politeness, and simple courtesy.

Sometimes it is stated, though, that clerics should not wear their habit in the presence of non-Catholics or non-Christians, as this might make them uncomfortable. However, removing the stimulus does not remove or solve the problem. It is better to wear the habit always and serve as an example of the Christian Faith to everyone. Education about the Faith has a better chance of success rather than allowing the symbols of the Faith to be suppressed.

It can never be stated enough that a cleric's life is not his own. Therefore, do not become lackadaisical in attitude towards clerical service. This not only includes performance of duties according to one's level in the clergy, but also in terms of behavior and appearance. Appearance is regulated by Canon Law and other norms, and therefore obedience requires it to be followed. How can we expect obedience of the faithful towards the Laws of God and his holy Church if we as clerics do not set the example and be obedient ourselves? Yes, the clerical collar and habit (again, whether the cassock or the civic habit) should be a natural part of a cleric's daily life. It should not be something set aside for certain occasions. It should not be shunned when the cleric wants to relax, but rather the cleric should feel relaxed when dressed according to his state in life.

We can indeed all do better, for none of us is perfect. We must encourage each other for our own benefit and that of the faithful. We must stand strong against the encroachment of modernism into the church and against the secular influences of the world. Out duties as clerics are paramount to all other aspects of our lives. To think or believe otherwise is to deny the very vows we took at our ordination and to eschew the indellible mark that was placed on our souls when we entered the clerical state.

The World Needs More Love

2012-02-20T09:06:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The world needs more love. It might sound like the lyrics to a pop song, but it is true nonetheless. Think of how much suffering there is in the world because people fail to behave with charity towards their fellow human beings. Think of how many conflicts could be avoided if people simply worked a little harder towards loving others. This is perhaps idealistic, but the fact that there will always be pain and suffering and evil in the world is no excuse whatsoever for giving up and not trying to do something about it.

The next time you feel like getting angry or upset at someone, take a deep breath, calm down, and try to work it out. It takes two people to have a fight. It takes two people to have an argument. If someone wants to argue with you, yet you refuse to argue with them, it will not be much of an argument! This does not mean you cannot or should not disagree with people or should allow yourself to be abused. It does mean, though, that disagreements and even outright conflicts ought to be conducted in a manner in which both parties act with charity towards each other. Too often conflict becomes an "us" versus "them" struggle to win at all costs. Often less damage can be done if both parties try to work things out and with charity towards each other. Remember that in seeking to destroy someone else, you may end up destroying yourself in the process.

Why fight your neighbor if you can settle your differences and live in peace? General Robert E. Lee prayed for his enemies every day. Indeed, we should always act towards our enemies as if they will one day be our friend, as that may in fact be the very result we achieve. With a little more love, we can have a lot fewer senseless conflict in the world, in our nation, in our communities, and in our families.

Consider this as we move into Lent this Wednesday. Reach out to people you have wronged and to people who have wronged you, no matter how long it has been. Forgive them, forgive yourself, and allow yourself to be forgiven by them and by God. Remember the new Commandment of our Lord that we love one another. This Lent, may you obtain that peace that can only come through forgiveness by the grace and love of Jesus Christ.

Pro-Lifers Arrested for Praying

2012-02-18T01:29:00.002+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Not long ago I wrote in a pastoral letter about the very real threat of Christian persecution in the United States. I said that it was entirely conceivable that the time will come that Christians may be arrested for practicing and defending the Faith, and I have not been alone in making this comment. Yesterday, Thursday the 16th of February, A.D. 2011, this happened. Six pro-life advocates, including one priest and one protestant minister, were peacefully assembled outside the White House. As they knelt in prayer, the police were called in to arrest them for the curious reason of "failure to obey a lawful order." (Read more here and here.) What makes this even more puzzling is that scores of people have been occupying federal property in Washington, and this was considered their right. Yet, a handful pray in front of the White House, and the police are called.

Also worth noting is that Fr. Denis Wilde, the priest who was praying outside the White House, is the Associate Director of Priests for Life, which is currently suing the Obama Administration over the health insurance mandates. Is this a coincidence? Are those who oppose Obama and his anti-Christian policies going to be harassed by the government?

Since when is prayer illegal? And how dare the police lay a hand on men of the cloth? This is indicative of the anti-Christian intolerance that marks the regime occupying the White House. Religious freedom and indeed freedom in general has been trampled on by the Obama administration. And where was all the coverage of this incident in the mass media? It seems to have been covered primarily or only in the conservative media.

It is time for the Christian Faithful to stand up to those who have taken over our nation and hijacked the sacred principles of freedom on which it was founded. This is not a political matter, but rather a matter of Christian duty. Make your voice heard before it is too late. Otherwise, next time it could be you being arrested for exercising your rights to free exercise of religion.

Commentary on Religion

2012-01-31T11:40:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

A surprisingly large number of people believe religion is merely a crutch to help them make it through life. Secularists use this belief to turn from religion and encourage others to do the same, instead trusting merely in themselves and the institutions of this world. The obvious fallacy of this is great and perhaps explains in part why there are so many people suffering from emotional and psychological problems and a lack of real happiness today.

While Karl Marx proclaimed religion to be the opiate of the masses, Archbishop Fulton Sheen offered a far better viewpoint. He said that "[religion] is actually not a crutch; it is a cross. It is not an escape, it is a burden; not a flight, but a response. We speak here of a religion with teeth in it, the wind that demands self-sacrifice and surrender. One leans on a crutch, but a cross rests on us. A coward can use a crutch, but it takes a hero to embrace a cross." This beautifully and accurately captures what it means to be a true Christian.

Now, there are certainly many for whom religion is warped into being a crutch. Some modern Christian communities even thrive on this, providing and promoting feel-good emotional highs rather than authentic, self-sacrificing worship. Nothing is expected, except perhaps financial contribution and volunteered time. No sacrifice is expected, no real conversion is expected, and no spiritual warfare is expected. The lines between right and wrong become blurred as relativism takes over. The purpose of modernist religion is merely to soothe and placate like an Alka-Seltzer tablet or an aspirin. This type of religion is a crutch.

Also, the modern trend of individualistic religion, in which an individual professes belief in Jesus Christ, but eschews the Church and devises his own way is another extension of this. For those who do not simply take the Faith as it is, but rather individualize it to suit their own beliefs, desires, and needs, religion is a crutch. To do this is to be cheated of experiencing an authentic expression of the Christian Faith. It is the easy way out.

It has been said that Catholicism is not easy, and that is true. But what is true Catholicism other than the true and original Christian Faith given to the Apostles and handed down through the generations to the present time? It is Christianity, pure, simple, and uncomplicated with extraneous innovations. True Christianity, therefore, is not easy. Authentic Christianity requires a conversion of heart, a strong sense of self-sacrifice, and a complete surrender. It can be a burden at times, with many difficulties and failures. It is more courageous, though, to remain true to the ways of the Faith rather than taking the easy way out. It takes courage to pick up your own cross and follow the Lord. It is easy and ultimately of little or no benefit to take the path of the feel-good panacea. To reap the benefits that God has set out for us, one must lay down the crutch and embrace a cross.

The New Face of Traditions in the Church

2012-01-21T02:56:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

There is a notion in the Church today that much of her venerable traditions are no longer relevant, and indeed some of those traditions are no longer to be tolerated. An age of so-called tolerance has led to more intolerance. It may not be a popular view, or one that is keeping up with the times, but the simple truth is that traditions have sustained the Church and taught the Faith in an authentic way through two millenia. I believe people today are starving for tradition and orthodoxy of faith. Yet, they are so immersed in anti-tradition and modernist viewpoints that they might not even be aware of this internal hunger. The timeless traditions of the Church, now smoldering in their few remaining strongholds, need to be re-kindled into the brilliant flames of the Faith that will spread far and wide and leave no Christian untouched.

First recall the words of Saint Athanasius, whose name graces that great Creed that explicitly defines what is required to be Catholic. Saint Athanasius said that those who hold to the traditions of the Faith, even if reduced to a handful, are the true Catholic Church. Certainly those today who hold to tradition often feel marginalized like an unwelcome minority or a strange oddity. Widespread changes in the 1970s affected Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and even much of other Christian communities. In some cases, the social justice movement fought to be supreme, leading to social justice arguments defining theology rather than the other way around. New freedom resulted in fundamental changes to liturgy and necessarily to underlying theology. A God-centered attitude was replaced with a people-centered attitude. Clerical dress has largely disappeared, with many clerics preferring to dress like parishioners rather than live up to the obligations of their state in life. Traditions were eroded, boundaries were blurred, and consequently the people were given an empty shell of what once was the norm.

Just as building a new house requires more precise control than renovating an existing building, in order to form a new order in the Church not built on timeless traditions, more controls are necessarily required. Ironically, it appears that the modernist changes that were ostensibly supposed to inspire more freedom for the people have ultimately resulted in less freedom.

A large number of the old traditions of the Church are now often the subject of derision. Those who uphold them are often made to feel like outcasts, even within their own churches, parishes, and faith communities. What the modernists do not understand, though, is that adherence to tradition does not equate with being stuck in the past and unable to move forward. Being stuck in the past is not a good thing. Traditions, though, have allowed the Church to move forward and progress through the centuries. One must know where one has been in order to know where one is going, and tradition serves that purpose. One must have a strong foundation on which to build in order to be confident, and tradition serves that purpose. One must be certain of the authenticity of the message in order to share it, and tradition serves that purpose. Each generation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has built on the traditions of each generation of the Church before. We progress and we evolve. Catholics do not tear down and destroy. Yet, that is precisely what happened in the latter half of the twentieth century. Tradition was largely replaced with the here-and-now.

Clinging to tradition is being determined not to throw away what is tried and true for what is not proven. To hold fast to tradition is to hold fast to Holy Mother Church with a resolve that will not and cannot be shaken. To keep tradition is to keep the Faith once delivered. I preach nothing more than what the Catholic Faith has professed for two millenia and do not preach my opinions. No Catholic should do otherwise. With the firm foundation of Sacred Tradition, we have confidence in the knowledge of the Faith. When traditions are eroded, we have a foundation that is weakened. When traditions are significantly eroded, we are necessarily left with the preaching of opinion and new doctrine that form a new tradition, which, by virtue of its break with historic tradition, may or may not be truly and wholly Catholic.

Fortunately, many are now re-discovering the venerable traditions of the Church. Once they were stifled, but now they are being presented and promoted as relevant in the modern world. The world changes constantly, but the Church is a firm rock that always and everywhere must be consistent with herself. The true Christian Faith today is the same as it was when it was delivered to the world by Christ. Tradition is what keeps that constancy. The modern world, with all the rapid changes in technology, dissemination of information, the economy, security, and ways of life, needs to see the true traditions of the Church again. The new face of tradition is not a change in tradition, but rather a new application of something tried and true to the modern world. The world is always changing, but the Faith is eternal. Let deacons, priests, bishops, and all clerics not try to blend in when outside the walls of the Church, but proclaim both the Faith and the mission of their vocation of service to God, His Church, and His people. Let all the faithful in Christ not be shy about living the Faith in all they do, openly and in the true humility of Christ. Let the new face of ageless tradition proclaim the presence of the Church in the world for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Great Catholic Apologetics

2012-01-21T01:18:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Here are two recent videos that were made by Fr. Claude Burns (better known as Fr. Pontifex) and Make a Friar in response to the video "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" by Jefferson Bethke. See the video against the Church first, and then look at the two Catholic responses:

A Great Day for Religious Freedom

2012-01-13T00:00:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The Supreme Court of the United States voted 9-0 yesterday to uphold religious freedom and independence in America. The details of the case are well-known through news reports. In short, the decision upheld the sovereignty of churches, particularly in the appointment and removal of ministers and teachers. The civil court system simply has no authority to interfere with ecclesiastical doctrine, discipline, polity, or sincerely held religious belief. The Supreme Court had unanimously voted to uphold that sacred principle of the United States. With all the threats to religious freedom today, this decision by the Supreme Court is a bright ray of hope.

Alabama Immigration and Humanitarian Concerns

2012-01-10T07:44:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

While I may differ from some of my brethren on the Alabama immigration law's justice under God's law, I am certainly in agreement with them that humanitarian concerns and ecclesiastical concerns must not be allowed to be damaged by this law. While a nation and the states within have a right and duty to control immigration appropriately, this cannot justly extend to humanitarian services or the work of the Church. The Most Rev. Thomas J. Rodi, Archbishop of Mobile, said that “[no] law is just which prevents the proclamation of the Gospel message, the baptizing of believers, or love shown to a neighbor in need.” The Archbishop is quite correct in that statement.

That a civil government would pass a law that makes it illegal for a priest to baptize, to hear a confession, or to administer the Blessed Sacrament to an illegal immigrant is unbelievable to me. Many is not all of Church social services are apparently illegal. This aspect of the law is a gross injustice and a misuse of civil authority.

The simple fact is that the civil government does not have the authority to interfere with a member of the clergy in the performance of his duties. The civil government cannot limit the administration of the Sacraments, provision of basic humanitarian and social services, and other functions of the Church only to those who have the appropriate legal status. This aspect of the law is intrinsically unjust under the Laws of Christ. In such cases, Christians are absolved from their duty to follow those parts of the law, as Christians are only bound to follow civil laws that are in accordance with the Laws of Christ. Only civil laws that are in accordance with the Laws of Christ are rightly considered just.

Now, that certain aspects of the immigration laws in Alabama are inherently unjust does not automatically mean that the entirety of the law should be dismissed. As I have written in a previous pastoral letter, there are very serious issues at hand here in the United States. Immigration is something that can and must be controlled for the good of the people, both the current citizens and the immigrants. That control is part of the responsibility of the civil government. That responsibility, though, includes the duty to ensure that immigration reform is just and effective, without serious impact to humanitarian and ecclesiastical services.

The Fate of Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan

2011-12-28T05:03:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

A news report on television today spoke of the distinct possibility of Christians being expunged from Iraq and Afghanistan. A news article from 2010 detailed mass persecution of Christian in Iraq, including many violent attacks. This leaves me wondering precisely why we fought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we going to leave the Christians to their fate at the hands of the Muslims, despite our rhetoric of fighting the wars for the freedom of the Iraqi and Afghan people? Does that freedom only apply only to Muslims? Do we oppose Islamic attacks on the United States, but tolerate Islamic attacks on Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The fact is that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is at this time a secure country. The American military has withdrawn from Iraq, but do the Iraqi officials we left in control actually care about the freedom and security of all their people? And, if they do care, then are they truly capable of securing the freedom of Christians? If not, then why have we withdrawn when the stated job of the military has not been completed? No doubt it is considered politically incorrect today to wage war against Muslim forces in order to protect Christians. Yet, we waged a war to protect and free the people of Iraq and Afghanistan from tyrannical rule. Why are the Christians of those countries any less entitled to freedom and security than the Mohammedans? And why does the United States government seem unwilling to do anything tangible about it?

Whether anyone in the government wishes to admit it or not, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have at their heart the very issue of religion. There is on the one hand the Islamists carrying out the principles of their religion to seek world domination against every other religion, and this includes attacking the great bastion of religious freedom, the United States. And then there is the United States, along with the other allied nations, who have fought back. The War on Terrorism is inherently about religion, because at the root of that terrorism is the issue of religion. They cannot be separated. Attempting to separate them or attempting to explain the actions of terrorists and others from any basis other than that of the principles of Islam leads to nothing more than a skewed comprehension of the situation. This leads to inappropriate and ineffective action.

So, we are left with two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, which have supposedly been freed from oppression. Whether that has actually been accomplished in general is perhaps a matter of opinion. It is clear, however, that freedom from oppression, basic security, and respect of human dignity has not been accomplished for Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, is this why we asked our young men and women to deploy overseas? Is this why our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have died and suffered wounds? Without freedom and security for Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the victory is hollow, if it can even be called a victory. The task should be seen through all the way and finished properly or it should not have been undertaken at all.

On the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

2011-12-08T13:01:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Hail, full of grace, the Angel Gabriel saluted our Lady. She surely had to be in the fullest state of grace possible in order to be worthy to be that vessel by which our Lord was to be brought into the world. We each receive graces through the Sacraments and by other means that God has established, but only the Blessed Virgin was so endowed by God with grace that she was indeed full of grace. This state of grace began at her Immaculate Conception, defined infallibly as dogma by Pius IX. In order to be in this state of grace, it was necessary that she be preserved from original sin. And she was so preserved from the very instant of her conception. This was a singular event, a special exemption granted by God from universal law to Mary for the special purpose of bringing into the world our Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of all Mankind.

Neither could our Lord be born by the work of man, for man is in a fallen state. What good would it do for the vessel to be pure, only to be contaminated? This would not do as a worthy means for our Lord to be born into the world. If the purest golden cup receives even the most infinitesimal drop of poison, it is no longer worthy to hold wine, let alone the finest fruits of the vine. As Mary was pure, spotless, and white as snow, only the Holy Ghost could be upon her to make her conceive. And, for our Lord to be wholly man and wholly God, being of one substance with the Father, then if he was to be born of woman, he must be conceived of God, and specifically God the Holy Ghost, the Holy Paraclete. Considered in the reverse, as our Lord was wholly man and wholly God, being born of woman and conceived of the Holy Ghost, then only a woman pure and spotless, born immaculate, without the stain of Original Sin, would be fitting.

Mary is sometimes referred to as the Second Eve, for just as Eve was the vehicle by which loss came to the human race, Mary was the vehicle by which its Redemption would come. Just as Eve had a choice, Mary had a choice. Eve made the wrong choice, with all its negative consequences for the world. Mary, on the other hand, made the right choice. She accepted the work of the Holy Spirit and bore the Son of God, saying "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word." Her acceptance was essential for salvation, for without it Christ would not have come into the world. There would be no ministry of Christ, there would be no Passion, no Cross, and no Resurrection. However, Mary's acceptance of the weighty task was only one necessary factor. Our Lady was given the choice of accepting conception by the Holy Ghost because she had been made ready and acceptable for it through her Immaculate Conception. God gave the fallen world the gift of a special woman, full of grace, upon whose free will depended the salvation of mankind. As Eve lost paradise for all mankind, Mary brought back into the world the hope of salvation for all mankind.

Though we can never have the fullness of spiritual grace that Mary possesses, nevertheless we are all endowed by God individually with certain gifts and abilities. As was the choice our Lady faced, we also face the choice of accepting those gifts and using them for the glory of God or using them either not at all or for some ignoble purpose. This is the choice we each face in our daily spiritual struggle. The general life choices we make affect ourselves, of course, but as with Mary's choice, they may also affect others. Nowhere is this more evident than in the spiritual decisions we make. We may uphold the Catholic Faith, or we may choose not to. We may accept what God has has revealed to us, or we may reject his saving graces. The choice is ours. The consequences are not only ours, though. Whenever we stray into apostasy or even act weakly in our faith and morality, it makes it all the more difficult for those in our lives to maintain their faith and morality. Moral courage is so often absent in human beings because a lack of moral courage is so contagious. People would so often rather merely get along and serve worldly or selfish interests than uphold the Holy Truth and stand up for right and wrong. It is a constant battle against the ways of the world, for the path of God is rarely easy. The path of God, however, is the only way to true and everlasting happiness.

The Very Real Danger of Christian Persecution in America

2011-12-07T10:52:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Never in my life, until now, have I had concern that Christians could be persecuted in America for upholding Christian morality. Never, until now, have I had concern that Christians could suffer legal penalties or even be arrested in America for upholding the Christian Faith. Now the threat is real, and due in large part to government actions and policies, I have significant concern that we will see a steadily-increasing amount of persecution against Christians in America.

The time has come in America in which Christians and secularists are locked in a war. No longer is it live and let live, allowing each to follow his conscience and beliefs in an atmosphere of tolerance, but rather the secularists have made clear their agenda of destroying the authentic Christian Faith. Secularists have long since been attacking the fundamentals of natural law and Christian morality, but they have never made such progress at eroding the rights of Christians as they have in the recent period. Theirs was a process of gradually chipping away at the walls so that few, if anyone, would notice and stand up to it. The secularists have now managed to get many to turn from their faith towards secularism through this gradual process of eroding beliefs. They have even infiltrated the highest levels of the U.S. government. Now more and more of the government's policies and practices are not only against the basic principles of the Christian faith, but are also increasingly more directly hostile towards Christians. A new government-imposed morality is rapidly being forced upon Christians, who may be faced with the very real choice of going against the Faith or facing legal, social, or occupational consequences.

Now is the time for Christians to stand up for our rights, for if we do not, then soon it may be too late. We may see in America persecution against Christians as seen in communist China and under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Truly, if we do not defend our rights, we will surely lose them. The secularists are not resting and are working as actively as they can to dislodge religious freedom, substituting their own dogma for that of the Faith.

It is far easier to be complacent, and that is what the adversary is counting on. To stand up for that which is right in the face of a seemingly-overwhelming threat and refused to yield takes true courage, conviction, and faith. If we do not face this challenge now, then the armies of secularists will succeed in creating their form of utopia in which authentic practice of the Christian Faith will be virtually impossible. Americans must speak up for religious freedom, for moral truth, and for the laws of Christ while we still have the chance. Inaction will lead to defeat and usher in a period in which the Christian Faithful in America stand the real risk of being driven underground. Never forget that this is a war. Let us all adopt as our own the motto of my native State of Alabama, Audemus jura nostra defendere. We dare defend our rights.

Alabama knows how to handle immigration and the jobs crisis

2011-10-13T00:40:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Alabama's new law on illegal immigration has been the talk of the nation. The President has sought the law's demise and misguided religious liberals have pushed for it to be overturned, yet Alabamians are squarely behind the Governor on this issue. Now, I'm a native Alabamian. Most of my formative years were spent here, though most of my adult life thus far has been spent outside of the State. It would be easy to suggest, therefore, that I am biased towards the law, and that would be a true assumption. The opponents of the law claim that the illegals are coming over here seeking a better life, and that is likely true. But how can we allow that at the expense of others? How can we tolerate that to be done at the expense of the people in the State of Alabama who, especially in this time of great economic turmoil, are seeking a better life? As Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches us about charity, I realize we are called to help people, I realize we are unable to help everyone, and I realize that we should help those who are closest to us first.

Illegal aliens cost the people of Alabama around $300 million each year. This is a tremendous burden to be borne for those who come across the border in a manner that is against the law, work for money to send back to Mexico or wherever they are from, reap our benefits, and take jobs away from citizens and legal immigrants, get into automobile accidents without insurance, cause a rise in crime, and much, much more. Yes, they want a better life, but so do the people of Alabama.

And what has happened as a result of this immigration bill? Illegals have fled, or at least gone into hiding waiting to see if the President's efforts to foil the rights of Alabama to govern itself will succeed. Of course, the federal judge assigned to hear the case has largely sided with the Governor of Alabama.

The town of Albertville, which had an hispanic population of around 20%, had 35 students withdraw from school in one day. Shelby County, just south of Birmingham, had 20 students leave. (Read more here.) Illegals, even if they have gone into hiding, have left their jobs...which, again, they held illegally. What has happened as a result? Citizens and legal immigrants who were out of work now have jobs. At one fell swoop Alabama has made a significant step forward for dealing with the problems of illegal immigration and of unemployment. People who have been out of work for a long time, in some cases well over a year, are now able to have a real chance at employment...now that the practice of hiring illegal immigrants is illegal. So much for the theory that illegal immigrants do the jobs that the "rest of us" do not want to do. One need only look to the jobs done on Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs television program to see that plenty of even white multi-generation citizens will do the jobs that need to be done.

It is worth mentioning, though, that the 1982 Supreme Court ruling requires children of illegal immigrants to be educated. The goal of the Alabama law is not to force children of illegal immigrants out of schools or consign them to a permanent underclass status. The point of the law is to protect the sovereignty of Alabama and the rights of her people.

And what of the radical liberal Christians who say it is un-Christian to turn away the illegal immigrants? I ask, rather, is it Christian to demand that the people of Alabama (or of any State) bear the burden for those who have such little respect for the laws of the land that they enter the country illegally, take jobs that could have gone to a long-unemployed Alabamian, etc.? I say that it is not Christian for the people of Alabama to bear the burden of immigration. Just like the illegal immigrants, Alabamians are seeking a better life, perhaps now more than ever. We cannot sacrifice those closest to us and consider ourselves to have done our Christian duty to our people. We should at the same time welcome immigrants who have come here legally, and we should have reasonable programs for such immigration that provide the opportunity of immigration to as many as possible, but only as many as the United States or any particular State can handle. Immigrants ought not only receive benefits, but they ought to contribute to the country, to the State, and to their community. Immigration can be a great benefit to all people, if done correctly. Christian charity is for everyone, not just immigrants.

Alabama has set a model law for immigration reform and taking steps to solve unemployment problems. It is time for other States to adopt such laws.

Occupy Wall Street is a communist movement

2011-10-12T06:59:00.002+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The Occupy Wall Street is an unfortunate attempt at instilling socialist and communist ideals into the United States. These are ideals inconsistent with America and with the Church, yet Mr. Bloomberg has promised that the so-called occupiers can stay indefinitely, and the President of the US has embraced the movement. Many in the academic community, long known for its liberal and socialist leanings, have endorsed the movement.

Though it appears difficult to get a coherent statement from the "occupiers," there is a central theme of blaming the top 1% of income earners in America (represented by Wall Street) for the problems of the other 99%. All issues of their socialist agenda aside, the problem is that their movement is directed in the wrong location. Rather than blaming corporate America, it ought to blame the government. Decades of mismanagement, fiscal irresponsibility, entitlement programs gone out of control, bailout programs, and much more is far more to blame than anything the corporate sector has done. This does not absolve the corporate sector of any responsibility it may have, though, and corporate greed and moral atrophy have indeed contributed to the economic crisis. However, government programs made it far easier to act on this greed. The economic crisis is a joint responsibility. Yet, this responsibility is not only shared between the government and the corporate sector. Consumer society is also to blame. Society wants more and more and more. They want to finance something with a loan they cannot possibly pay back, and then corporate greed, through programs allowed by the government, make a loan. After this was done on a large scale, bank failure resulted. Handout and entitlement programs run by the government fueled consumer greed as well. Widespread greed, even likely among a lot of the very people occupying Wall Street now, led to the economic crisis. Yet, the "occupiers" want to blame everyone else but themselves.

Now, while again there does certainly exist corporate greed, and I have written on this issue extensively in my own pastoral and academic writings, that someone else has something you do not have is not justification for blaming them for your woes. That honest workers and honest executives go to work each morning and earn their money does not inherently make them evil. That someone has more money than you does not entitle you to a piece of it. What we have is a group of people who have such a sense of entitlement that they pitch a temper-tantrum when they do not get their way. Occupy Wall Street is nothing more than a giant temper-tantrum, and just like with a child who behaves that way, no one who values an orderly and decent Christian society can give into them.

One need only look to the writings of the Church Fathers to be reminded that the world's resources are not distributed evenly or fairly...and that those who have been blessed with large amounts of resources should use it not to fuel greed, but for good. Yes, those who have large amounts of money are bound by the Laws of Christ to provide in some way for the sustenance of the poor. That does not mean, however, that the government should tax and tax the so-called rich for the purpose of giving it to others. Aside from the government's proven irresponsibility with money, providing for the sustenance of the poor does not mean redistribution of wealth - Simple redistribution of wealth, such as in entitlement programs, does not provide real help for the poor. Rather, it provides incentives for the poor to remain on such entitlement programs. The entitlement programs and hand-out programs provide a disincentive to work. Worse than that, it has the potential to create generations of "government zombies," or those who are completely dependent on the government. This is not freedom.

Providing for the sustenance of the poor means giving what you realistically can to those who are truly in need. It does not mean providing welfare with incentives that make it attractive as a way of life. It does not mean encouraging people to live off the hard-earned money of others. It does not mean giving false help, i.e., help that appears to be nice and makes the giver look generous, but in reality does no good for the person in need or for society. Remember the old maxim: give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and feed him for a lifetime. Unfortunately, the socialists camping out on Wall Street for so long without bathing, urinating and defecating on the streets, and behaving generally in a barbarian fashion want this redistribution of wealth. They want Wall Street to open its coffers and give to those who want it. They want to use their presence to force a major change...though they do not seem completely sure at all of what this change ought to be. This is not freedom. This is an attempt at mob rule, and that is how a communist revolution starts.

What is needed is real jobs reform. The government needs real policies to stimulate real jobs, and these policies largely involve the government staying out of the business of micromanaging business. The government's job is to create an environment in which business can thrive. Education also must mean something again. Rather than selling overpriced college degrees to those who do not really need them and likely will not be able to repay their student loans, high school ought to once again provide skills needed to have a decent job and a decent life.

Unemployment numbers reported now mean very little. Consult Crossing Wall Street, and you'll be reminded that a corporate executive who is now working at McDonald's does not really count. He is employed at a much lower level, even though he is technically employed. In situations like the nation is in now, it is easy for the unemployment level to be manipulated into showing economic growth that simply is not there.

One thing that will help is to lower taxes, not raise them. Never has an increase in taxes resulted in more jobs. It is the very corporations that the "occupiers" are railing against that provide jobs. Corporations with money can hire people. People with money can buy consumer goods. Ironically, it is the top 1%, the so-called "villains" in the uninformed minds of the occupiers, who pay for a lot of the entitlement and hand-out programs.

What is most disturbing, though, is that this Occupy Wall Street movement is spreading. Not only is the same basic event spreading to other cities, the idea of occupation and using mob rule to influence policy is spreading to other aspects of society. One theology professor even suggests that Catholics ought to stage something akin to Occupy Wall Street in order to affect whatever change they want in the Church. Mob rule is not freedom. Mob rule is not an orderly society. Mob rule is chaos.

This whole event reminds me of a much larger scale version of protests I saw in China. It reminds me of the writing of Mao Tse Tung, in which he openly promoted class warfare and mob uprisings. This, of course, resulted in the communist take-over of China that persists to this day. In fact, the Occupy Wall Street movement is aimed as inciting class warfare. Some have explicitly promoted this. No freedom-loving Christian can tolerate that in America.

Greed never leads anywhere good, but neither do uncivilized attempts at mob rule. God is order. All that is opposed to order is opposed to God.

Catholics targeted again by Obamacare

2011-09-28T00:45:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Catholics are under fire again. Obamacare, a program that supposedly will make health care affordable for all (or at least most), comes with a high cost. That cost is to the conscience, to religious freedom, and indeed to the individual freedom held so dear by Americans. At the heart of the debate now is the issue of coverage for prescription contraceptives and sterilization procedures. In this health care plan, a good number of companies and individuals (through their premiums) will effectively be funding programs of which they object. Catholic hospitals, universities, and other institutions, for example, would be forced to choose between dropping health care for their employees or paying for procedures they find morally objectionable. This was detailed in a recent article regarding a statement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

What is most troubling to me in this recent episode is not even that there are aspects of Obamacare that run contrary to historic Church teaching, for we expect that the ways of the world often will run contrary to the Church. Rather, what is most troubling is that the exemption from certain provisions of Obamacare is so narrowly defined that, as the USCCB stated, not even Jesus would qualify.

The provision for exemption is only available to a religious organization, and organizations are deemed not to be religious if they meet the following criteria: (1) It serves those who are not already members of the church, (2) it fails to hire based on religion, or (3) it does not restrict its charitable and missionary purposes to the inculcation of religious values. Unfortunately this tends not to apply to any branch of the Catholic Church. Any church that seeks to follow the model of Christ violates Number 1, as our duty is to help all people, whether they are members of the Church or not. Number 2 is often violated when people are hired based on skill set rather than adherence to a particular religious creed. Similar to Number 1, Number 3 is violated when the Church does more than proselytize, seeking to make people's lives better, e.g., disaster relief in Haiti, disaster relief after other natural disasters, and inner city youth programs to teach life skills. Do any of these things, and it appears that your church is not eligible for the religious exemption under Obamacare. I agree with the USCCB statement that not even Jesus would qualify, for his ministry was to help all people. So was the ministry of the early Church, and so is the ministry of the Church today.

Some might say that this is a non-issue, given that surveys show a large number of Catholics do not agree with or follow the proscriptions against artificial contraception. I submit that this is not the real issue here. The issue is one of religious and individual freedom and of Church sovereignty. Obamacare as it stands now appears to be forcing a large number of people to go against their conscience, with exceptions available only in situations that generally occur only when they are not living up to their duty as Christians. It's a Catch 22.

What is important to note here is that if the government can do this on such a widespread scale on this one particular issue, it sets a precedent for further discrimination against and persecution of Christians. Christians are being marginalized in our increasingly secular society. Most every group of society has more rights and protections today than Christians. Most every group of society today has more right to object based on conscience, more right to say what they believe, and more right to live their lives according to their beliefs than Christians.

This outcome was predictable. As more and more immoral activities were brought into the mainstream, the voice of dissent became the Christians...and most especially true Catholics, as many Christian denominations have gone the way of the world. The Catholic Faith stands in opposition to much of what American society is currently doing. It is no surprise that society wishes Catholicism suppressed or at least rendered less effective in influencing society morality and actions.

This is the real reason why this current fight against Obamacare is so important. It's not a political matter as some try to suggest. It is simply a matter of faith. It is a matter of upholding the Faith, even against attacks. It is a matter of doing one's duty as a Christian. The price of failure will be the souls of many who are lost due to the suppression of religion by the government. We must never give up or yield one inch to the forces of darkness in the world today.

Disturbing Trend in American Religion

2011-09-14T00:21:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

A recent article that I read underscores a serious problem in American religion. The article, entitled "More Americans tailoring religion to fit their needs," discusses the growing trend of Americans simultaneously claiming they believe in Jesus and accept the Bible, but do not accept the Church. Rather, they make up whatever they want as a religion. According to the article, many of those who do not attend so-called "regular church" say it is because of the clergy and the churches themselves. For example, they lament that a priest says "say this prayer," but then it does not work for them, they get burned out and discouraged, and then leave to do whatever makes them feel better. This is all a most unfortunate turn of events. They simply have it wrong. And, they are giving up too easily.

When someone tries a prayer and then says "oh, it didn't work, so the prayer and the church must be flawed," they make one very large error. That error is the one of expecting that prayers will be answered exactly as we want or expect, rather than how we need, and in our time rather than in God's time. We see ourselves too much as mere individuals rather than as part of a much greater plan that knows neither time nor space. The other problem with this attitude, though, is just that: attitude. Someone who goes into prayer with a half-hearted "I'll try this, but if it doesn't work now, I'm leaving" approach is not so likely to be successful. It is a wrong attitude. It is a selfish attitude. One must approach God with true humility of heart, and that takes time and effort to develop and continued work to maintain. And when you quit trying in favor of an alternative that simply makes you feel better or gives you an emotional high, you are doing nothing more than selfishly looking for an easy way to achieve a solution. That is the sin of pride. The trouble is that it is no solution at all. It has the veneer of a solution, but underneath is spiritually empty.

So, instead of sticking with the faith given to the Apostles and handed down to us, this article discusses how many are going it alone, making up their own version of Christianity. The trouble is that one cannot simultaneously claim to accept Jesus and the Bible while rejecting the Christian Faith and the Church. The Church was founded by Christ. Acceptance of one necessitates the acceptance of the other. Without both, one cannot call one's self a Christian. These pseudo-Christians are self-deluding themselves into thinking that they have the Christian Faith. The worse thing is that these days the trend is contagious. As the trend grows, more and more people are encouraged to go this harmful route. The Church herself need not be worried about her own survival, for she will survive, even if reduced to a handful. The Church is and should be worried about the souls of those who are going astray.

Those who are tempted to make up their own version of Christianity need to come back into the Church and try again. They need to evaluate the attitude with which they approach God. They need not to quit because things are not, in their opinion, perfect. And, the clergy need not be blamed for their imperfections and used as a justification for this disturbing trend of self-customized Christianity. The clergy, though called to service by God, are not perfect. The clergy have a special role of pastoral leadership. Yet, that does not mean that the members of the clergy do not have character flaws, just like everyone else. To refuse to listen to the clergy simply because of their flaws is another manifestation of the sin of pride, for we indeed all are sinners. Look at the men and women God has chosen to lead his Church and work great miracles. They include men of ill temper, a murderer, a womanizer, and even one man who was already dead. It has been said that if God created the darkness, then it was so that we can better see the light. So too with the leaders of the universal church. If the clergy and the Saints throughout history have had personal imperfections and character flaws, it is so that we all may better see the light of life and the truth that they preach. May all mankind see this light and return to the flock of Christ.

The United States is, was, and always must be a Christian nation

2011-08-22T10:30:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

In recent time, and particularly with the socialist ideals being pushed on America at the moment, it has become popular to suggest that the United States of America is a secular nation. Yet, this is not true. One need only look to the National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, to see this. Not the first verse with which we all are (or should be) familiar, but the fourth verse. Here it is:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Yes, there it is. America is indeed a Christian nation. We are not a secular nation, and we are certainly not a Muslim nation. America is one of the great societies in the world's history, and perhaps the only one today that stands for the Christian Faith against the evil tyrannies of the world. Let all Americans stand up proudly and reaffirm that the United States is, was, and always shall be a Christian nation.

Entitlements and the London Riots

2011-08-10T00:01:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The London riots continue to rage on as scenes of fires in the city on the Thames are shown in the media. The riots are said to be about proposed cuts in entitlements programs in the UK, such as health care. So, in order to protest this, they go around harming the very same innocent people who pay the taxes that support their entitlements. They're biting the hand that feeds them, so to speak. More than that, they are allowing their anger over not getting what they believe they should get from other people to turn into violent aggression. It rather reminds me of the poor, misguided souls who bomb abortion clinics to stop abortion, thereby committing murder, the very act they claimed to be against. This outcome is what logically follows from long-term entitlement programs, though the London case is perhaps a bit more dramatic than I hope will be seen elsewhere. Various demonstrations against proposed entitlement cuts in the US, for example, have thankfully thus far remained non-violent.

While a society has a moral obligation to tend to the poor, Christian duty applies to helping those who really need it and, when help is given, that help should be real help. Real help is something that facilitates a person's well-being and growth. As the saying goes, teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for a lifetime. Entitlement programs, on the other hand, are largely hand-outs from the government and create incentives not to work and contribute. Those who truly could be productive members of society but choose not to be, instead living off of welfare programs of socialist governments are selfishly committing the sin of pride as they live off the sweat of others. The more they stay on the entitlement programs, the more they feel entitled. It becomes a way of life. Now try to reduce or take away those entitlements to prevent the nation as a whole from going under. Ask those on entitlements to share in the financial woes everyone else is facing. Not surprisingly, as they feel the entitlements are, well, their entitlement, they act out as if their sacred rights are being violated.

It is no surprise that socialist European and British governments are finding that their social programs could not last forever. The problem is that they created a monster in the process, and that's the vast army of people now fully convinced that they are entitled to government payouts and social programs. Another problem is that socialism tends at the same time to suppress religion, thereby removing any sense of Christian obligation to society from those on entitlements.

And the United States is not far behind Europe in this regard. As the recent debt debate showed, America also cannot continue to spend like it is spending. Entitlements were at the heart of the debate, and both sides, but especially the socialist Democrats, were in the end unwilling to take the lollipop away. Entitlements were essentially left untouched. The politicians know that cutting benefits from those receiving them, even if they shouldn't be receiving them, is likely to have a negative impact on their chances of getting re-elected. So, instead of doing the ethical thing, they do the politically expedient thing. The people have figured out that they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury, so now the elections go to those who promise the most to the most. The trouble is that this is not a sustainable position. We are seeing the fruits of the seeds that were planted in the 1930s.

The London rioters' behavior, as completely unacceptable as it is, nevertheless is not surprising. It is the fruit of what socialism planted. The rioters are behaving like spoiled children, and really that is what anyone who is hooked on entitlements is: a spoiled child. It is time for a new generation of truly ethical statesmen in both America and Europe to take back society from the socialists and rebuild under Christ's Holy Cross all that had made our societies great.

Saint Alphonsus Liguori and Redemption

2011-08-02T22:50:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

SAINT Alphonsus Liguori, well-known as the founder of the Redemptorists, and also as a Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church, is a shining example to all in the clergy. A nobleman, Saint Alphonsus had a successful secular career as lawyer before dedicating himself completely to the service of God through the Church. He turned down two advantageous arrangements of marriage made by his father to remain celibate for the Roman Rite priesthood. His family was a bit put out at his decision to be a priest. Yet, he followed the calling of God anyway. It reminds me of a Roman Catholic bishop I know who told me once that the only time he ever saw his father cry was when he announced he was going to become a priest.

As a priest, Saint Alphonsus, of course, founded the Redemptorists. He also was made, against his wishes, a Bishop. His order and his own work were dedicated to the poor and ignorant. For his work he was much maligned by those within and without the Church. Yet, he labored on doing his duty to God and to the Church, helping the poor and working for the redemption of those he encountered and, through his writings, of those of future generations. If he had allowed himself to be bullied into giving up or modifying his work, think of those who would likely not have found redemption through Christ.

If a priest is doing his job, we know that he will be maligned. Perhaps it will not happen as much as to Saint Alphonsus or to Saint Ignatius, whose feast we celebrated two days earlier, but it will happen. People will try to claim a priest is teaching falsehoods when he is professing the truth of the Catholic Faith. People will try to badger a priest into giving up his vocation, his obligations, his duties, and his work all in the name of "getting along," or "getting ahead," or other worldly platitudes. The world rejects that which is not of the world. The degree to which this happens to a priest depends on the environment he is in and what he is doing. Even within a purely religious setting, human nature leads to jealousy, politics, and other problems that cause internal turmoil within the Church. The specific problems a priest faces are ultimately individual, but the point is that a priest doing his job necessarily will face opposition.

It is so very important for priests to understand this and take solace in the life and work of Saint Alphonsus and others like him. Priests, and especially Bishops must not abdicate even a modicum of their responsibility simply for personal comfort, worldly security, to "get long," or even to keep people in the pews. The latter sounds perhaps counter-intuitive, but it is true all the same. Priests cannot water down the Faith simply to keep the stubborn in the pews. If the will of the parishioner is so great as to refuse to accept the Catholic Faith, then they will effectively excommunicate themselves. A priest cannot give in to such intimidation and must maintain the Faith for the spiritual good of both the entirety of their parishioners and for the redemption of the stubborn parishioners who choose to leave. You do no one any good by watering down the doctrine simply to keep more people in the pews.

The world, furthermore, will try to tempt priests into giving up their solemn pledge to God and joining the ways of the world. Yet, priests, as servants of the Kingdom of God, are in this world, but not of this world. Especially in the secular society we live in today, this becomes all the more difficult. Yet, we must persevere. If we do not, then how many souls might be lost? Even the mere sight of a priest in his clerical collar or cassock out in public might turn people to God or cause people to examine their own conscience more than they otherwise would. The more the Church is allowed to be suppressed and allows itself to be suppressed in society in general, the more difficult it will become for people to attain to everlasting life. Christianity is a constant struggle, not a panacea to soothe and affirm with weekly emotional highs. Christianity is a process of true conversion of heart, of warfare against darkness, and of self-sacrifice as we deny ourselves and take up our own cross and give ourselves completely and entirely to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Illegal Immigration in America

2011-07-30T10:02:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

There is no denying the illegal immigration problem in America today. The US government certainly does not make it easy to enter the country legally. With few exceptions, the process is lengthy and involves a bit of luck, as there are lotteries run by the government for green card issuance. Also, that people want to come to America is no surprise. It is a country blessed with abundance of natural resources and opportunity. And, people do indeed enter legally each year, many of them becoming proud new American citizens. Some of our greatest Americans have been immigrants. However, many enter illegally each year as well. This not only causes an array of problems for the country, it has sparked an intense debate.

A country so blessed as America has an obligation to help others, just as wealthy people have an extra obligation to help the poor. And, as the record shows, America is perhaps the most generous nation in history in terms of financial and other assistance given to other countries. However, there is no obligation to bankrupt the country to help others, for then the nation not only loses its ability to help other nations, but its ability to take care of its own people. Following Saint Thomas Aquinas, the American government has an obligation to see to the needs of its own people first. So, just how far should the American government go in permitting immigrants currently considered illegal to enter openly, and what are the ethics relating to illegal immigrants themselves?

First, there is the category of immigrant that is really a refugee from some horrible set of conditions or circumstances. We do have, as much as we are able, an obligation to help those who are legitimately refugees. It would also be irresponsible for us knowingly to send back persons to another nation where we know they will face persecution, torture, execution, etc. These are not the immigrants I am discussing. Rather, I am discussing those who do not come from such conditions, but seek to enter the United States for the understandable goal of a better life.

Legal issues aside, illegal immigrants create a tremendous burden on the infrastructure. While in small numbers it might not be so bad, in the large numbers we are seeing, the burden is great. It has been argued that some pay taxes. While that is true, this applies only to those with illegitimate documents used to get into the tax system and work openly, or to those who entered legally on a work visa and stayed after the visa expired. Many are paid under the table and send most of their money back to their home country. Yet, they reap the benefits of the nation in terms of medical care, schooling for their children, and more. The payment burden falls to the citizens, permanent residents, and those here legally on work visas. Furthermore, the mere presence of too many people taxes the system greatly, removing opportunities for those here legally, increasing financial burden, and generally causing strain. For example, a town in New England took in thousands of Somali refugees (who came legally) some years ago, but eventually had to say that they could take no more. While they were bullied in the press for this, they simply did not have the resources to continue taking care of more and more people. It is too much growth too fast.

Another argument that is made is that the illegals do the jobs the rest of us do not want to do. Anyone who has seen Mike Rowe's television show, "Dirty Jobs," knows that there are plenty of hard-working Americans who are willing to do jobs most people find disgusting. The massive influx of illegals are paid less by greedy corporations who would rather have the jobs done for less by an illegal. That might make the cost to the corporation lower, and it might even make the retail price on the shelf lower, but it comes at a great cost in terms of lost jobs and the unemployment burden that causes, as well as the strain to infrastructure caused by the massive presence of illegals. As our recent financial crisis shows, the nation simply cannot continue paying out entitlements and giving handouts at such a massive rate if it is to survive financially. The government has a moral obligation to its people, as well as to the people who immigrate here, to be financially responsible. This involves not allowing illegal immigrants to contribute to bankrupting the nation.

And what of the ethics of the illegals themselves? If they are simply leaving their country and coming here for a better life, that is understandable. However, there is a process set up for this to help ensure that the US takes in only as many people as it can handle. Those we are discussing who choose to enter illegally have chosen to violate the laws of another country in order to get more money or have more opportunities. This reasonably can be considered the sin of pride and is highly unethical. They seem to think nothing of asking the citizenry of another country (which they have entered illegally) to give them benefits, even if it means that hospitals have to close down because of the unpaid overload, schools have problems as a result, and so on. It is selfish and dishonest. Coveting their neighbors goods, they conspire to take what they want anyway when it is denied them. There is a process in place to help ensure that there will be an America capable of providing the wealth of opportunities that it does now for the future generations of current citizens and immigrants.

This no doubt seems harsh to the liberals and socialists in America, and even to many Christians. However, help must be rendered to the poor and less fortunate in a rational manner. There is a obligation of Christian duty to render humanitarian assistance to all, even illegal immigrants, but it should be notes that this refers to humanitarian concerns, not ongoing use of facilities. We in the United States have an obligation to help others, but must do so in a responsible way that allows our nation to continue to flourish and continue to be able to help people.

Misperceptions of Catholicism

2011-07-28T01:48:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Only a few people likely truly hate Catholicism, but there are many who hate what they perceive to be Catholicism. Centuries of misinformation inside and outside the Church have left Catholics and especially non-Catholics wondering just what is Catholicism. Even many Anglo-Catholics remain confused, preferring to focus on their differences, real or perceived, from the Roman Church. Misperceptions cause and perpetuate so many divisions within the Church.

The anti-catholics might even be Catholics themselves if they would get over their stubbornness and make a sincere effort to understand just what is Catholicism. Their pride is usually too strong, though, and this pride is ultimately an admission of the weakness of their beliefs. They cannot risk any challenge to their position, for they know in a fair competition their position will not stand.

Eventually, though, some who were even vehemently anti-catholic experience a true conversion of heart. God opens their mind, and they see that logic points to only one thing, and that is Catholicism.

Bible Rejection in the Modern Era

2011-07-18T07:11:00.006+09:00

A.M.D.G.

A recent article in the Huffington Post by Jeffrey Small, author of the Breath of God, captures many of the modernist errors of today regarding the Bible and the Faith. I cannot say his position and its many errors are entirely his fault, though. The Church has gotten progressively weaker and weaker for a variety of reasons, allowing the Faith as it is presented to be watered down so much that people become complacent in their own faith and indeed do not even know their own faith well. This leads to erroneous conclusions such as those drawn in the aforementioned article, which I shall discuss in more detail later.

Now, the author's conclusions may perhaps, though not necessarily be formed through excellent logic, and the article as written certainly appears not be the product of overt anti-religious sentiment or propaganda as such. Yet, even flawless logic applied to an incorrect set of data or assumptions will nevertheless yield an erroneous result. The starting point always matters. If you throw a dart perfectly straight, but you are not positioned correctly in front of the dartboard, you will miss. If you see only part of an object, you are possibly likely to deduce its purpose incorrectly. Data and assumptions always matter.

As to the arguments Mr. Small makes, they begin with an assertion that the Bible ought to be treated as mythology. In fact, he suggests that he got even more out of the Bible reading it that was than when he read it "literally" as a child from a more stringent religious perspective. Yet, we know that the Bible is not to be read literally, but must be correctly interpreted. (See Saint Augustine’s discourse on Biblical interpretation.) The author continues with a series of points as to why scholars tend to reject the Bible as historical or literal. I will now address these individually in brief.

1. In his first argument, the author states that science and technology make the Bible largely unbelievable. He cited that the Bible claims the earth is 6000 years old, while physics says it is 13.7 billion years ago. These are flawed arguments ab initio, as they assume science and religion are incompatible or separate, or that religion is correct only in so far as it does not come into conflict with our present understanding of science. The numbers in the Bible need not be taken literally. When the creation of the world was taking place, it was said in Genesis that certain things were created on certain days. How long is a "day" in the context of the Supreme Being who created the vastness of the universe? How long is a "year"? The writings of the early Hebrew people further need not be taken absolutely literally in our understanding of the language, and they cannot be. Observe how much time and experience separates us from them. Our understanding of the world is vastly different from theirs, but it does not at all change the fact that we are talking about precisely the same great act: God's creation of the world.

Refer to Cardinal Newman's writings on the interrelationship between science and religion. Theology is the queen of all sciences, and all other sciences therefore must in some way agree with theology. The statement that science makes it difficult to believe the tenets of the faith is arrogant in the extreme in that it assumes that we can know all. Are we so convinced that our science today completely explains everything, and that therefore the Bible is wrong and not to be listened to? Perhaps most people today are indeed so convinced. However, even science has evolved. Science has even proven that its own understanding of the world previously was wrong or at least incomplete. Yet, the Bible, properly interpreted (again, see Saint Augustine), has never been proven to be wrong or incompatible with science. Science is nothing more than the explanation of God's world and the way he made it to work given in human terms.

2. The author claims that the Bible contains many "impossible" feats. The author states, "[many] of the stories are also scientifically impossible, like the tale of Joshua stopping the sun moving across the sky. This story assumes (as was the thinking then) that the earth was flat and was at the center of the universe." There are two points worth mentioning. One is that the events in the Bible, again, must be interpreted properly and according to the context and experiences of the people writing them. Two people separated by thousands of years may explain the same event completely differently. The second point is that the Faith is indeed based on accepting that God can do as he wishes and is not bound by the laws of physics. Does physics permit the resurrection of the dead? Yet, Christ did it. Does physics permit an immaculate conception? Yet, God did this for Mary. Does physics permit a virgin birth? Yet, it happened. If you say you do not believe any of these occurrences because of science, then you are no longer a Christian and you have chosen to follow a "religion of science". It ultimately is a matter of faith. We must believe that there are things that we cannot understand, yet believe them anyway. The belief that we can understand everything is arrogant and impossible. The belief that we should only believe those things that we can understand demonstrates a weak faith rather than the child-like faith that Christ wants us all to have.

3. The author of the article claims in his third point that there are explanations for many of the Biblical divine events. Yes, indeed there are. Physics may have an excellent potential explanation for the parting of the Red Sea, for example, but that nevertheless does not prove that God did not do it. It merely offers an explanation as to the physical means by which it was done. In fact, such explanations serve merely to prove that certain events in the Bible did indeed happen, hopefully strengthening the faith of those who needed, like Thomas, more proof.

4. The author claims the Bible draws from "other myths." He states "...[the] Epic of Gilgamesh -- Sumerian poem detailing the creation of the universe that predates the writings of Genesis by many centuries -- contains a flood story whose plot points are almost identical to the story of Noah. " Does this mean that the Bible account of the flood was incorrect? If the Sumerians were present at the flood, which covered the entire earth, then it stands to reason that they would also write about it. Here the author is merely trying to see what he wants to see. If physics and chemistry both explain the same natural phenomenon, does that mean that chemistry is wrong because it is talking about something in physics? Of course not.

5. The author, discussing that other religions have myths and miracles, states "On what basis can we Christians claim that our miracle stories are legitimate, yet theirs are flights of fancy?" Here again, it comes down to a matter of faith. If you seek hard proof, then I pray one day that you will receive a miraculous conversion of heart like Paul on the road to Damascus. Here also it is worth referring again to the writings of Cardinal Newman on the proof of God's existence. However, those who wish to doubt will nevertheless continue to doubt.

6. The author bemoans the Biblical inconsistencies. Here again, it is a matter of understanding the Bible in its proper context and interpreting it properly. This underscores the importance of Sacred Tradition. The knowledge of the Bible has evolved as humans have evolved.

7. The author states: "Reading the Bible as a literal historical account of events from the past limits the power of these stories. Rather than expressing universal truths, a literal interpretation limits the actions of God to certain events in history. God's actions in the world become finite, confined to certain historical events: like the chess master making individual moves on a chessboard frozen in time two thousand years ago. Reading these same stories mythologically, however, can bring forth their universal qualities." Here he might be said to make somewhat of a rational point overall in terms of the universal qualities of the Bible. Yet, his argument is flawed. The Bible indeed is not a work confined in meaning to one time and place. It is universal. Its difficulty comes from the fact it was written by people through Divine inspiration in one particular time. Yet, the meaning of everything contained in the Bible is for everyone everywhere and at all times. This is, again, where the interpretation becomes so important. And, it is up to the Church to determine this, not science or "scholars." The answer is not to downgrade the Bible to a collection of myths. If you do so, then you can no longer claim Christianity as your religion.

8. The author claims that the "...literal reading of the Bible alienates much of our society." It claims that the Bible is discriminatory. This is perhaps the most offensive accusation of this article. Christ came for everyone. Christianity is very much inclusive. Christianity is for everyone. In fact, in the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church, we have adopted a slogan that makes this point clear, i.e., "The Church for Everyone." (TM) Yet, welcoming everyone does not mean that we should change the tenets of the Faith. We do not alter the Divine Truth to suit the ever-changing whims of society. To do so would be the sin of modernism, as condemned by Pope St. Pius X, among many others of the Church’s leadership over the years. It would be to allow the Faith to be governed by the ways of the world rather than by the ways of God.

The author claims this alleged “discriminatory nature” of the Bible exists because the Bible was written "...an age in which slavery was legitimate, an age when discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation was the norm." I will address these five accusations one at a time. First, it is true that slavery was the norm at the time. However, Christ came to free all men. Slavery itself is not a part of Christianity or a divine precept, except that we, especially in the clergy, should be slaves to Christ. Therefore, that slavery exists in historical context in the Bible and in the history of the Church is irrelevant. This was a societal aspect being discussed, not a religious tenet. The Church today is very clear that slavery is not consistent with Christianity.

Second is the accusation of so-called gender bias. Nowhere in the tenets of Christianity does it state that there may be or should be discrimination or abuse of women. Yet, the Faith has a clear order of nature. This has been upheld as a theological truism for more than 2000 years. Men have their role in the Church and family, and women have theirs. Unfortunately the modern feminist society claims that Catholicism is biased because it refuses to permit the ordination of women. They have been successful in forcing ordination in the Episcopal Church, for example, and most if not all mainline protestant denominations also ordain women. This is another example of modern society's social viewpoints being used to claim the Church is wrong and demand change. That the Church upholds her principles does not make her biased. The Church simply states that each person was created special and for a special purpose. We each have our role and should fulfill. Upholding the Faith over modern social viewpoints is simply not gender discrimination. It is being a good and faithful Christian. It is better to be right in the eyes of God than to follow the ways of the world, even though society may condemn you for it.

Third and fourth are the accusations pertaining to race and ethnicity. It is quite absurd. Christ, once again, came for everyone, regardless of race or ethnic background. The Catholic Church is just that...Catholic. Universal. For everyone.

Lastly is the argument regarding sexual orientation. Homosexuals are welcome in the Church. Yet, we will not and cannot say that homosexuality is acceptable. Sinners are welcome in the Church in general, for we are all sinners. We do not claim that the sin is acceptable, though. We are here to save souls, not pander to the myriad of social movements over the years. We do not approve of or advocate abuse of sinners. We seek their conversion. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.

In conclusion, the author of the referenced article, Jeffrey Small, claims in effect that the Church must get with the times in order to survive and be relevant. O Jeffrey of Small Faith! So long as there is even one person in the Church, the Church will continue. The Church does not need to adopt every perversion as acceptable in order to survive. We know that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. We know that there will be many attempts by the world to change and destroy the Church, even from within, for the world hates the Church, as the Church is not of this world. Yet, the Church will survive. The Church has always survived. One should not advocate watering down the Sacred Truth of the Christian Faith, or relegating it to mere mythology like that of the Pagan Greeks. One harms the souls of many through doing this. And, remember that a flawed data set or flawed set of assumptions will lead to wrong conclusions, no matter how good the logic. We have 2000 years of the collective wisdom of the Church on our side, which thoroughly embraces the totality of true science. Those who embraced the modernist theories against the Church have only what is in the present. Their approach lacks any foundation to make a real argument.

Want to know more? Read Card. Johnson's book An Incidental Priest. Click here to find out about it.

The World Turned Upside Down

2011-07-01T12:18:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The World Turned Upside Down is the title of a tune popular in the Revolutionary period in America. It seems equally applicable to the present time.

In the wake of the New York decision to legalize gay marriage and the Church's vigorous opposition to it, a recent article in the Huffington Post by college professor Lee Jefferson sought to detail what the Bible "actually says." Unfortunately Jefferson adopts the approach of claiming that the Bible is just a bunch of stories and was written long ago, so therefore has no relevance today. He specifically says "Simply put, the Bible is a complicated collection of documents that was never meant to "speak" to our contemporary situation, but groups often speak through the lens of the Bible and lob textual grenades on issues like same-sex marriage." Ironically, while criticizing the opponents of gay marriage for citing the Bible as a source, he falls into the trap of prooftexting to further his own point. In fact, much of what he says actually proves the point of opponents of gay marriage. Scripture must be taken in the context of the entirety of Scripture, as well as the tradition in which it was written. Doctrine is the interpretation of the Scripture. The Doctrine regarding homosexuality is well-established and has been quite consistent throughout the history of the Church. It is well grounded in Scripture. It applies equally to the issue of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is, by the Doctrine of the Church, thoroughly in conflict with Christian Doctrine, as well as the Scripture from which it is drawn. Anyone with even the slightest bit of proper catechesis should know this.

Now, add to this the stunning plans of California to include so-called "gay history" in school textbooks. Does any decent Christian person want his child writing a term paper on the struggle of homosexuals to mainstream their deviant behavior?

Further add to this a government that largely seems determined to make decisions that at best are a bandage for a major problem while doing nothing substantial to end the economic crisis. The government has long past the point where its primary goal is to serve itself. The President and his wife seem to be taking quite a number of trips of questionable need in this time of financial trouble, despite the cost to the government. People are suffering in the country, and the government pays it lip service. This is not, of course, a political statement, but one of ethics and the moral duty of a government towards its people.

The world certainly seems upside down at the moment. Let us all pray for a return to a Christ-centered life in America.

Belief Statements Demonstrate a Weak Position

2011-06-27T02:12:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

On this Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi, we continue to celebrate in a special way our true and living Lord, ever present in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Indeed, the Sacred Scripture is alive because Jesus himself is the Word. It is a living thing to be for all people in all places and at all times, for God is omnipresent. As the Word is alive, so too must be its accompanying doctrine, the means by which we as humans comprehend the Word. The vastness of God and all his mysteries are far too great for humans to comprehend, and so our understanding evolves and our doctrine develops. Legitimate, true developments are evolutionary, not revolutionary. They are built upon the same foundation, as a skyscraper has one floor built upon another, carrying it ever higher. If a skyscraper has a floor built off all the floors beneath it, the building becomes unstable and may fall. Such a floor would not represent a development of the building's construction or a continuation of the architect's original plans, but rather a perversion of the course of development and a corruption of the original plans. Similarly, with doctrine, all developments in doctrine must build on all of that which came before it and remain true to the original spirit and intent of what was revealed by the Author of Life. This is the Catholic way. This is the way of strength. Doctrine built upon a firm foundation and upon all that came before it is strong and prepared to weather any storm. It need not vociferously proclaim who and what she is any, for the constancy of ideas and ideals over more than two thousand years have made it plain to all.

Those who wish to modify the course of religion, however, must make changes that pervert the natural course of development of doctrine. This is inherently unstable, and what one believes and professes is not inherently obvious to all, for it is not simply new, but in a completely different direction than the natural course of doctrinal development. To do this, therefore, requires a clear statement of how this new sect is different. These must be adhered to vigorously in order to overcome the instability, for it is only these new principles that have no strong foundation that hold the group together. And for what purpose are they different? They are different from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are a tangent or even a reversal of Church development, and their statements of belief indicate just how they are different. This is the way of the Protestants and schismatics.

We need only look to the Anglican Articles of Religion that, while they maintain many historic Christian principles, continue further to reject many of the developments of doctrine over the years. This is how the Protestant factions within the Anglican Church sought to set themselves apart from Catholicism, such as removing the veneration of the Saints, much to the continuing angst of the Anglo-Catholics to the present day. An Anglo-Catholic needs only the historic Creeds and the totality of Church doctrine to know what his religion is. He does not need a conference or a convention to formulate "what we believe and how we are different," because he knows he is not different and the totality of Catholic thought and doctrine is well-established. The Reformers needed these Articles, however, to impress upon others just how different they were from Catholics and attempt to force their corruption of the development of doctrine on all within the Anglican Church. Their position is weak, of course. They depend upon these Articles to hold them together. When someone disagrees with them, then a new schism forms, and another, and another, and so on ad infinitum. This is one aspect of the cause of the alphabet soup of so many Anglican jurisdictions today, each with their own statements of belief and practices.

Indeed, one need only scan the wide array of "continuing Anglican" jurisdictions, not to mention the seemingly endless assortment of Protestant denominations to find an equally vast number of differing statements of belief and practice. Methodists have them. Presbyterians have them. The countless Baptist churches all have them. It is the Protestant way. This is how they set themselves apart. In their view, a person need only find the church that has a belief statement with which they agree and set of practices that they do not find too terribly irksome and will not interfere with their life. It becomes a type of marketing. Yet, again, their position is determined merely by their statement of belief. It belies an underlying weakness of position.

Some Anglicans have tried to move past this Protestantism with documents such as the Affirmation of Saint Louis. One might even question the need for such a document as well. After all, it is a general statement of Catholic Faith that suggests a return to the fullness of the Catholic Faith. So, why is it necessary to write this out in a formal declaration? Thou highly laudable, it is not necessary. All that is needed is to say that one accepts the fullness of the Catholic Faith. What that entails is fully known, because the Catholic Faith has been built upon all that came before it through the development of the Church. Its true course is clear. All that is needed is to embrace it in its totality, without adding exceptions or qualifications.

Within the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church, we do not have a statement of belief, a mission statement, or anything of the kind. We embrace the fullness of the Catholic Faith. We embrace the richness of the Anglican Rite. As we say, it is the combination of Roman strength and Anglican beauty. We need not make statements to set ourselves apart, for we do not seek to set ourselves apart from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Now, it is true in a roundabout way that, by doing this, we do indeed set ourselves apart from continuing Anglican jurisdictions and from the Protestants. But, we are neither continuing Anglicans nor Protestants. We are first Catholic. It is well-known what it means to be Catholic. It needs no Articles or Statements of Belief.

The Inexcusability of Prejudice

2011-06-26T01:54:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Prejudice is an unfortunate aspect of human nature. It is all around us in virtually every part of life. It is formed in us unconsciously. Yet, it is something that we can control, albeit it with some effort, and we must seek always to control. To be clear, elimination of prejudice against sin such as the modernists propose regarding activities such as sexual immorality is not a benefit to the soul or to society, but a reduction in the strength of one's faith. One is called to oppose sin, and if we are "prejudiced" against it, then rightly so. This is not the type of prejudice of which I speak, however, when I say that prejudice is inexcusable.

Prejudice develops as a result of environment. Things around us make an impression on us. Words people speak leave their lasting mark on us. This is one reason we refer to children and teenagers as being at an "impressionable age." Their minds are fresh enough that it is easier to leave a lasting mark. Yet, even more mature minds of great intellect and reason are subject to this. Remember the Latin phrase repetitio mater memoriae, i.e., repetition is the mother of memory. Repeat something to someone enough, and they are likely to believe it. This is all well and good when that something is the truth. However, when it is not necessarily the truth, the repetition may form a prejudice in the minds of those who hear it. Once an opinion is formed about someone else, no matter how wrong it may be, it is very difficult to eradicate. Even when conclusive evidence is presented challenging a prejudice with certainty, there is still a natural tendency to hold firmly to the prejudiced views. People often love gossip and scandal and prefer to believe the worst of others.

For example, the United States sadly has an anti-Catholic streak running through it, which I would not call a lingering prejudice from a bygone era, but an active one actively nurtured by those who are opposed to Catholics of any form. In the Bible Belt, home to fundamentalists and other flavors of protestants, anti-Catholic rhetoric is rampant. Children are raised to believe Catholics are evil, not really Christian, against the Bible, and other slanders. They naturally believe this as they grow into adulthood, and their prejudice remains with them. In fact, the prejudice was formed at such a young age in many cases that they don't even remember its formation, but rather just take their prejudice as Gospel truth. And then they pass their prejudice on to their children, and the cycle continues ad infinitum until someone has the courage to stop it.

As a more specific example of anti-Catholic policies in the United States, there once were many laws prohibiting the wear of religious garb in public schools by teachers. These laws were aimed specifically at keeping clerical and religious habits out of the classroom in order to prevent Catholic influence. The laws were supported by such unsavory groups as the Klu Klux Klan, whose hatred was so vast that it extended past blacks and Jews onto Catholics as well. These laws have been repealed by the grace of God in all but two states (Nebraska and Pennsylvania), and this, coupled with anti-discrimination laws pertaining to religion, should help end discrimination against clergy in the schools.

The prejudice against Catholic in schools is not limited to secondary education, however. It exists in universities as well. Even so-called Christian universities that claim to be ecumenical act in a manner suggesting they are deathly afraid of even the hint of Catholic influence that might enter into their halls. Those coming from any of the 30,000 or more protestant denominations, even though their views are often violently opposed, are welcomed in general. But not Catholics. At an institution of higher learning, a place of free thought for the purpose of seeking truth, this is even more reprehensible.

In society in general, there is also bias. Due to a massive scandal within the Roman Rite in the US, people have developed a prejudice that priests are more likely to be pedophiles. They hold to this view even in the face of any evidence to the contrary. Some men are afraid to enter the priesthood and some priests are afraid to wear their habits or collars in public for fear of being thought to be a child molester, even though they are not. With prejudice, you see, truth is moved to the back seat of the bus.

People were afraid of John F. Kennedy being Catholic, thinking that perhaps he should be disqualified for being Catholic. Today sometimes people lose job opportunities because of their Catholic faith. There is a bias against Catholics, and especially against clergy doing what their religious requirements mandate. The list of anti-Catholic prejudice perpetrated by Protestants and secularists is virtually endless. It is very difficult indeed for anyone today who wishes to live out their Catholic faith in all aspects of their life as they ought to do.

Even within the Anglican Church, there is a frequent prejudicial bias against the word "Roman." And, some in the Roman Rite have a strong bias against anything "Anglican." Those who stubbornly hold on to their views against others within the Church Universal simply based on labels, even in the face of a mountain of evidence proving them wrong, fail in their Christian duty. Clergy who do this are not worthy of the sacred trust that has been given to them.

Despite progress such as the repeal of the religious dress ban for teachers, the long-standing prejudice against anyone in a clerical collar or indeed anyone who is openly Catholic may continue. People must actively work to eliminate their prejudices, and this requires an act of will. People may choose to hold on to their prejudices, or they may choose to try to eliminate them. It is a matter of personal choice, and for this reason, stubbornly holding on to prejudices, even in the face of contrary evidence is an inexcusable act against one's fellow man.

Equality does not mean that morality is relative

2011-06-24T13:05:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

In a recent address to a homosexual political fundraiser, Obama indicated that the fight for "gay rights" was really about the American principle of equality. Unfortunately he does not seem to grasp that the equality of humans before God and the universal right to human dignity does not mean that all acts and choices are equal. Equality of all humans does not imply moral relativism. Homosexuality remains a sin, and so-called gay marriage or civil unions make a mockery of the sanctity of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and family values. While homosexuals do indeed deserve the same human dignity to which we are all entitled, good Christians cannot condone the behavior of homosexuality and still call themselves Christians. Tolerance does not mean abrogating one's responsibilities to God, and it does not mean the elimination or redefinition of the moral code to suit the ever-changing whims of society. We are called to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Yet, today far too many people allow a desire to be "nice" to outweigh their duty to choose and to stand up for what is right.

A recent statistic I saw suggested that only about 4% of adults in the United States maintain a Biblical view of the world. Apparently only about half of the population can name all of the Gospels, and around 10% thinks that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. It is no wonder that people are failing morally on such a grand scale and choosing the path set by the world rather than the path set by God. John Paul II said that freedom is not doing whatever you want to do, but rather being able to do what you ought to do. Unfortunately without the strong hand of the Holy Church, people lack a true compass and the go down whatever path they are led.

It is time for a new evangelization. It is time for a renewal of our Faith. It is time for people not just to call themselves Christian, but to truly live as Christians in full knowledge of what their faith means. Relativism, modernism, and liberalism must be expelled from the Church. The moral compass must be restored to the nation.

A Lesson of Service from the Example of the Blessed John Paul II

2011-06-15T07:20:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

On the First of May of this year, Benedict XVI beatified Pope John Paul II. For me, that day fell in the midst of a very busy time, due not in the least to disaster relief efforts in the southern USA. A month and a half later, I have finally gained some quiet time to reflect on the recent past, including John Paul II and his lengthy pontificate. He was a Pope who reached out to all Christians and indeed to all people. He gained worldwide respect for his strength of character.

Today I came across a special magazine detailing the life of John Paul II. It was full of stories, photos, and historical anecdotes. Many photos and stories stood out. It was a pleasure to see photos of him skiing and hiking in the Alps, as it is one of my favorite areas in the world. Yet, what stood out the most to me was a photo of him serving in his old parish in Poland. What was most significant about this was that he had already been elevated to the Cardinalate. Even as a Prince of the Church and a Metropolitan Archbishop, he still found time to work in parochial service. This is an example worth emulating.

How many bishops in the world today take time to counsel their flock, hear confessions, and work around a parish grounds? Some, particularly in small jurisdictions, find themselves doing double duty as a rector. Yet, this is not the norm. It is true that the main function of a bishop is not to be a rector of a parish, but to govern and shepherd a diocese. Canon Law in the ARRCC prohibits a bishop from serving as a rector except in a few special cases. However, if a bishop is truly shepherd to his flock, then it is a good thing for him to be out with his flock. He can be an active servant at a nearby parish. When he conducts a pastoral visit, he can hear confessions and perhaps lend a hand as needed. This certainly is not always possible, particularly at every parish in a large diocese, but when it can be done, it is a marvelous thing.

This also helps the bishop stay connected to the pastoral nature of the priesthood and the episcopate. It is easy for a bishop to get absorbed in the necessary administrative duties of the Church. Taking some time to carry out pastoral duties is a real boost for the spirit. I can certainly say that my pastoral work in Korea at the mission chapel there was a spiritual prescription that was worth following and worked wonders.

Think also of the benefits to the laity. They can see that a bishop is not a figure who shows up once a year to administer confirmation. They can see that the bishop is a true pastor who seeks to engage them and help them grow throughout their lives.

Obstinacy in Anglicanism

2011-06-08T12:10:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

There is an unfortunate problem within Anglicanism, and that is persistent obstinacy. It does no one any good, and unfortunately very few seem willing to do anything about it.

This evening I was reading a condensed version of the Rule of Saint Benedict. The Benedictines are certainly interested in maintaining obedience and discipline. Saint Benedict encouraged the use of criticism and rebuke, excommunication, and even corporal punishment for those who did not humbly follow the rule. Now, a monastic community is certainly far more disciplined than those of us who live outside the cloister. However, there is a point to be taken from the illustrious Founder of the Benedictines. Obedience is important for Christians, and continued obstinacy is detrimental to spiritual growth. We are all called to obedience within Christ's Church.

Usually this obstinacy originates from protestant forces so often alive and well within Anglican communities. Sometimes clergy are called to task by low church protestants for upholding or promoting Catholic doctrine. The parishioners think they can moderate the speech and writing of their clergy. Unfortunately the clergy often seems more interested in placating them so they do not lose their congregation than fulfilling their obligations as clergy. Bishops and parish priests have a duty to correct those in their flock. They should correct with kindness and love with a mind towards improvement, always mindful of their own condition. Yet, after a few attempts at gentle correction, more stern measures are required. Public rebuke may be necessary, as may censure, interdict, and even excommunication. And, if the parishioner does not like your correction, they are free to leave. They will no doubt find a modernist parish that will indulge their ways.

And what of the fear that a priest might lose his congregation? I ask, what is worse? To have your obstinate parishioners leave, perhaps even causing you to lose your church building, or to fail in your duty to the souls of the flock? The answer is obvious. Any priest who is more worried about not offending others is simply not doing his job and ought to be removed from parochial responsibility.

This problem is not simply limited to the laity, however. Even clergy sometimes become poisoned with obstinacy and disrespect. Priests and sometimes even bishops lead their flock into schism over the most selfish of reasons. A Catholic, even an Anglican one, cannot be a Catholic if he is completely "independent." There may be forms of independence that certain jurisdictions have, such as the See of Utrecht as one example, but true Catholics must seek unity in whatever form is possible. Priests and Bishops who value indulging their own interests more than the most worthy goal of Christian unity are unworthy of the trust they have been given.

Let us all seek to place the wisdom of Christ's Church above our own wisdom. Let us all seek to place unity above selfish interests. Let us all seek to place the love and service of God above all things. Let all clergy do their duty and love their flock, even when that love must be tough love.

A Touching Story of Lifelong Fraternal Devotion

2011-06-07T07:57:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Brothers Julian and Adrian Riester were more than fellow Franciscan friars, and they were even more than biological brothers. They were twins. They served God and their fellow man as friars together until their death at age 92 on Saturday within hours of each other.

It is a very heartwarming story. You may read it in its entirety on this page.

Encyclical - Sine Roma

2011-05-24T04:33:00.000+09:00

SINE ROMA

Encyclical on the Roman Nature of the Anglican Church

To the Bishops, Regular Clergy, and Faithful of the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church, greetings and Apostolic Blessings.

1. Without Rome, there would be no Anglican Church. Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to England in the Sixth Century by Pope Saint Gregory the Great with a mission of building the Church in that country. (1)

2. The Anglican Church proper, having been thus founded by Saint Augustine of Canterbury, naturally evolved as part of the Roman Church, while retaining and developing its own customs, still within the framework of the Roman Church. In A.D. 597, Pope Saint Gregory the Great authorized special liturgy for the English people be developed by Saint Augustine of Canterbury. (2)

3. The political break with Rome by Henry VIII occurred in 1529 over the matter of divorce and annulment. However, while the Anglican Bishops were forcibly cut from communion with Rome, the mass remained the same Latin mass as had been used before. (3)

4. In 1592, the Book of Common Prayer, in English, is revised to suit Protestants, with the doctrine of the Real Presence removed, as well as vestments, holy oil, the sign of the Cross at Confirmation, the reserved Sacrament, and prayers for the departed. However, when Mary Tudor ascended to the throne, 1553, succeeding Edward VI, the connection to Rome was again restored. However, it had become clear that the Protestant influence had thoroughly taken root in England. When Elizabeth I, a staunch Protestant, became Queen upon the death of Mary Tudor, the break from Rome for religious reasons was carried out, and the Anglican Church went into doctrinal schism. (4)

5. During and after the reign of Elizabeth I, the Protestant influence has been felt within the Anglican Church, even to the present day. While many Catholics, generally referred to as Anglo-Catholics, remain present within the various jurisdictions of the worldwide Anglican Church, even in some cases at Anglo-Catholic parishes professing Catholic doctrine, they are largely discriminated against. Attempts are made to suppress Anglo-Catholics.

6. At many Anglican parishes and within many Anglican dioceses, this suppression takes the form of catering to vocal low-church Protestants who criticize their ecclesiastical leaders and other parishioners who profess Catholic doctrine and seek Catholic worship in the Anglican tradition. The result of this is to bring worship and catechesis to the least common denominator, watering down the Faith of the Ages to suit the heretical whims of low-church Protestants within the Church. The Catholics are forced to suppress their views and further suffer by not receiving the fullness of the liturgical and catechetical life of the Church. The Catholics within such parishes or dioceses are often left feeling disenchanted, offended, and as second class citizens whose needs are insignificant to the other parishioners and to the clergy.

7. While low-church Protestants may be welcomed in Christian brotherhood, clergy and faithful alike fail in their duty to God and to his Holy Church when they uphold, adopt, or profess heresies. They need not openly adopt said heresy, but may nevertheless be guilty of its promulgation by not opposing it. (5)

8. One of the greatest strengths of the Anglican tradition is that there is ability for variation in worship. This tradition is strengthened by the fact that Pope Saint Gregory the Great charged Saint Augustine of Canterbury with the task of developing new liturgy for the Anglican Church. Yet, any such variation of change made must in all cases be consistent in fact and in spirit with the doctrine of the Church and must never imply or promote doctrinal changes. The liturgical changes within the Protestant Reformation were made to promote a break with Rome, the true heritage of the Anglican Church, and to imply changes in doctrine to be consistent with Protestant thought. Such liturgy cannot be permitted or tolerated within any Anglican jurisdiction professing the Catholic Faith.

9. In 1560, "An Apology for the Church of England" was written by John Jewel, in which Rome is declared to be the schismatic force, not England. In 1563, the Thirty-Nine Articles were drafted as a statement of the new Protestant doctrine of the Church of England. Rome was viewed as the enemy, then, by the Protestants. Fear and dislike of Rome is a byproduct of the Protestant Reformation and its influence on the Anglican Church. It is not and cannot be a product of the Anglican Church simply being different, as the Anglican Church was founded by Rome. As such, the history, doctrine, and traditions of the Anglican Church cannot exist, cannot function, and cannot be explained or understood outside of the context of Rome.

10. To claim to be Anglican and take offense at Rome is both to deny one's own heritage and to profess a steadfastly Protestant viewpoint. To claim to be Anglican and Catholic (or Anglo-Catholic) while denying Roman heritage is either to be not Catholic at all or at the very least not to have a thorough understanding of one's own heritage, history, and tradition.

11. It is incumbent upon all Catholic clergy of the Anglican Rite to impress the history and doctrine of the Church upon all the faithful. The simple truth must be promulgated that to be Anglican is to be Roman. The history of the two cannot be separated if one is going to profess the Catholic Faith.

12. A further problem that stems from procedural changes beginning in the Protestant Reformation is that of a Parish Vestry or a Parish Council taking upon itself far more authority than it is due. Far too often the laity of a parish, organized often in the form of a Parish Council or a Vestry, seeks to be the ultimate authority in the parish, usurping the authority of the clergy and often mistreating them.

13. In the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church, it must be remembered that the authority of the Vestry or Parish Council is limited to an advisory or operational role only. (6) Furthermore, as the principal authority in a parish is vested in the Rector, a parish need not have lay officers. (7) In this way, the Church keeps with the historic nature of its organization.

14. The Church is and has always been organized from the top down. Jesus Christ gave the authority to the Apostles at the first Pentecost. The Apostles gave authority to the Bishops. The Bishops have passed their Apostolic authority down through the ages to the present day through unbroken Apostolic succession. Bishops ordain priests and deacons, and commission to the Minor Orders in order to carry out the functions of the Church's ministry.

15. The Church is not a grass-roots organization in which the laity gives authority to the Rector, who gives authority to the Bishop, and so forth. To assume that it is organized in such a fashion is an affront to the Church and ultimately to Jesus Christ himself, who established the Church in a particular way.

16. Those clergy who wish to usurp the positions of higher authorities within the Church, as well as those members of the laity who seek to usurp the rightful position of the clergy commit the sin of pride. If such usurpations continue, it breeds an atmosphere of discontentment and instability within a parish, a diocese, or even the Church as a whole, rather than a prayerful, peaceful atmosphere that is intended.

17. The clergy and faithful who seek to impose their own will in matters of liturgy, doctrine, and ecclesiastical law and practice in contravention of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and higher ecclesiastical authority, lay no claim to call themselves Catholic. This individual arrogance is one of the largest impediments to Christian unity today, even unity within the Anglican Church.

18. Therefore, all members of the clergy and faithful are exhorted to keep the Catholic Faith in all matters of life, upholding the doctrine, and never forgetting the completeness of our Anglican heritage. This heritage includes, as a matter of historical fact, the heritage of the Roman Church. This heritage is not merely a point of history, but rather an inseparable aspect of the spiritual nature of our Church. Only the Protestants seek to deny this. To be Anglican is to be Roman. Without Rome, there is no Anglican Church.

Rutherford Card. Johnson
Patriarch of the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church

Given at the Court of Saint Mary of Walsingham
on the Fourth Sunday after Easter
22 May A.D. 2011.

Notes:

(1) New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia; St. Augustine of Canterbury.

(2) Anglican Timeline. E. Friedlander.

(3) Idem.

(4) Idem.

(5) Eph. 4.25.; 2010 Anglo-Catholic Book of Common Prayer. Ways of Being an Accessory to the Sin of Another.

(6) Can. 276, Sec. 5, Code of Particular Canon Law.

(7) Can. 276, Sec. 1, Code of Particular Canon Law.

Statement on the Killing of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-21T06:22:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Much debate has been witnessed regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden at his hideout in Pakistan. Some have questioned whether such an act was justified, particularly if he was unarmed. Some have also questioned whether or not the invasion of sovereign territory without permission was ethical. These are questions that are worth addressing in terms of Christian morality.

First, the killing of Osama bin Laden was a justified act against a terrorist and mass murderer who has killed and engineering the killing of countless innocent people, all in the name of the Mohammedan religion. While in some ways a trial might have been preferable from a legal standpoint, the matter of his guilt is without question. He was the self-admitted mastermind of Al Qaeda. Furthermore, this was not a legal matter as such. Osama bin Laden was head of a non-governmental organization with members from several nations that waged war on the United States, Great Britain, and other Christian nations around the world to further their agenda of Muslim supremacy. As this was a global war for the survival of the Christian faith and freedom, a military operation to eliminate the direct threat of bin Laden was fully justified by just war theory.

The second matter that has raised concern is whether or not Osama bin Laden was armed when he was killed. If he was not armed, then some suggest that the killing was murder. Whether the killing was justified, however, must be analyzed purely based on whether or not, in the brief time the shooter had to make a decision, said shooter could reasonably assess that there was no threat posed by bin Laden or others. The history of Osama bin Laden is one of extreme violence and trickery. He was known to have been very dangerous. Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants are known for using suicide tactics. Given his history and that of his organization, it is entirely reasonable to assume that bin Laden may have been concealing a weapon or had ready access to a weapon that was otherwise not visible to the American operatives. Under very few and extremely unlikely circumstances would said operatives have been truly safe from potential harm by bin Laden and his associates. Therefore, the operatives were fully justified in the killing based on reasonable assumption of threat due to the history of bin Laden and his organization.

Lastly is the issue of the operation being carried out in Pakistan without the knowledge of the Pakistani government. There are limits to national sovereignty. If a national harbors a known military threat, such as bin Laden, then they lose rights to redress for violation of sovereign territory. Osama bin Laden had been in a town in Pakistan near their military academy for at least five years. Given that the Pakistani government was aware of the possibility of his being somewhere in their nation, and they promised full support against Al Qaeda, it is highly unlikely that the Pakistani government was completely unaware of bin Laden's presence. While they may or may not have been actively supporting his presence, it is highly likely that they were at least turning a blind eye to the extreme likelihood of his presence. Given the actions of the Pakistani government and the very open pro-Islamist and even pro-Al Qaeda attitudes of a large or at least vocal segment of the Pakistani population, the operation was fully justified without informing the Pakistani government.

Where Has all the Etiquette Gone?

2011-03-17T01:42:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

I was at the airport in Rome not too long ago when, at the baggage claim area, this Italian fellow who worked there came up to me, bowed, kissed the pontifical ring, and insisted on going to the back to get my bag personally. Compare that to the typical level of respect shown to the clergy in America these days, and the two stand in stark contrast. Parishioners sometimes call their priests by their first names now, and even those who still call them "Father" act more like they are talking to their golfing buddy instead of their priest. Bishops get addressed simply as Bishop without reverence. Sadly, far too many priests actually encourage this type of behavior under the misguided notion that such familiarity will make it easier to "get through" to the parishioners. I need not point out the folly in this thinking, as history shows it quite well.

Outside the walls of the Church in general society, the problem is even worse. A priest can, of course, forgive someone who calls them "Mr." when they are in civilian attire. After all, how do would they know? Yet, even when in a clerical collar, it is far from uncommon for priests to get called "Mr." And why not? Society these days encourages bringing everyone to the least common denominator. I was even told that a nearby Army hospital now discourages calling retired military officers by their rank, but rather only by "Mr."...unless, of course, the officer insists. This is odd to me, having grow up being taught to call people according to what they are. We called officers by rank, even if retired, unless they preferred otherwise. Doctors and Professors were addressed accordingly, and of course, the clergy was given proper respect. (For a nice collection of proper protocol when addressing clergy, please see the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church's protocol list. While this is specifically written for our usage, it is easily translated to the Church overall.)

Now, some claim that it is the clergy themselves who are to blame for the lack of respect. Cases of child abuses by certain clergymen are help up as reasons why "priests are no better," as if the sins of a few are to be used to stain all others who have devoted their lives to God. Yet, it is not a matter of whether or not priests are better or worse than anyone else. It is a simple matter of the divine office that they hold and the indelible mark that has been placed on their soul. No matter how imperfect they may be, the clergy still represents God. Bishops remain the successors of the Apostles, who received their authority from Christ. Priests share in that ministry and consecrate the elements in the Holy Mass. Deacons serve the church in special ways that go back to the earliest days of the Church, and they carry on the legacy of St. Stephen the Deacon and Protomartyr. To disrespect the clergy is to disrespect the Holy Church and ultimately God Almighty Himself.

This problem in America, though, is not just limited to etiquette towards the clergy or even the use of professional, military, or other titles. There is a general lack of courtesy and etiquette. Children as a whole especially are not being brought up to have any sense of decorum or responsibility towards others. What would simply have not been tolerated when I was young and in earlier generations is now perfectly acceptable, excused under the heading of "they're just kids." If you dare correct one, though, you will be in for a rude awakening. For example, once I was at a party when a 2 year old came screaming across the room and slammed right into my leg. I looked down at him and said "Excuse you." The incident didn't seem to phase him. His mother came up to get him, did not apologize for him to me and did not correct him, but instead looked at me as if I was the one at fault. Yes, parents have lost control. They have abdicated their responsibility as parents. The children have taken over. I am afraid to think what society will be like when these children are adults with no sense of decorum, no etiquette, no responsibility towards others, and no common courtesy.

Priests are Meant to Make People Uncomfortable

2011-02-23T23:24:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

It seems that some have the misguided notion that priests should make everyone around them comfortable and not offend anyone. While the faithful should indeed get a comforting feeling from being around a priest, it is not the job of a priest to make people comfortable. A priest has the responsibility to uphold the Faith and the Church and to care for the souls of those in their care. This cannot be done if the primary concern of a priest is not offending anyone.

Because of this responsibility that we as priests have, we must put the promotion of the Faith first. This does not mean, though, that we should seek out or try to initiate fights about doctrine or the Faith in general. I do not suggest this at all. Rather, it means that we must take a stand for the Faith when called to do so. We should not stand idly by while the secular world descends into relativism and say nothing about it for fear of offending others.

The Church is charged with the mission of saving the souls of the people of this world. We care about all souls. This is and must remain our primary concern. We expect resistance, but it must not deter us. Sometimes love must be a form of tough love as we tell people what they must hear, but do not want to hear. It is better to risk offending someone than to risk their immortal soul.

Sound of Music

2011-02-08T00:45:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The Sound of Music film version with Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer ranks as one of the greatest films of all time. We watched it again over the weekend. What is interesting is where I found the DVD. It wasn't at the movie rental store, so I went to the local library. It was only at one of the branches and in the juvenile section. Yes, that's right. The kids' movie section, not the adult or general section. Surely adults today want to watch something like just because they want to see it, not just because it is something safe for the children to watch. I first saw it as a child, but watching it as an adult, I can attest that one sees the whole plot differently.

I had forgotten what a powerful, enjoyable, uplifting film it was. It is simultaneously challenging on moral, social, and political issues and easy to watch. We need more productions like this today!

Islam as a Means of Satanic Influence

2011-02-07T02:11:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The Devil has been working to turn us humans away from God since the very beginning. It was, after all, Satan who tempted Eve with the apple and caused the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and the stain of original sin. When Christ came, Satan even tried to tempt Him. He was unsuccessful, and Christ fulfilled his purpose on this earth. He was crucified for our sins and rose from the dead, giving us all hope and assurance of our own eventual conquering of death. Then the Christian faith, the fulfillment of the Hebrew prophecy began to spread around the globe. That was most unwelcome news for the Devil, as it means more souls turn to God. It did not stop his efforts to wreak havoc on earth and destroy humans.

Visual by www.PDImages.com

The Christian Faith was and is a serious threat to the Devil's efforts. As anyone who has read the Bible ought to know, the good news is that we will win in the end. That doesn't stop the Devil from trying to destroy the souls of as many people as he can in the meantime.

Now, faced with the rapid growth of the Christian Faith and all its saving grace that it brings to people around the world, what's the Devil to do? A common advertising technique is to make your product look similar to another product that people like. It makes the transition to your product easier, and perhaps even some people would be fooled into buying your product instead of the other product that they originally wanted. This was a logical thing for the Devil to do. All the Devil needed to do was to enter the heart of the false prophet Muhammad and persuade him to deny the Godhead of Christ, deny the resurrection, and create a religion founded on the basis of Judaism and Christianity. Then make that religion built on intolerance and the subjugation, domination, or death of all who are not of that religion. Then seek converts in largely Christian areas, getting them to deny the resurrection and the Godhead of Jesus Christ and submit completely to the Devil while telling them they are worshipping the God of Abraham. This is Islam.

The Islamic religion was a heresy off of Christianity. This heresy, which has had such broad-reaching, profound, violent effects for so long can only be a work engineered by our old enemy the Devil. It has his handwriting all over it. There was the Muslim take-over of the Holy Land, continuing to the Muslim-generated hatred and violence in the Holy Land today. There are church bombings and attacks on Christians by Muslims in Israel. There were numerous criminal terrorist attacks on airplanes and trains. And, of course, there were the attacks of September 11th on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It is no wonder that Muslims would attack the bastion of religious freedom and tolerance in the world, as they are fundamentally opposed to such a notion. They wish to dominate and turn all to their ways. This is their religion and their purpose.

And then there is the oppression of people, particularly women, in Muslim nations. This is particularly noticed in places like Afghanistan under Taliban rule, Pakistan, and others. Ataturk had the great sense to put severe limits on Islamic influence and expression when he founded the Turkish Republic. However, today we see a new resurgence of Islamic influence in that country. Right this very moment, Islamic extremists are trying very hard to have a significant if not dominant voice in Egyptian politics. In the United States, Muslims are attempting to instill Sharia law or at least be able to carry out criminal acts such as honor killings under Sharia law, despite the violation of the rights of others. Wherever Muslims take over, freedom of religion and freedom in general decline, while instability and oppression rise.

The Muslims are certainly adept at doing Satan's work. They infiltrate slowly, usually under the guise of being a minority and wanting to be able to fulfill their "religious obligations." Once they have this, they want more. And then more and more and more. This grows as their numbers grow. Next, latent Muslims are encouraged to participate more actively, and like a bacterial colony, it eventually grows out of control. They demand their right to say and do as they please according to their religion, but demand that others who are opposed to them be silenced. Ironically, but not surprisingly, they seek to deny others the very rights that they demanded for themselves. Usually those who kindly supported the Muslims' right to freedom of religion are blind at first to what is going on. Often by the time they find out, it is too late and the take-over has already taken root so much that there is not much that can be done about it.

The goal of spiritual warfare should be a return to
God and a return to the serenity that He brings.

The Devil's handiwork of the Islamic religion ought to be plain for all to see. Satan uses his creation to draw Christians from the true faith, to torment and oppress, and to create and perpetuate chaos in the world. It is a religion of intolerance, hatred, and violence; all common tools of the Devil. Even those who are not "militant extremist Muslims" are part of the problem. They inspire the criminal acts through their devotion and their numbers, even if these so-called moderate or "peaceful" Muslims later denounce the terrorist and other criminal acts of the militant Muslims. We should and must pray intensely for the conversion of Muslims back to the true faith. This is a time of great need for spiritual warfare. We must pray like we have never prayed before that Muslims will turn from the Devil and return to God.

On the Mass and the Offices in Sanctifying the Whole Week

2011-02-06T01:14:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

More comments in reference to the purpose of the holy mass and daily offices related to sanctifying daily life throughout the week, not just on Sundays.

___________________________________

Quite correct. The holy mass is the highest form of prayer, the supreme sacrament, and the pinnacle of our connection with Christ. What has happened is that, as you said, many limit the Eucharist to Sundays only. They go to church on Sundays, but the rest of the week is secular.

If one looks at the missal, there is a mass (sometimes more than one) appointed for EVERY day of the week. Not everyone attends daily mass, and not every priest is required to celebrate daily. Nevertheless, the masses are there. The missal, by the way, makes a great daily devotional. Read through the propers, and I bet your daily life during the week will be less secularized. Attend mass during the week when you can, and you'll benefit even more.

In addition to the mass, we have the Daily Offices, the second highest form of prayer. They are called "daily" for a reason. They sanctify the WHOLE day EVERY day. I recommend the laity getting a breviary and praying the daily offices regularly, even if they don't do all of them.

This all makes a difference. The Eucharist and the offices teach us what it is we need to know in order to fulfill our Christian mission in our DAILY lives, not just for an hour or so on Sunday.

On Reforming North American Christianity

2011-02-06T01:04:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Canon Kevin Goodrich, OP, a Dominican priest in North Dakota, has been writing an excellent series of essays on reviving Christianity in North America. I was invited to comment on the most recent essay, No. 6 (read it here). The following is my commentary.

____________________________

The first trick is determining what is the deck furniture on the Titanic and what are integral ship fittings. There are a lot of nonsensical ideas and practices with no real grounding in history or theology that have cropped up over the last thirty years, largely due to the secularization and liberalization of the Church and society. The Roman Rite, for example, tried a new liturgy that, while it may have filled the pews, weakened the expression of the theological foundation. Recent surveys show that only around 25% of Catholics actually believe and follow the social and moral teachings of the Church. Ignorance abounds, while the focus is placed on getting a warm fuzzy from going to Church.

What people need is the strength of the Faith. They should be brought to the Faith instead of having the Faith altered to suit them just to get them in the door. This is why we must maintain our traditions. Each aspect of traditional liturgy, moral doctrine, etc. is thoroughly grounded in Scripture and over 2000 years of its evolutionary (not revolutionary) interpretation. It will take each person a different amount of time to receive the full benefit of each aspect of tradition, but that's ok. We're all in a different place in our faith journey. The Sacred Tradition is the glue that holds us all together in our work towards living what is in Sacred Scripture.

I constantly preach on this. The guy in the giant purple cape and funny red hat (that would be me) says "Live your faith." He constantly challenges people to step outside their comfort zone and grow their faith. This often means looking to tradition, which is often uncomfortable for them.

I do get some resistance to this from time to time, but that is to be expected. We cannot let resistance deter us, however, from continuing to push our brethren to do what is right for them and for the community.

You are absolutely right, speaking of the community, about getting outside of the church walls. The church is a great place of solace and to get away from the world. However, we need to look for way, even unconventional ones, to reach others with the message and not hide our light. We were given light to lead others, not to keep it to ourselves.

As for America being post-Christian, I generally agree. We are historically Christian and founded on Christian principles. Many are still Christian in name and heritage, and they might even go to church on Sundays. Yet, the leftist, liberal, and socialist influence over the past thirty years or more has made Christianity something that should, to them, be practiced only in private. This must be fought.

Wear your habits or clerical suits when you are out in public as much as possible...especially when involved in charity or service. Put an icon, a prayer card, a crucifix or the like on your desk at work. You'll be told this is shoving your faith in the face of others, but do not be deterred. It is not true. You are simply expressing your faith. You are not forcing anyone else to participate. You are merely doing that all-important thing of witnessing to Christ.

All of this is so important now as we face an onslaught of Muslims seeking to impose their religious will in America and around the world as they take over and fulfill their Satan-inspired goal of domination, subjugation, or death. This is coupled with the Chinese communists, to whom we have as a nation virtually sold our souls. Christianity has been pushed aside. The Faith of love and peace for all mankind has been shoved out of the way to make room for agendas of intolerance, hatred, and profit at all costs.

Many mainline denominations in the US give in to this as well, perhaps just to keep people in the pews or to get money. I applaud those who try to work to change things in their denomination. While I constantly work for unity, I am still aware that one eventually must make a choice. Will one stay around just because you like the coffee, or your family has been at that parish for generations, or you know lots of people there, or you don't want to be seen as an instigator? OR...will you follow the Faith wherever it takes you and no matter what the cost?

This is not easy. I know. I have fought the Muslim onslaught up close and personal myself, even when I sometimes had to stand alone and people tried to pressure me to stop. Others have done this as well. Our mission work cannot continue effectively while we are being threatened, pushed, and bullied by society, Muslims, Chinese communists, and others. This is an open invitation to all good Christians. Who will join me in standing up for the rights of Christians? Who will join me in saying that Christ and the Christian Faith will not be marginalized? Who will join me in spreading the Gospel to the people of the world?

Church Shopping

2011-01-25T08:09:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

I came across a quiz a little while ago. You know the type. One of the ubiquitous, sometimes serious, sometimes ridiculous Internet quizzes that are out there on every topic under the sun. This quiz was designed to tell you what Christian denomination you should be based on your personal beliefs. I couldn't resist, so I took the quiz. Not surprisingly, it said I was a Catholic. At least it was accurate in one case.

There is a fundamental problem, however, with the idea of choosing a parish, a congregation, a denomination (though I dislike the word denomination) or a church based on your own personal beliefs. It is a bit like choosing a physician based on which one tells you what you want to hear. Do you want the physician that will work to identify any disease in you and prescribe a treatment to eradicate it? Or, do you want a physician who will ignore everything, not tell you of any problems for fear of offending you, and just tell you that you're perfectly fine while your body slowly decays? It is an obvious answer. Any rational person would want a physician who does his job and works to identify and cure illnesses. So why be any different with the church?

Should you go to the various denominations, get their advertising material, see what their statements of belief are on various issues, work out how that matches up with your present beliefs, and then choose the one that is the closest match? Obviously not. This is what happens a lot today, though. Religion has become another consumer enterprise, with churches engaging in tremendous marketing campaigns to vie for members. And, like any consumer enterprise, they necessarily must conform to the wishes of their "customers," the people who might one day fill their pews (and their offering plates). The problem is, though, that it is not we who decide what is correct to belief. Proper theology and proper belief both come from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church.

People should instead look for the four marks of the true church when deciding where to attend. Is the church in question One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, just like we say in the Nicene Creed at mass? All political and other debates and disagreements aside, these four marks are the ones that must be present. If those four marks are there, then it is a candidate for your membership. If the four marks are not present, however, then run in the other direction.

Also remember not to pay attention to whether or not all the positions of a church you are considering attending match your own personal beliefs. This is not only a consumerist "shopping" approach, it is the sin of pride. It is the assumption that your beliefs are inherently correct simply because they are yours. It is the assumption that you have no room to grow spiritually. Each and every one of us is on a spiritual journey, as imperfect as we are, working towards spiritual perfection.

The Church is a gift to help us along the pathway towards sanctification. Therefore, the choice of church, and even of the specific parish is of paramount importance. Don't delude yourself by choosing a place that does nothing more than make you feel good or give you a weekly emotional high. Choose the church that has the Four Marks of the True Church and find a parish with clergy dedicated to their vocation and dedicated to helping the faithful grow in their walk with Christ.

Quality, not Quantity

2011-01-23T00:51:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

We attended a orchestra concert last night in the contemporary service "sanctuary" of a local mega church. I put the word sanctuary in quotation marks, as I was hard-pressed to think of the room as anything other than an excellent theatre. Other than two banners, there were no religious markings. Yet, this church built this new facility to house their "come as you are" trendy worship service. Apparently the high seating capacity was justified, as it is a popular service from what I hear.

I was told that this service was started to reach out to those who think church is boring or not relevant to them. "If the people, especially young people, aren't going to church because they find it stuffy or irrelevant," they reckoned, "then we should change it all to suit them." No suit and tie, just come in shorts and a t-shirt if you like. No organ, but plenty of guitars. The ministers are similarly attired to those in the pews. No hymnals, because the music is displayed on a screen like karaoke. Everything is centered about making people feel good. That might be well-intentioned, but it is thoroughly misguided.

When you make church about numbers, you are treading on dangerous ground. Absolutely we should all be trying to convert as many as possible, but we must actually convert them, not simply get them into the pews. When the church ceases to be God-centered and becomes people-centered, yes, you'll probably get people in the pews. This is not surprising, as "worship" becomes about the individual and not about God. People do not truly have to convert in their hearts and souls. All they have to do is show up, put money in the plate, and sing hymns, all in exchange for the emotional high they will receive. No longer is any self-sacrifice suggested and no longer are the people in the pews expected to join in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. There is no longer a concept of spiritual warfare against evil. The concept of sin has flown out the door, and it all becomes about feeling good. No more is anyone told that they are wrong, because theology is now relativistic. Whatever you believe is now considered fine, it seems.

Make no mistake. Being a Catholic is difficult. It is not surprising that the modernist, feel good approach is popular. It is not surprising that people would rather abandon the true faith delivered by Christ and handed down through the Apostles for something instead that is "easy" and gives them an emotional high every Sunday. It is not surprising in the self-centered world of today that we would rather trade something that requires serious spiritual work for something that requires no work at all...except maybe helping at the church picnic.

Large churches can be nice. So can small ones. It isn't the size, the building, or the location. It is the people inside, what they do, and what they believe. Don't you remember the little game you played as children where you took your hands and made a church? Then you made a steeple with your index fingers and opened your hands to show all the other fingertips as the people inside the church? Try it again yourself now. You can see it looks like your two hands, which were the roof of the church, are holding all the people. There is a great message in that. The church is there to take care of the spiritual needs of the people. It must do that, but according to the Faith once delivered, not according to modern trends. The people who are not going to church must be reached out to, but in an authentic way. We profit them nothing by bringing them in if we have to dilute, warp, and destroy the faith to do so.

Let's Ponder the Inquisition

2011-01-16T12:48:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

We have all heard the horror stories about the Inquisition, and especially about the Spanish Inquisition. Some stories are true and documented by evidence. Others are highly sensationalized by protestants and other enemies of the Church. Some (and perhaps many these days) use the Inquisition and similar tribunals to claim that the Church is bad indeed and not following Christ. They use it as an excuse for schism, heresy, and apostasy. "Oh look at those Church people and their Inquisition," they might say. "If they were really religious, they wouldn't do that. So, I'm not going to Church because I don't have to."

Let's ponder one point here. Every nation in the world, including the United States, has experienced abuses in the justice system. This continues to this day. To make the argument less complex, focus only on non-oppressive, first world nations. Do we take the abuses of the past, or even the present, and say as a consequence that we no longer have to do what the law of the land tells us? Not too many people would say that they don't have to obey the law. Given that, why do people think that abuses, real or imagined, in the Church somehow mean that they don't have to follow the laws of the Church?

Heresy is Heresy

2011-01-16T09:06:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

In today's "anything goes" world, it is all the rage to say that whatever one believes is fine, in terms of religion or anything else. No one is allowed (at least by society) to criticize anyone else's beliefs, unless, of course, those beliefs are traditional ones. Strange how that works.

Believing what you want in religion is considered acceptable for a whole variety of reasons. One of these is that it furthers the general liberal and socialist agenda by breaking down people's belief in the truths of Christ. Another is that religion is now considered merely a matter of belief, i.e., "not like things we can know for sure, like science." Of course, religion is very much a science (read Thomas Aquinas for a proof of that). To claim that things of a religious nature are mere "belief" because they cannot be proven by modern secular science is both arrogant and wrong. Following Aquinas, two sciences may explain the same phenomenon in their own ways insofar as they may somewhat overlap. Yet, a higher science cannot be made to depend on a lower science. Music, for example, depends on rules coming from the sciences of mathematics and physics. Mathematics and physics, therefore, are higher sciences. Both, of course, explain more of the world than music. Neither mathematics nor physics, however, depend on the rules of music. That music cannot explain certain things in the world does not mean that the explanation given by mathematics or physics is wrong. In the same way, religion covers the entirety of time and space even beyond the comprehension of we mere humans. Modern secular science explains some of the same things, yet cannot explain everything. Secular science is the explanation of God's universe in human terms so that we may better understand the universe. It depends wholly upon God and, therefore, religion. Religion is the superior science, and therefore does not depend on secular science for proof. Failure to grasp this is the source of many modern "rationalist" heresies.

If one has an opinion contrary to the rules of physics, one is justly considered wrong and ignorant. Yes, there are some grey areas, particularly where new ground is being broken. Yet, if one wants to hold vigorously to the opinion that the normal sky color during the daytime in the world is green, one is clearly wrong. Holding that viewpoint does not make it right or make it the truth. Neither does holding that viewpoint make it "right for you."

In religion, it is no different. One can have an opinion or even a deep-rooted belief that is contrary to Sacred Scripture or the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't make it right. Just as with secular science, there are grey areas, though in the case of religion, they either stem from man's inadequacy in interpretation or matters of religious discipline. The Bible is actually self-interpreting. Its divinely-inspired perfection is not challenged by any inabilities of humans to understand all of the vastness of God and His Word.

Fortunately we have the Holy Church to guide us and to be the final word on what the Sacred Scripture means. This is the Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. This was established by Jesus Christ Himself. Feel free to consult the Bible if you forgot about that.

What is unfortunate is the division in the Church. While some in apostolic succession have separated into autonomous jurisdictions over various issues, the real crime against religion is the vast number of those without any Biblical authority to interpret, teach, or decide who have opted to place their own intellect above that of the Church and above two thousand years of the collective wisdom of the Apostles and the Bishops, Doctors, and theologians of the Church. Many of these disagreements center on partial interpretation of the Bible, choosing to focus on certain parts while ignoring the rest. Whatever the reason, cause, or motivation, this amounts to pure heresy. It is as worthy of condemnation as ignorant behavior as is the notion that the normal daytime sky color is green. And, it is far more dangerous. Errors in belief regarding modern secular science affect only the mind. Heresy affects both the mind and the soul.

Heresy can be within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church just as much as it can be found in the hodge-podge of protestant denominations. Recent polls of Catholics have shown that only a small number actually believe and practice to the best of their ability the teachings of the Church. Some promote outright heresy. It is one thing to struggle with understanding, believing and practicing the teachings of the Church. This is a normal part of the faith journey. However, it is important to remember that struggling with belief and working on growing your faith is completely different from saying "I don't believe it now, so it isn't true and doesn't apply to me." One is a true Christian working on building his faith. The other is a heretic.

Heresy must be openly opposed wherever it is encountered. This is easier said than done these days, when the world says that everyone's individual beliefs are sacred and therefore cannot be challenged by anyone. Yet, if we stand by and do nothing when we have the chance to do something, we become part of the problem. There is but one Church. You're either in it or you're not. By following, promoting, or supporting heresy, whether actively or passively, even in the face of the truth of the Church, you effectively excommunicate yourself.

The Fundamental Protestant Error

2011-01-11T04:23:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The fundamental protestant error is in trusting in their own minds more than they trust in God. For all the arguments out there one way or another on the protestant/Catholic debate, it all comes down to this. The protestant movement began when individuals decided that they knew better than the Holy Mother Church. They claimed the Church, especially Rome, had lost its way, or had descended into error, or in some way was no longer the "true church." So, they decided to lead the flock astray into schism and heresy rather than try to work or pray for a solution within. They decided that they knew better. Now, maybe an internal solution was not possible at the time, but how is heresy and schism better than remaining within Christ's Holy Church, even with the flaws of the humans administering her? The protestant leaders did nothing more than lead their misguided followers into centuries of denial of the true mysteries of faith and the saving grace of the Sacraments. They brought them into Churches founded by men, not by Christ Himself.

And there it is, the fundamental error made by the protestants through the ages. It is placing human intellect, even the intellect of one man above the collective wisdom of Christ's Holy Church for 2000 years. It is placing human knowledge and wisdom over God. One need only consult the readings for Morning Prayer today (the 10th of January) or the very beginning of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica to know that there are things that man cannot understand and that we should neither seek to know that which cannot be understood nor deny the truth of things we cannot understand simply because we do not understand them.

It is truly difficult to argue these points with a protestant. St. Augustine wrote that valid logic can lead to a false conclusion. The reason one cannot argue effectively with a protestant based on logic is that they are starting from a position of false assumption or statement made centuries ago by the first protestant heretics. Their reasoning may indeed follow valid logic, and that is why it is so convincing to them and perhaps to others. Yet, they end up drawing what we know to be false conclusions because they are starting from a false set of assumptions. The logic of man is only as good as the information it is processing.

The Bible is often used as a weapon by protestants against the Catholic Church. This is amusing on one level, as it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that wrote the Bible. Those who are Roman, Eastern Rite, Anglican, or Orthodox are the successors of the Sacred Scripture, not those who thought they knew better more than 500 years ago when they rebelled against the Church. Even to this day, protestant and especially evangelical heretics seek to convert Catholics from the true Faith, and they do so using the Bible. The trouble with protestants using the Bible, though, is that they have no choice but to use only part of it, viz. the part of it that they think proves their point, while ignoring the rest. If they took Sacred Scripture as a whole, written in the context of Sacred Tradition, I like to think they would give up their heretical ways and return to the universal Church. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. It is the one we are all called to be part of. Everything else is deficient. The Bible tells us this. Sacred Tradition tells us this. The writings of the great theologians tell us this. Only the rantings of protestant heretics say otherwise. Do you want to stand with Christ, or do you want to protest against Him, trusting instead only on your own intellect? The choice is yours.

A Christmas Gift

2010-12-27T09:43:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

We were surprised with a white Christmas this year. I say surprised because, even though it was forecast, it wouldn't have been the first time that snow was forecasted down here in the South, yet not even a solitary flake appeared. The snow is still here, and probably will be for another day or so.

The snow isn't that deep, but it shut many important roadways down. It's a bit embarrassing, having lived up north with six months of the year having some degree of snow cover that only rarely resulted in major closures. Of course, around here underneath the pretty blanket of snow typically lies a treacherous sheet of ice, making driving and walking outside sometimes a bit tricky.

The white snow made a nice background for the menagerie of wildlife in the backyard...especially the birds. There are many species there, depending on the season. The male cardinals in their bright red feathers stood out more than the rest. That particular species of bird is not known for sharing with other birds, and they often run off other birds from the bird feeder. Except on Christmas....

Take a look at the photo. You'll see cardinals sharing with other birds. This went on all day and has not been seen before or since. The only explanation we have as to this uncharacteristic behavior is that it was Christmas.

These birds illustrated a major theme of Christmas: sharing and giving to others. Ask yourself if this Christmas you sought out what you could do for others and give to others rather than what you could get. If not, well, we're all only human. It's never too late to start cultivating a giving spirit and helping other people.

How to Wear a Clergy Suit

2010-12-21T04:13:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

It might surprise you that I am writing about the clergy suit, given my promotion of the use of the cassock. It isn't as paradoxical as you might think, though. The need to wear a cassock comes from the need to portray your clerical vocation. By wearing clerical dress in general, the clergyman fulfills three important purposes.

1) Demonstration of respect for God and his Church, and respect for service thereunto as a man in Holy Orders.

2) Reminding the clergyman of his duty as a cleric.

3) Making others aware and reminding them of hid (the wearer's) duty as a cleric.

All these apply to the need for wearing the cassock, and they also apply when wearing the clergy suit. The point is to wear what is appropriate by church standards, not by worldly standards. A clergy suit is a fine thing outside the liturgy as a practical garment. There is even precedent for this in the Church in the 19th century. The Roman Catholic Church, as an example, had abito corto, the clergy suit of the day. It was worn as a matter of practicality in the streets to avoid the cassock getting dirty. It was essentially replaced with the newly-developed abito piano, which we now know better as the "house cassock."

The clergy suit is not a substitute, however, for the cassock simply as a matter of laziness or because "the world thinks a cassock is weird." So, the clergy suit has its place, and it even has historical precedent. It should be used in its proper place and its proper place only...and never while attending liturgy or ceremonies of the Church. The key then becomes how to wear a clergy suit so it befits the clerical dignity and is not simply secular attire with a clerical collar.

A suit for a clergyman may just as well be black, grey, or even blue. It may be plain or with some subtle pattern. The most formal is obviously black, and this is what I suspect most people think of first when they think of a clergy suit. Within the realm of clergy suits, there is certainly an continuum of formality. I will begin, then, with the most formal and move to the least formal options.

The most formal is a black suit with black clerical vest. I recommend the actual vest with buttons on the front instead of the shirt-front, as it resembles the cassock and gives a definite and dignified clerical look. A white shirt is preferred (and cuff links are nice), with a band collar. For bishops, the shirt can be, of course, purple. The clergy vest may also be either black with red trim and buttons or purple. I have a personal preference for the former, but either works rather well. A pocket watch, for the really old fashioned, also is a nice addition. For bishops, the pectoral cross obviously should be worn, and the vest typically has the required upper-left pocket for carrying this. Or, it can be fastened to one of the front buttons as on a cassock. This level of clergy civic dress works quite well at any secular function not requiring black tie, at which point the cassock should be worn. The exception to this is that the clergy suit (or a tuxedo with clerical shirt and vest) may be used at formal functions if much dancing will be done (and there is nothing wrong with priests dancing, as long as it isn't lewd). So, in conclusion, this is a good style for a clergy suit to be used when you would otherwise wear your cassock, but it is impractical.

A bit less formal is a black suit with band collar shirt and perhaps a shirt-front, or a grey suit with band collar shirt. A clergy vest can be worn, but even for bishops I recommend solid black here. Though black is typical, there is also nothing wrong with white, grey, or dark blue clergy shirts. Anything else is essentially well out of bounds of tradition...for example, the blue and white striped clergy shirts one sees on the market. You're a priest, not a mattress. This level of dress is fine enough when the situation is informal. Also, tab collar shirts are informal, but they have their place. They can be used with this informal suit, but not with the clergy vest or the shirt-front.

For the very-much-less-formal occasions, sportcoats can be used, or the jacket laid aside all together. This is particularly true in warmer climates and warmer times of the year. Still, this remains informal, or dare I say "clergy casual." It is also worth mentioning that the cassock, especially the white tropical cassock is far cooler in the summer than a clergy suit. Give it a try!

In conclusion, there remain a necessity to look clerical even when in a clergy suit. It should not be thought of a simply secular attire with a clerical collar. Indeed, it is not the clerical collar that makes it look clerical. A clerical collar can be simply superimposed on secular attire. It is the overall look that the clergyman must be concerned with. Even when in the clergy suit, a priest must project a clerical image, thereby reminding both himself and everyone he meets of his duty to God and the Church.

Merry Christmas from the Archdiocese of the Southwest

2010-12-14T22:45:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Some Praise for TSA

2010-12-12T02:25:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Despite the recent TSA debacle with the Indian Ambassador to the US, I have something nice to say about some TSA agents. Just recently I returned to the US, entering through Portland, Oregon. I made sure every last piece of metal, including gold, was removed just to be on the safe side. Thankfully I didn't beep, so there was no need for conflict. The several TSA officers there at the security check, though, were extremely nice, friendly, and professional.

With all the image issues TSA is currently suffering, those officers who behave well deserve to be praised openly. The conduct of the officers is even more important given the precise security screening location they were staffing. It was the checkpoint passengers go through when they enter the country from an international flight and then proceed to take a domestic flight. For Americans, professional, polite, and proper conduct by TSA officers at such a checkpoint makes one's re-entry into the US more pleasant. For foreign visitors, this is one of the first images of the US that they will see. Professional, polite, and proper conduct by TSA officers there will give them a much better feeling and impression of the US.

At Peace in the Habit of my Vocation

2010-12-01T00:24:00.006+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Christ's humble servant
in the cappa pontificalis, which
the Metropolitan See uses
as a formal cape and takes
the place of the cappa magna.

There is hope for those who feel that natural and burning desire to wear the habit of their spiritual vocation. All clergy, of course, ought to feel such a desire. It isn't always easy these days. The modern "reformers" want to get rid of the Church's venerable traditions. Society in general seems against the Church overall. Sometimes it seems you just can't win for losing, as the saying goes. Yet, there is always hope. Let me share a few key points to help all clergy be at peace, in or out of their habits.

- My habit may not in keeping with the times, but then the Kingdom I serve is not even of this world.

- My habit may seem regal, but we are here to reflect the glory of Christ the King.

- Some criticize the vesture of clerics (especially of bishops) for being expensive, saying they should be sold off to help the poor. Yet, I don't see those critics selling off their expensive DVD players, expensive computer equipment, and expensive cars to help the poor.

- My habit may not seem manly enough to some in this age, but then, it takes a real man to go against the crowd and follow his vocation.

- My habit might draw attention to myself, but it is part of my witness to Christ. It just makes me remember that I must always strive to be as Christ-like as possible.

These are just a few thoughts on the matter. I pray that all clerics are at peace with their vocation and all that entails. If you are at peace, then you will not only feel at home in the habit of your vocation, but the critics won't matter to you. You will be able to live out your Christian witness and clerical vocation without fear.

Unsuspected Surprise Hallelujah Chorus

2010-11-26T00:36:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

After all the problems in the world, here is something really nice.

Is airport security really worth it, or are we on the road to losing freedom?

2010-11-25T18:13:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Recent developments in airport security and the government's lack of willingness to do anything about it, despite public outcry, has left me in a great state of concern for the welfare and freedom of the people in the country. First, it must be pointed out that this is not a political matter, but rather a matter of ethics and morals, and hence the direct authority and responsibility of the Church. Christians and especially priests have a duty to work for the betterment of the condition of mankind, and therefore must speak out in cases such as these.

A recent photograph (see ACNS news brief) depicted a nun being frisked by a female TSA officer, who likely was wearing a Muslim headdress, at Detroit Metro. From the ACNS story, you can see links that contain other related stories including invasive pat-downs of three year olds. Ask yourself what you would do if it was your three year old that some TSA agent was about to touch inappropriately. Interestingly, the government tends to arrest people who touch children in that way, but instead has given TSA a free hand (pardon the pun) in the matter.

When you harass or abuse a holy brother or sister, or a deacon, priest, or bishop, you are taking direct action against a servant of God and a representative of the Holy Church. Actions against them are most serious. Think for a minute about how threatening a regular citizen might not get you in trouble, but threatening a police officer most likely will. TSA certainly takes it seriously when people stand up to them or, admittedly, even when passengers behave inappropriately or dangerously (not to excuse some of the actions of TSA). I assure you that the Church takes it very seriously when those sworn servants of the Lord are abused.

As for harassment of children, remember that our Lord said that whatever we do unto the least of us, we do unto him. When TSA officers harass and inappropriately touch children, it is no different than if they were doing this to our Lord. The officers may not even ever be called to answer for their actions against the religious, children, and the rest of us in this lifetime, but I promise that they will at least be called to answer for their actions when they stand for judgment in the world that is to come.

Metropolitan Letter on Growing Socialism - Re-issued

2010-11-24T21:16:00.002+09:00

A.M.D.G.

This letter was written over a year ago, but is of relevant subject matter to the present that it bears re-distribution.

__________________________________________________________________

Esteemed Brethren and Dearest Sons in Christ,

The issue of socialism growing in strength within the

United States of America

, and indeed the whole world requires the attention of Christ’s Church. It is Our duty to comment on this matter and to advise the faithful under Our Apostolic and pastoral care so that they may understand and behave according to the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Faith. To do otherwise would be a failure in Our duty to Christ and to those in Our charge and care.

Attempts at Division

The fractured appearance of the Apostolic Church makes those who promote socialism believe they are better able to divide and conquer. While Christians separate over many diverse issues, socialists and communists join together to spread their vile poison of words and deeds, which has been shown by Church scholars and Church leaders over and over to be contrary to the Sacred Scripture, and embed their poison so deeply that it is difficult to remove. Yet, the Word of God is clear. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Christ’s Church. Though the Church of the true and living Faith handed down in unbroken succession from the Apostles has split into separate jurisdictions around the world, and though those provinces of authority often bicker and fight in a manner unbecoming of them, there is still but one Church and one Faith, united under one Baptism. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

The enemies of the Church delight in these split provinces, but they cannot see the truth. They are lured by these divisions, but fail to see that the union of Christ’s Church is deeper than leadership, jurisdiction, or Rite, but is instead a product of the Baptism in Christ and the authority transmitted by the Holy Spirit in succession from the Apostles.

The Necessity of the Clergy and Faithful to Speak out Against Injustice

This fractured state, while We lament it, is taken as the fact of the situation for the time being. Humans, as they are, have failed to shepherd faithfully the Divine Institution which has been entrusted to them, and so we as Christians are in factions. Remember, though, that these independent churches of the Apostolic Faith are all successors to the Apostles, and they are valid in their authority. So too are they valid in their duty to act and to speak when there are issues of great social concern. The issues at hand today in the United States of America relate to the rights of unborn children, to economics and justice, to human rights and dignity, and indeed to the very freedom of individuals demanded by our Lord. The Church, regardless of rite or jurisdiction, cannot remain silent on these issues.

When Government Acts Against the Church and Her People

Various entities in the government and outside the government have sought to silence the clergy in their outspoken criticism of the government policies; policies that are contrary to morality and Church precepts. The Church, however, must remember its higher calling and remain firm in the realization of its duty, faithfully carrying out that duty of legitimate opposition to illegitimate policies that marginalize rather than acknowledge the individual dignity; that restrain liberty while at the same time, and in a hypocritical fashion, mocking the authority of rule and the rule of law; that forces the will of a determined minority upon the remainder of the population; and that harms individuals under a misguided or malicious veil of fairness. The Bishops inherit the authority of the apostles, yet they inherit also the responsibilities pertaining to that office as well. Ordinary clergy share in the responsibility, and the faithful have the responsibility to oppose all that is unjust, so far as in their power lies. Acts against the Church and her leaders and people should not and must not deter those leaders and people from doing their Christian duty.

The Government of the United States of America

as a Guarantor of Religious Freedom

At this point in time, particularly in the

United States of America

, this duty of opposition to any unjust government policy is perhaps at its most crucial need. The United States of America, founded upon Christian principles by leaders with deep Christian faith, has always safe-guarded religious freedom. Now the socialist and communist factions seek subjugation to the State, and seek to use the very foundation of religious freedom and mechanism for guarding it, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to limit religious freedom. In many cases this goes beyond limitation into outright marginalization of Christians and restrictions on their rights and activities, particularly in favor of other religious groups. The end result of this is not the religious tolerance and equity touted by the socialists as their goal, but rather a Marxist-style of “class warfare” between religious groups. Under the veil of peace comes war. Under the cloak of freedom comes tyranny.

The Church, ever-concerned with the salvation of man, must work for the condition of man on earth to aid in their efforts of attainment of salvation. The United States government has traditionally been a whole-hearted and enthusiastic participant in this effort. Socialism has crept in silently over time, and now it is seeking to dominate. Good and faithful Christians must oppose the plans of any person in the government that seeks this socialist or communist domination. Such an outcome would result in the limitation of personal freedom, and hence a subjugation of individual work on salvation of all people to the present and temporal needs of the State and secular society. Secularism, which goes hand-in-hand with socialism and communism, is the enemy of Christianity and the enemy of human dignity, rights, and freedom. The United States government must be restored to its previous condition of preserving Christian principles, religious and individual freedom, and the dignity of all humans.

Socialism and Communism are Incompatible with Christianity

No Christian may be a socialist. No Christian may be a Communist. This has been consistently supported by the leaders of the true Church around the world.

Socialism and communism are at odds with Christianity. Both prohibit personal liberty, subjugating all people to the present and temporal needs of the State, with a focus purely on the present and the temporal.

Communism further is a Godless society. In socialism and communism, the individual is replaced by the State, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is replaced with the concept of nationalism, i.e., effective worship of the State. Such notions clearly are incompatible with Christian principles and must be avoided and opposed wherever they are encountered.

At times the faithful have been forced into subjugation at the hands of socialists and communists, and may even be forced or deluded into active participation, becoming pawns and puppets of the socialist regimes. We must always pray for such persons, as they are under the influence, often innocently, of the Devil’s tool of disharmony on the earth, socialism.

This same fate of subjugation may await the faithful within the United States, if the socialist factions in the government are not voted out of office. Such is the duty of the faithful, for they must aid in preventing their own fate from being that of many Christians in socialist and communist nations around the world.

The Culture of Death

The modern culture of death has been treated by many great leaders of the Church and by many great theologians. A society that does not value human life has subscribed to the culture of death. A society that does not protect unborn children and permits abortion, the outright murder of unborn children, has subscribed to the culture of death. This is incompatible with Christian principles, and no true Christian may subscribe to it. The faithful should pray for guidance and strength in opposing these horrors of the modern world.

We cannot comprehend how a society of such greatness as the United States of America can permit the legal murder of unborn children. Further We cannot comprehend how such a great society can tolerate another extreme brought on by focused socialist and liberal parties, viz., that the rights of animals often exceed those of humans. While, just as Saint Francis was kind to the animals, We do not condone cruelty to animals, the dignity of humans is paramount and should not be exceeded by that given to animals, particularly when this disparity comes about due to several determined minorities who wish to force the rest of the population to follow their own dangerous dogma.

The dogma and doctrine that must be accepted and followed by Christians is that of Christ’s Church, as handed down in unbroken succession from the Apostles, they themselves deriving their true and just authority from Jesus Christ Himself, receiving the Holy Spirit on the first Pentecost. All doctrines of man, made by man for various often selfish and nefarious reasons, must be rejected. Often these dogmae and doctrines appear on the surface to be benign and perhaps even helpful. The veneer of kindness often masks a deep and dark purpose underneath. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Such is the duty of Christians to remain vigilant against them.

Societies that Turn Away from our Lord and Savior

Societies that turn away from our Lord and Savior are doomed to at least a temporary negative fate, if not outright annihilation. We need only turn to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany to see the destruction wrought upon the people of a nation due to governments that were without God. They were without the love and charity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and their societies were destroyed.

We do not wish this fate visited upon the United States of America, a nation founded by the grace of God to uphold God and provide dignity and freedom for all. Yet, this is the fate that awaits the nation if socialist factions succeed in their machinations. Using inclusive language and veiling themselves with the United States flag and doctrines purporting to be about freedom, they sneak their way in as a thief in the night and slowly take over the government. What is worse is that the

United States

people, fooled by their lies, have helped to put them into power through campaign efforts and elections. Let us not go the foolish ways of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, for We do not wish the people of

America

to suffer at the hand of God for their national disobedience.

The Truth of Christian Values

By the grace of God, we the people of God have been given the Church. She is the Bride of Christ, instituted by Him and born out of His death and passion, and glorious resurrection and ascension. She is universal, and she exists to save all mankind. The values of Christ and His Church are paramount among all value systems. Morality is not relative or a matter of personal choice. It is a matter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as well as the teaching authority of the universal Church. Socialists seek to replace our value system with one of their own, which values not the dignity and freedom of man, but merely their own interests here and now. They care not for the salvation of man, but only for temporal interests of power. We urge all those in Our care to keep the faith and to keep Christ’s values in their hearts above all other value systems. All other value systems must be measured against that of Christ.

On the Unity of Christians

The Church, being universal and embracing all people of the world, craves unity. This unity is unity of doctrine and faith above all else. Christians, though possessing many diverse forms of worship within the Apostolic Faith and tradition, are still unified by one Baptism and that Apostolic Faith. The Holy Spirit flows through the Church as surely today as it did on the first Pentecost.

Socialists by their very nature seek to break apart Christian unity, tempting us to focus on our differences and ignore our unifying foundation. This foundation is strong; far stronger than they are. They cannot break or destroy it. They can only hope for us to ignore it. By so doing, they hope to weaken us so that we fight ourselves instead of them, leaving them free to pursue their goal of absolute power. We, dearest brethren, must be vigilant and constantly guard against this. We must not allow ourselves to be pitted against each other, but rather must focus on opposing socialism and communism in our society today.

Method of Opposition

Spiritual weapons are the weapons that must be used. The bomber and the assassin are the tools of the anarchist. Anarchism is chaos and hence the opposite of order, and its lack of order fails to guarantee freedom and dignity. It fails to consider anything in the future, but only the present. Anarchism is as offensive to Christianity as socialism and communism are. Therefore, the tools of the anarchist must not be used.

The faithful must pray for the conversion of the socialists and communists, and of all those who know not Christ. For those professed Christians who still persist in following the ills of socialism and communism, we must all pray for their return to the faith and for their abandonment of their philosophies contrary to the Church and to human freedom and dignity.

Victory over Socialism

Socialists in the

United States

have gained tremendous power in the past decade or more. Indeed, it could be said that they started their rise to power with the New Deal. Now they occupy the White House and a major portion of government. They seem determined to destroy America as she is and was meant to be, and instead re-invent her as a socialist regime, focused only on power and ignoring the needs and rights of the people. This must be opposed by the faithful. It is our duty. For the Bishops, it is our Apostolic duty. This is a duty in which we cannot fail. God will help us; this you all should remember. We shall reiterate that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Christ’s Church and His people.

We must further pray that Bishops, clergy and people of other provinces respond in a similar manner as We have admonished you, dear brethren, to respond. This is an era of a crossroads. Will the Land of the Free remain so, or will she become a socialist hell on earth? We must fight for the former and fight against the latter.

Conclusion

In conclusion, We pray that each of you will reflect duly upon these words, maintain the doctrine of the true faith as handed down from the Apostles, and oppose legitimately to the best of your abilities these threats against freedom that we now face in the

United States

. To my Esteemed Brethren the Bishops and Ordinary Clergy of this Metropolitan See and Province, I charge you to admonish your flocks in these matters, keep the faith, and promulgate it throughout the world. Seeing the light of Christ, it is impossible that the heathen, the fallen, and the enemies of Christ’s Church can stand against it. Never give up the fight for justice on earth, trusting in the justice of eternity, and always keep the faith. The enemies of the church, including the socialists and communists that form the primary topic of this letter, may win spotted victories, and even large victories, but they shall not have the final victory. Remember this always as you live your Christian vocation and await the reward of everlasting life. We pray health and happiness to you all and impart Our Apostolic Blessing on each of you.

Moral outrage at civil rights violations

2010-11-22T18:44:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Want to see a government official with her hand on your wife's breast right there at the airport? Care to see a government official put his hands down your child's pants? The latest round of civil rights abuses by TSA are discussed in a recent ACNS article, and you can find more by searching with the various news services on the internet.

I join with the victims of these abuses in moral outrage at the conduct of TSA as a whole and the nonchalant attitude of the President who, after all, does not himself have to undergo these humiliating pat-downs. It is one thing to maintain proper security. It is another thing to humiliate people in an indecent manner and violate their civil rights all in the name of "state security." I pray that American remains a free nation and does not become the next police state in the world.

Leaving the CofE for Rome in Droves: Is it real or is it hype?

2010-11-21T17:47:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

No Anglo-Catholic around the world can help but feel for the situation of Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England. It is at least as bad as the situation in the Episcopal Church of the US in the 1970s, and that led to the growth of the continuing Anglican movement, independent communions, etc. Now Anglicans, specifically Anglicans in the CofE, have another choice given to them by the Pope under Anglicanorum coetibus.

Media reports, especially those put out by Catholic news groups, paint a picture that the CofE is dissolving from within. A few pathfinding Bishops are leading the way, priests and laity are following, and soon all but the lefties will have left the CofE for Rome. Is this actually accurate when one looks at the numbers? What is the real impact?

There are approximately 7 million Anglicans world-wide. There are approximately 800 bishops attending the Lambeth Conference. Five bishops leaving, then, amount to less than 1% of the world's Anglican Bishops based on those attending Lambeth, and an even smaller percentage, counting all the Anglican Bishops. And what of the laity? If 1000 members of the CofE leave, for example, that's only 1/100th of a percent of the world's Anglicans. Even if 1000 parishioners leave per bishop, or even per priest who is leaving, it isn't a very big dent.

Now, the argument has been made that this is just the beginning and many more will follow. That may very well happen, but from my own experience and observation, there is rarely a true and sustain mass exodus. The numerical proportion to which this is impacting things is very likely typical media hype.

Numerical impact isn't the only type of influence, though. What is the real message and the real impact of this new offer made by the Pope and the response to it? The real influence has been to make known on a massive scale the plight of the Anglican Church, especially within the Church of England itself, and to make available another alternative to those in the Anglican Church who no longer wish to stand idly by as our sacred faith is trampled upon. Even if the numbers are not all that high, and even if they never are, this still sends a message.

This is the situation that Anglo-Catholics find themselves in. We all have sought solutions, and there are many out there. Many of us have found a solution, and many are still seeking. It is never easy. Whichever route an Anglo-Catholic takes, it is important above all to maintain the faith.

Nuns on the Mountain

2010-11-20T22:20:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

We were out climbing in the mountains around here today. I was coming down from the summit of one of the peaks when I saw a nun...Benedictine, I believe, coming up. She was in her habit. Then I passed more and more. It looked like the entire convent was climbing the mountain. They were all in their habits, veil and all. One was carrying a rosary in her hand. Now...if nuns can wear their habits to climb a mountain, why can't more of us secular priests get up the nerve to wear the cassock down here in town?

Response to ACNS Article on New Airport Procedures

2010-11-14T17:26:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The recent article from the ACNS on frightening moral concerns with new airport security started me thinking about my own observations travelling over the years. Travelling as a child all over the world, we never experienced anything in the US or elsewhere that compares to what seems to be going on American airports now. The excuse for the new procedures is a need to protect the people. That is a noble goal, but it is also the excuse of every tyrant in history. As Benjamin Franklin said, he who would trade an ounce of freedom for a pound of security is worthy of neither.

I also question a system in which, despite the data that clearly demonstrates that the attacks are coming exclusively from one segment of the world's population, yet continually insists on harassing children and the elderly, American military veterans, and other upstanding citizens all in the name of political correctness. I know one high-ranking retired military officer who, along with his wife, was detained and questioned upon re-entered the United States. His wife was put in a separate room, and they could not open the doors on their own. Is this the face of the terrorist threat, or are we becoming another police state just like those we claim to be fighting?

And where is the recourse? If you stand up for yourself, you run the serious risk of being further harassed, detained, or arrested. This is not the America I grew up in. It is not the America of my ancestors. When government agencies or specific individuals within the government behave in this manner, they fail in their moral obligation to the people. We therefore have a right and a duty to speak out on this matter. A true and just government must behave in an ethical fashion towards those to whom it has been given to govern.

Anglicanism and the Church of England: newyorker.com

2010-11-13T15:22:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Here is an interesting article in the New Yorker dealing with the ongoing saga of women priestesses in the Church of England (not to mention the worldwide Anglican Church). It gives details of both sides of the argument. Check out the link below.

Anglicanism and the Church of England: newyorker.com

The Beauty of God's World

2010-11-10T17:26:00.002+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Nature is a wonderful example of the beauty of God's many creations. Here are some photographs I took on a volcanic island in Asia recently. Rather than comment more, I will let the photos speak for themselves (though I can't resist manking a few captions).

This waterfall goes right into the ocean.

A flower floating on the water

Two flowers in a tree.

An ocean sunset

A waterfall in a ravine

A view of the ocean

The liturgy was designed for God!

2010-11-04T19:55:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

These days many think that liturgy is a form of entertainment and that it must be changed to suit the whims and desires of the congregation without regard to Scripture, doctrine, and tradition. This becomes especially problematic when people mistakenly believe that they can and should modify the liturgy just to fill the pews or "get the young people in." It is a fallacy and one that is ultimately doomed to failure. Canon Jerome Osjv, an Old Catholic prelate in the United Kingdom, recently put it very well with the following statement.

________________________

The liturgy was designed for God! The "young people" can be catechised and learn that the universe does not revolve around their likes and dislikes! It took a little time for me to appreciate that, but I was glad when I did... as are, it seems, most "young" people when they (re)discover Tradition.

________________________

Thanks to Canon Jerome for saying it so well and so succinctly.

From the Archives - An Old Letter to My Parish

2010-11-03T23:07:00.002+09:00

A.M.D.G.

From the Archives...

This is a letter that I sent to my parish some time ago when I was a layman in the Episcopal Church. It was an attempt to point out the issues facing the parish and the Church as a whole. No priests discussed this matter with me or even acknowledged that it was written. It was made known to me by a member of the staff of the parish that the priests had been ordered not to discuss the letter or even acknowledge it to anyone, including me. It was after this that I ultimately made the decision to leave the Episcopal Church.

With deep regret, these issues still face the worldwide Church, and in particular the Anglican Church.

The letter has been edited for content, with names of parishes and places removed.

+RBJ

Dear Reverend Fathers,

I wish to address some concerns of recent and not-so-recent developments within the Anglican Church. As an Anglo-Catholic who feels increasingly ostracized for holding beliefs that are “not with the times,” I must make these concerns known to the parish clergy. I wish to state that I am voicing these concerns out of concern for the collective Catholic Church as a whole, of which the Anglican Church is a part, and the people of my home parish of which I am pleased to be a member.

The first concern is that of the excessive use of Rite II. While I personally prefer the older language usage of Rite I, the more modern language of Rite II is acceptable. One priest informed me that this was to expose us “traditionalists” to something new. Yet, the typically Rite II Masses did not utilize Rite I on those same days. Both of these changes defeat the stated purpose of exposing parishioners to “something new,” and I submit that something less desirable is at work here. I submit that the goal is gradually to erode the traditional liturgy of Rite I and replace it over time with Rite II. I have heard Rite I called excessively penitential. Is there anything wrong with penance, especially before receiving a Holy Sacrament? Rite II, it could be argued, is quite lazy, and smacks of the modernistic view of “anything goes,” and everything being acceptable. Anglican liturgy is known throughout the world, even in the Roman Catholic Church, for its beauty and reverence. Let us not lose that beauty and reverence in favor of modernism.

The issue is not so much the liturgy itself, but the underlying meaning of the liturgy. One priest stated that there is no such thing as traditional, as Church tradition has been constantly changing over time. He is indeed correct. However, this is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for rapid, sweeping changes (not just in liturgy). The Holy Catholic Church of Christ is that body of the Faithful which has persisted since the first Pentecost. As Anglicans, we are part of that tradition. We in this generation are not the Church ourselves. We are part of the two thousand year old continuous church. Church tradition is an integral part of the Church, and I need hardly tell you that Christ vested the Apostles with the authority to establish this Sacred Tradition. Church tradition, to retain its universality, and to remind us of our part in this collective body of Christ, must change slowly, gradually, and rationally to that the changes reflect neither the personality of any one person or group, nor the personality of any one generation. Church tradition must represent the collective body of the Faithful over the continuous history of the church. Broad, sweeping changes in liturgy made largely during the 1970’s erode this essential Catholic aspect of our Anglican Church. The feeling is fit the liturgy to the people rather than instruct them in tradition and their role as Christians in the collective history of the Church. This rapid change to “keep with the times” makes the liturgy of our time and thus very likely obsolete to persons of different cultures and temporal beliefs than our own. (Further analysis is too involved for this letter.) In addition, the recent full communion with the Lutheran Church is, in the context of Catholic doctrine, a mistake. We can look to Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, and all three tell us that, since the Lutheran Church has had an intentional break in Apostolic Succession, they are not keeping with Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Orders and Sacraments. Therefore full communion is not only improper but impossible without changing doctrine. I therefore suggest that this state of full communion represents not a reconciliation, but an underlying change in doctrine, regardless of what the doctrine may appear to be on the surface in most parishes. These rapid changes puts the Church in “our time,” and not in the context of the Church evolution as a whole.

Liturgy itself is meaningless without underlying doctrine. In my observation the changes in liturgy reflect a disturbing change in doctrine. First, the temporal liturgy of Rite II, by its nature of being of our own time, represents a break with the Catholic doctrine and tradition which I just discussed. Without expounding on the specifics in detail, the underlying doctrines of the Mass which unite the Faithful appear also to have been eroded by modernism. One such doctrinal issue is the ordination of women. I maintain that ordination of women to the Priesthood and Episcopate should not have been done in the first place. Reasons for this lie in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. I might suggest that the ordination of female Bishops threatens the very Apostolic Succession which has made us a part of the continuous Catholic Church. This change is often defended by saying women are equal to men. I firmly believe women are equal to men. Nevertheless, they are not the same. They are not only obviously physiologically different, but have different roles in life. The fact that these changes accompanied the feminist movement cannot possibly be coincidence. Is this the Religion of the Month Club?

Many laity and clergy apply secular societal norms (which are ever-changing) to the Church, and this is as dangerous as theology by democracy. The theology of the 70’s was handed down from above without regard to origin, and forced upon the congregation. Not surprisingly, many consider this radically changed doctrine to be quite normal. Anglo-Catholics tend to disagree because, once again, this is liturgy and doctrine of the times rather than of the collective history of the Church. It may “bring us into the future,” and Reason may agree with this, but without the past (our Scripture and Tradition) to guide us we have no compass. The belief of Immanentism seems to have replaced the dual immanent-transcendental nature of God in a justification for looking to the secular world for guidance on religious matters.

Modernist thought is replacing tradition in an increasing way not only in doctrine, but in our moral code. If people cannot get moral guidance from their church, then from whence should it come? In an increasingly secularized society that is losing its moral compass, the Church can and must stand strong. Instead it appears the Church has preferred to engage in promoting the latest fashionable socio-political cause.

I consider the sexual morals of society to be among the worst degraded. I consider, in keeping with the traditional teachings of the Church, that homosexuality, whatever the cause, is wrong and contrary to the will of God. I state without reservation that anti-homosexual violence is itself wrong, and is certainly an inappropriate way of expressing disapproval. Such acts are no different than, for example, the heinous act of bombing an abortion clinic to express a pro-life stance. Nevertheless, homosexuality is destructive to society, contrary to family values, and contrary to the teachings of the Church. I would not want my children exposed to the positive promotion of homosexuality as normal, and certainly not at my church. I state my peaceful yet adamant opposition to the local “Gay Men’s Chorus” practicing (and performing, if memory serves) in our parish (or in any other parish). Homosexuals need the Church as much, if not more, than any of the rest of us. However, open practice of homosexuality should not be promoted within the Church.

Continuing with sexual ethics, I wish to address marital issues. While I cannot say what is specifically taught to the youth in the Sunday schools of our parish, my general observation of the church as a whole is that it is very open to a variety of sexual ethics, leaving the choice up to the individual. Certainly the choice is up to the individual ultimately (we always have a choice), but sexual urges are most powerful. Wouldn’t it be nice if the church gave specific guidance to control these urges and use them in their proper context? Pre-marital sex should not be promoted. Sex is both an act of procreation and bonding between a married man and woman. It is a gift from God and represents a very powerful bond between husband and wife. Certainly people sometimes give into temptation, but idealistically abstinence is best and should be promoted to our children and unmarried adults alike. Sex with a partner in a non-marital relationship that terminates represents a broken bond between two people that wasn’t truly present to begin with, usually involving promises that were also broken. A marriage subsequent to this may cause doubts in one or both future spouses about their trustworthiness. An engaged couple who agrees to remain chaste until the solemnization is putting sex in its proper context. So doing states that both partners love each other so much that they will not engage in an act of deep bonding that represents a commitment that isn’t fully made. Only in the security of Holy Matrimony can a man and a woman fully give themselves to each other. This is the traditional teaching of the Church, and should be promoted in our own parish. I hope I will be informed that this is what is being taught in our parish.

While I applaud my church for wanting to bring as many people as possible to Jesus and the Anglican tradition of the Catholic faith, I am concerned about this trend of “embracing” the current politically correct views of the day. My study of economics shows that this is likely motivated by a desire to fill the pews, especially since we are the smallest of the catholic denominations, and smaller than many protestant denominations. Saying to the congregation the equivalent of “believe or do what you want” is not only dangerous, but it leaves many in turmoil. Take a stand according to the true faith and traditions of Catholic doctrine. That is your job.

My last concern I will voice is that there is a strong bias towards these politically correct views and against the above stated views. For example, those who believe women can be ordained are applauded for their support of women’s rights (never mind that women’s rights have nothing to do with the theology pertaining to ordination), but one who states the opposite of that view would be condemned as “anti-woman,” or “anti-progress.” Traditional viewpoints are condemned as stuffy, in the past, outdated, irrelevant, not keeping with the times, etc. How should traditional Anglo-Catholics feel about their church home when those who claim they want equality suddenly show great hypocrisy and accept only their own views? I make no attempt to hide the fact that I, as an Anglo-Catholic, do not accept these modernistic trends. We do not, however, oppose change. We oppose irrational, trendy change that seeks to remove the Church from the Sacred Tradition and history of the two thousand year old universal community of Faith.

I state these opinions out of concern for my parish and the Church as a whole. I see no reason why Anglo-Catholics should be forced out of their church simply for holding their Church’s traditional viewpoints. I wish only to improve my parish and enrich the lives of its members.

In conclusion, the Church is above all society, all societal traditions, and all of us mere mortals. Church bodies cannot alter truth. We must preserve the past of our Church and tradition in order to protect our future. Please think about and pray about what has been said in this letter. I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Sue-Happy America

2010-11-03T19:51:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

America's favorite pastime when I was growing up was baseball. Now it is suing other people. Justice usually isn't at the heart of these frivolous lawsuits we hear about so often in the news, but rather money. Greed is the underlying reason. People see a chance to exploit others and get money. Usually it is a corporation with deep pockets who gets targeted, because people feel that the corporation "has so much money, they won't miss a few million and might even settle out of court." Also behind this are greedy and unscrupulous attorneys who would sue their own grandmother if they thought there was a profit in it. I don't mean to insult all lawyers, of course, but only the ones to whom this letter applies.

A lawyer friend of mine recently told me that only around one-third of graduating law students on average gets a job right out of law school. I don't know if this is the precisely correct statistic, but the point is still clear. Law students graduate and need work in their chosen field. They need to find work. So, when they can't find decent jobs in the legal profession... Well, it isn't a surprise there are so many frivolous lawsuits.

Today by email I received notification that I was on the winning side of just such a frivolous lawsuit against Google. I didn't even know I was part of such a thing. Apparently all people with GMail accounts were included. Perhaps some of you received this very same email as I did. As I understand the story, the argument was over Google Buzz and privacy, and some people thought their privacy was violated. Google I gather denied it, yet chose to settle out of court for $8.5 million. However, the money doesn't go to the people represented in the class action suit. It goes to support organizations about internet privacy AND...it goes to pay the lawyers! Now isn't that interesting? If I understand this correctly, the people who brought the suit get nothing, but as usual, the lawyers make out like bandits.

And I'm sure we all remember the insanity of the million dollar lawsuit against McDonald's over a cup of spilled hot coffee. Apparently you don't cry over spilled coffee, you take the restaurant to court. At least that suit did have a positive outcome. Now we are all thoroughly warned that our McDonald's coffee is hot! (Did any of us really have to be told that coffee is hot?)

It is time that Americans return to having respect for their fellow human beings instead of putting the pursuit of the "almighty dollar" above all else. A little love and Christian charity goes a long way to solving problems.

Why All Souls' Day is a Happy Day to Me

2010-11-02T23:16:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

I just finished celebrating the three masses appointed for All Souls' Day today. You'd think with the lack of flowers, austere modifications to the mass, black vestments, the Dies Irae, and so on that it would be a truly depressing chore to say masses on this day. Perhaps it might bring back memories of funeral masses, weeping families, and the like. Yet, I don't feel this way at all. I truly find this day a particularly joyous occasion.

Today the Church prays for the dead. We pray for all the faithful departed in Christ, as well as for specific departed for whom we wish to pray. Through this mass we are reminded of the saving grace of Jesus Christ and the hope of eternal salvation. Though we feel a loss when our friends and loved ones pass away, how can we really be truly sad when we know that through Christ they may live! It is this wonderful fact of our Faith that we are reminded of three times today. It is for this reason that this is one of my favorite days in the Christian calendar.

Why on Earth does the Media Glorify Bad Behavior?

2010-10-31T10:09:00.001+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Do you know what your children
are watching on television?

This evening I was watching one of my favorite documentaries, and they were talking about a late fisherman's life. Their description went well beyond his skills on the water. It talked about and showed video footage of him talking about how he took "every drug on the planet," was a hard-drinking, fast-living, strip club-going individual. They then called him an American hero.

No one is perfect. People make mistakes. People can grow. Yet, when dangerous and immoral activities are promoted in conjunction with someone deemed a "hero" by the media, there is a problem. This sends the message that it is "cool" to be that way. There is no message of "I made some mistakes, kids. Don't follow those practices." If it were that way, then there is a sense of social responsibility there. When the complete package is presented in a positive light, however, it is a case of a negative role model portrayed as a positive one. This is what happened in this documentary.

It does not stop here with American media. Look at Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as just two examples. Children somehow are allowed to watch cartoons like South Park and Family Guy. Television dramas promote immoral behavior and lack of responsibility. Trash television has taken over.

A nation that tolerates media promoting what is base, immoral, and indecent as good, positive, and acceptable has lost its moral compass. "Oh, so he used every drug known to man. So what? He's a good person, so it doesn't matter," they might say. This was the gist of what the television documentary was saying as well. What total nonsense. This is a clear product of the age of moral relativism in which we rationalize and justify everyone's behavior by saying that they as people aren't bad. If we say what they are doing or have done is bad, then we are accused of somehow attacking them as human beings. This is not what we are doing, however, when we condemn their behavior. Condemning the sin is not condemning the person. (Read more about that here.)

When we justify sin by making the excuse that the sinner is inherently good, we are projecting our emotions about the person onto their sin. Pretty soon all behavior becomes acceptable, no matter how bad, especially if we like the person. The more this goes on, the harder it becomes to stand against it. And there is the problem with these media portrayals of bad behavior in a positive light.

And how is it we are ignoring all of this as a society? Perhaps we have collectively taken the crucifix down from the wall so we aren't constantly reminded that Jesus is watching us. It makes us feel better as we are fed the over-the-top garbage the media corporations are putting out to win the ratings game and get more money. The trouble is, God knows all. We as a society are not fooling him. Society is only fooling itself. So, we might as well put the crucifix back up on the wall where it belongs. We might as well put God back in society. He is everywhere anyway. We might as well admit it.

The Traditional Old Anglo-Catholic Church - Thank God We're Behind the Times

2010-10-30T11:42:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself.…”

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

My favorite bishop of the modern era does it again! The above words of Fulton Sheen were sent to me this morning, and they not only rang true, but they got me thinking of the See entrusted to me, the Archdiocese of the Southwest. We have certainly been called "behind the times." I'm not sure we get along with the world at all. We have been accused of essentially all that +Sheen mentions above. We rightly claim to represent the Truth of Christ, and many reject us. Indeed, we are in this world, but not of this world. But what about love?

Even when there are disagreements and varying opinions internally, as inevitably will happen with humans, I have always observed in our little archdiocese a sense of Christian love towards one another. How many divisions of Christ's Church do not practice this? From my experience, quite a few. This is what we want in the Archdiocese of the Southwest; Christ's unfiltered and unapologetic religion of Truth and Love. This is what we have. Christ's love for the Church is infinite, and this is what we reflect.

The Role of Societal Leaders - Spoken over Half a Century Ago

2010-10-28T15:06:00.003+09:00

A.M.D.G.

This was an allocution of Pius XII to the Roman nobility on 11 January 1951. While the Roman nobility specifically is being addressed, it is nonetheless a good treatise on social responsibility and follows in the theme of my previous letter on role models (see that letter here). To whom much has been given, much is expected. The so-called elites of modern society often fail to see this crucial point. Yet, Pius XII saw it and, speaking more than fifty years ago, made it quite clear that the duty of society's leaders is service.

+RBJ

With all Our heart We extend Our paternal greeting to the members of the Roman Patriciate and Nobility who, true to an ancient tradition, have gathered around Us at the dawn of the New Year to offer Us their fervent best wishes, as expressed with filial devotion by their illustrious and eloquent representative.

One after another, each year enters history, handing down to the new year a legacy, the responsibility for which it bears upon itself. The year just ended, the Holy Year 1950, will remain one of the greatest in the moral and especially the supernatural order. Your family annals will note its more resplendent dates, like so many bright beacons to light the way for your children and grandchildren.

But will these annals be like a closed book? Will they count only the memories of a past dead and gone? No. On the contrary, they must be a message from the vanished generations to those of the future.

The celebration of the Holy Year came to a close for Rome, not like a spectacle that had reached its end, but rather as the program of a growing life purified, sanctified, and fecundated by grace, one that must continue to enrich itself with the endless contribution of the thoughts and feelings, the resolutions and actions whose memories your ancestors have passed on to you, that you yourselves might pass on their example to those who shall follow you.

The furious currents of a new age envelop the traditions of the past in their whirlwinds. Yet, more than this, these winds show what is destined to die like withered leaves, and what instead tends with the genuine force of its interior life to stand firm and live on. A nobility and a patriciate that would, as it were, grow stiff and decrepit by regretting times gone by, would consign themselves to an inevitable decline. Today more than ever, you are called upon to be an elite, not only by blood and by stock, but even more by your works and sacrifices, by creative actions in the service of the entire social community.

And this is not just a duty of man and citizen that none may shirk with impunity. It is also a sacred commandment of the faith that you have inherited from your fathers and that you must, in their wake, leave whole and unaltered to your descendants.

Banish, therefore, from your ranks all despondency and faint-heartedness; all despondency in the face of the age’s evolution, which is bearing away many things that other epochs had built; and all faint-heartedness at the sight of the grave events accompanying the novelties of our age. Being Roman means being strong in action, but also in support. Being Christian means confronting the sufferings, the trials, the tasks, and the needs of the age with that courage, strength, and serenity of spirit that draws the antidote to all human fear from the wellsprings of eternal hope.

How humanly great is Horace’s proud dictum: Si fractus illabatur orbis, impavidum ferient ruinae (Even if the world crumbles to pieces, its ruins would strike him without, however, unsettling him). Yet how much greater still, how much more confident and exalting is the victorious cry that rises from Christian lips and hearts brimming with faith: Non confundar in aeternum!

Thus beseeching the Creator of all good to grant you intrepid fortitude and the divine gift of an unshakable hope founded on faith, with all Our heart We give you, beloved Sons and Daughters, your families, and all your loved ones, near and far, sick and in health, and all your holy aspirations and undertakings, Our Apostolic blessing.

Pius pp XII

Good Role Models

2010-10-28T14:50:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Society is starved for good role models today. This applies to adults and youth alike. Considering positive role models are essential to the development of young people into good Christian adults and upstanding, productive citizens, this is particularly troublesome.

Coming from the South, I need look no further than the fine collection of Confederate Generals for role models. For example, Robert E. Lee is rightly considered one of the finest gentlemen ever to live and produced much wisdom for living that is as applicable today as over a century ago when he wrote it. These are historical role models, though. Environment is important to development, and so youth in particular need living role models around them to look up to. In addition to those role models around them, they need positive societal role models to confirm to them that what is proper behavior really is proper behavior.

I can certainly think of some living people who are good role models. Perhaps Ed Viesturs, the first American to climb all 14 mountains in the world that are above 8000 meters in altitude without supplemental oxygen would be a good one. He set a big (very big) goal and worked hard to overcome the odds, even giving up his veterinary practice to pursue mountaineering full time. And then there is the physical and mental accomplishment. This is not a bad choice at all. The only trouble is that, while he is well-known in the mountaineering community, he is not exactly a household name in America. The kids aren't all wearing Ed Viesturs t-shirts.

Now...contrast this to the over-paid egomaniacs in professional American sports today. What kind of role models are these? Even college athletes have it put into their heads that they can do whatever they want and have other people to do their work for them. Adultery is the norm. I just don't see a thing in their behavior or the general culture surrounding them that promotes good values to anyone, much less the youth of today. The message seems to be "do whatever you want, for there are no consequences." Yet, these are the household names. These are the ones to whom America's youth looks up to?

What about the popular music stars and other celebrities? I hesitate to call most of it music, but nevertheless, it is popular. Look at their far-from-moral behavior in the news. Is this positive? Not hardly. As with the sports players, they communicate to our youth that there are no consequences. They can do whatever they want, and they don't really even have to do much to work. It's all about the glitz and glamor. And then there is the complete and total lack of morality in Hollywood. These are the ones to whom America's youth looks up to?

We need role models for our youth and for society in general, and we need them now. It is time that those who are public figures, celebrities, movie stars, pop singers, and sports players are made to realize that there are consequences to their actions, if not to them, then to society. They need an injection of social responsibility instead of whatever else they're getting high on. They need to deflate their egos and help other people. They need a good dose of morality instead of booze. They need to start setting a good example for everyone now.

The American Justice System

2010-10-27T14:09:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

"When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers."

-Proverbs 21:15

The justice system in America is certainly better than that of my current neighbors to the north and west. Just because it is better than Kim Jung-Il's North Korea and modern communist China, however, does not mean that it is perfect or that we should not continually seek to improve it. The justice system must exist for the purposes of protecting society and also for the good of the souls of those in prison. There are also a number of traps that we can fall into regarding the purpose and application of the justice system, as well as how we all think about the justice system that must be avoided.

There is no question that there must be a justice system to safeguard society and that crime should not be allowed to run rampant. This is one of the fundamental duties of a government. Yet, it must never be allowed to use the justice system as a means to tyranny, political coercion, or the like. The system must always seek true justice, not justice as a matter of public opinion or justice by mob rule, as such is comparable to anarchy. This is the first trap. Those in charge of the justice system may be tempted for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad, to make rulings or give sentences based on what they believe the people want. Yes, this yields an acceptable outcome when what the people want is true justice. However, there is always the danger that the wishes of the crowd and true justice diverge. This is why the eye must be fixed on justice, not on the wishes of the crowd. This is particularly dangerous when there are political "hot button" crimes, where politicians are taking a stand on one crime or another and demanding that harsh sentences be given and more convictions be made. When that elected official is a judge who wants to be re-elected, suddenly the wishes of the voters become more important than justice. Court decisions have the serious danger of becoming political in such cases.

What also must be solved is the revolving door. According to the US Department of Justice study in 1994, the recidivism rate for thieves was around 75%. Thankfully for society, the rates for rapists and murderers was less than 3%. The New York Riker's Island jail has a recidivism rate of 65%. A study by the University System of Nevada showed Arizona to have the lowest rate at around 25%. California, on the other hand, has the highest at 70%. I have heard it said that criminals come out of jail worse than when they went in. This is not good for society, and it is not good for the inmates.

So how do we solve the revolving door problem? I would be lying if I said I thought it was an easy task. The underlying problem with the individual has to be fixed, as well as problems within the penal system. If there is no rehabilitation in prison, then how can we expect the inmate to be any better when they come out? This is not a surprising outcome, considering that they are surrounded by other criminals constantly.

The environment often doesn't help, either. The argument has been made that prison should be unpleasant in order to discourage repetition of the crime. We can see from recidivism rates that this just isn't so effective. Also, there is a difference between instructive unpleasantness and other forms of unpleasantness. To take the matter to an extreme, I am sure that if the penalty for theft were flaying, the incidence of theft would decrease dramatically. Yet, does that make the punishment or the way it is carried out correct or right? I do not suggest that it should be a luxurious country club, but there are still limits of human decency. When one cages a human being, one has a significant responsibility towards them.

I do not propose or support this liberal soft-on-crime nonsense, either. That amounts to nothing more than false pity in which we feel sorry for the murderer or the rapist or the thief, so we tell ourselves it really isn't their fault, and if they just promise to be good, then all should be forgiven. The problem is that this is easily manipulated by the criminals in order the achieve their desired result...and worst of all, it doesn't fix anything. What is needed is for those who are incarcerated to undergo a true conversion. Through Christ they can achieve freedom, even while incarcerated. When they are released, if they have experienced a true conversion and truly changed their ways, society and they both benefit.

What has happened to our educational system?

2010-10-26T17:16:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

It's official. The more educated and more wealthy people in America are less moral! This is according to statistics stemming from a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. American society has been slowly becoming more and more permissive since the 1940s (see a book on the subject here). Modern secular psychology has been taking over as the dominant guide rather than Christian morality. These things rarely happen overnight. It should come as no surprise that it was a gradual process, slowly eroding our society's morality. What is most sad, though, is that financial success (having or earning more money) and education (going to college) are now associated with lower morality. No longer, it seems, is a permissive attitude limited to the stereotypical "liberal East Coast academic," but rather is a national epidemic. Perhaps now I see why someone once told me that no one with a brain could or should become a catholic. In fact, he told me I was too smart to be a catholic.

As a point of statistics, education and income are generally highly correlated, so we can simplify matters here by just focusing on education. So what is it about our educational system that breeds such liberals?

Let's look at some of the numbers by category....

________________________________________________________________________

Abortion

If you graduate college you are 33.3% less likely to oppose abortion, and you are more than twice as likely to view the murder of unborn children as morally acceptable. College graduates are also almost twice as likely to view abortion as not a moral issue. Higher income also reduces your probability of opposing abortion.

Homosexuality

If you graduate college, you are almost 50% less likely to view homosexuality as morally wrong, about twice as likely to think it is not a moral issue, and almost three times as likely to view it as morally acceptable. Income followed the same trend, though the differences between the income categories in terms of their moral view on this issue were less dramatic than for education.

Alcohol Abuse

If you graduate college, you are a little less than 50% less likely to view alcohol abuse as morally wrong, and well over twice as likely to view it as not a moral issue. What was particularly interesting was that the percentage of people who believed alcohol abuse to be morally acceptable was the same for high school graduates and college graduates, but twice as high for those with some college. Income followed the same trend, though the differences between the income categories in terms of their moral view on this issue were less dramatic than for education.

Fornication

If you graduate college, you are a little less than 50% less likely to view fornication as morally wrong, around 33.3% more likely to view it as not a moral issue, and about 20% more likely to view it as morally acceptable. As expected, income followed in the same trend, but was less dramatic in magnitude.

Marijuana Use

If you graduate college, you are a little less than 50% less likely to view smoking pot as morally wrong and more than twice as likely to view it as not a moral issue. What was a little surprising was that college graduates were slightly less likely to view smoking pot as morally wrong. So, they either refuse to say it is wrong (the same thing as saying it is right) or say it isn't even a moral issue. Income followed the same trends with about the same proportional changes.

________________________________________________________________________

These statistics make me wonder just what is being taught in colleges these days! They certainly aren't getting any of these notions from my classes! Of course, if I think back to what I witnessed during my college days and time in graduate school, I'm not overly surprised by any of this. My alma mater, despite being a conservative university in the South, still put on a production of The Vagina Monologues, complete with a wall advertisement in the student center about the size of Raphael's mural The Deliverance of Saint Peter. So, I suppose I just shouldn't be shocked that the survey showed that college graduates are less likely to profess Christian morals.

As I sit here listening to Bach's organ chorale Wachet auf (Sleepers wake), I can't help but think that it is time for America to wake up. What we need is an overhaul of the university system, but the likelihood of that anytime soon is probably as high as that of getting struck by lightening twice while in a cave. It's not all that bad, though. There are some things we can do.

Christians have got to continue preserving and promoting morality and increase the efforts to do so. No one is perfect, and we all make mistakes. Yet, if we adopt a permissive, "anything goes" attitude, then morals and society necessarily degenerate. As for universities, we can promote ethics and morality within them, and especially give assistance to Christian universities and colleges, no matter the denomination, in their most valuable mission of educating our youth to be good citizens and good Christians, allowing Christian morality, principles, and faith to guide them in all aspects of their lives. We can promote Christian morals around our communities and in whom we elect to office. We no longer should remain silent.

Chalice or Not - Part 2 - Intinction

2010-10-25T08:20:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

This letter is a follow-on discussion to an earlier letter on whether or not it is absolutely essential that any other than the celebrating priest receives the chalice in order to obtain all the grace of the Sacrament. See the original letter here. I was asked to address the issue of intinction and have also added Communion from the Reserved Sacrament.

In the earlier letter it was concluded based on theology, doctrine, and tradition that giving communion in both species is perfectly acceptable if done for the right reasons, but at the same time the faithful are not deprived of the spiritual grace of the Sacrament if they receive only in one kind.

One additional point to raise is Communion from the Reserved Sacrament. Only hosts are reserved, not wine. If wine absolutely must be received in order to receive the benefits of the Sacrament, then the practice stemming from antiquity of reserving the Sacrament for distribution outside mass would be deficient. Yet, Communion from the Reserved Sacrament is not deficient and has continually been supported by the Church. We even trust it to nourish the sick and dying.

Lastly, there is intinction. Intinction does have its fairly obvious practical benefits. In addition to the practical benefits, intinction has some nice symbolism. The Body and Blood are one, as discussed in the previous letter as one of the reasons why communion in one species is just as beneficial as communion in both. For this same very reason, though, communion by intinction is nice, as it can be thought of as symbolizing the joint nature of the Body and Blood. The Orthodox, for example, typically give the Sacrament on a spoon in the form of wine-soaked bread, i.e., the Body and Blood mixed together. It is for the practical benefits, as well as for the symbolic benefits that I prefer intinction.

I will reiterate the points that, based on theology, doctrine, and tradition, offering the chalice to the faithful is quite acceptable, as is intinction, as is offering only one species, provided the choice is made under valid intent. Ultimately everything we do in the Church must be governed and measured by validity of intent under Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church.

Patience is a virtue that could save your life

2010-10-24T09:59:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Patience is a virtue that could save your life.

This is what could have happened
due to the driver's impatience!

As I was returning from the mountains on a bus last evening, we were still out in the countryside when this point was illustrated quite well. In the oncoming lane was a slow-moving farm vehicle. Behind the farm vehicle was a car, the driver of which apparently was not interested in waiting. So, he pulled out in an attempt to pass, right in front of the oncoming bus (the one I was in). The driver of the car was successful in his foolhardy attempt, but only just. A collision was barely avoided. Had a collision occurred, it would certainly have gone worse for the driver of the car than us sitting in the bus. Just think of how a little patience could have kept him from even being at such a risk of death.

How many times in life do we rush things? We get impatient, and so we oftentimes have problems as a result. Sometimes these are just problems for ourselves. Sometimes they are problems that involve other people. Medical problems such as hypertension can result. We can hurt people we care about. Impatience rarely leads anywhere good.

Try increasing your level of patience and see if you aren't pleased with the results. Of course, too much patience, and you'll spend your whole life waiting. It's all about balance.

Do whatever it takes to fill the pews.... What?

2010-10-23T21:59:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The desire to fill the pews and get more people into the church is often the well-meaning justification for changes that shouldn't be made, or at least not without due and careful consideration. And, it is often the justification used by those who wish to make radical reforms or have the church "keep up with the times." There exists the potential for long term problems and negative results. Short term gains must not be sought at the cost of long term problems.

Whatever the intentions or justification, changes to liturgy, procedures, and policies must be carefully thought out, preferably over time and after consultation with many experienced members of the clergy. The key questions are:

1. Am I really doing this for the good of the Church and of the faithful, or am I simply trying to have a church as big as the rock and roll pastor down the street?

2. Can these changes be made in accordance with doctrine and canon law?

3. Will the long term benefits warrant making the changes?

4. Has the change been approved by my Bishop, or am I trying to do an "end run" around him under the heading of "local use?"

If one cannot truthfully answer "yes" to each of these questions, then the change definitely ought not to be made.

Let me illustrate with an example. I recall a church many years ago that was protestant, but quite formal and high church in style, right down to the gold processional cross. People came in suits and ties. The organ accompanied hymns, and they had a wonderful choir. They thought, however, that they could get more people in by starting a contemporary, quasi-rock style service. "We can reach more people," they said, "and then once they get 'churched,' they will naturally transition to the formal service." So, that's what they did. A hip and jive service it was. Come as you are, right down to t-shirt and shorts if you like. No worshipful atmosphere, but instead an environment aimed at giving an emotional high to the congregants.

I said then that this was not going to be the outcome. In fact, the opposite happened. People started going from the formal service to the casual service, and in some ways the formal service became less formal. And, sure enough, over a decade later, I happened to notice that the contemporary service worshippers have not made a mass transition to the formal service. The contemporary hip and jive service has grown and is more strong than ever.

What is the problem with this? After all, aren't they getting people into church? Aren't they pulling them in and exposing them to the Word of God? If so, then where is the problem? The problem is quite simple. It isn't contemporary language that is the problem, or necessarily even the music. It is overall style, attitude, and atmosphere. When the style, attitude, and atmosphere of the service become disrespectful and put the focus on the emotional high or uplifted feelings of the congregants rather than on providing a God-centered environment for the praise and worship of the Almighty in the dignity that it deserves, there is a problem.

The issues go deeper than this. When you start changing the style and content merely to satisfy the congregation or merely to get people in, you cease to be a church and instead become commercial marketers. If you advertise your church and people don't come, and then change the atmosphere in one of the negative ways I mentioned above, and then people come, here is what you have done. You have communicated to the people "If you don't like what we do or what we say and therefore won't come, we will change it to suit you." This is a dangerous precedent to set. Even if you think this is acceptable at the beginning just to get them in, and "then they'll change," you're still fooling yourself. If they see that you will change to suit them once, they will expect it again and again. It is basic human nature.

Furthermore, we have the issue of the good of the souls of the faithful. If we have to water down the faith to get them in for mass, then what good are we really doing them?

So what's a priest to do? Well, no one ever said the priesthood was easy. First, stick to your principles! Keep the faith and keep the tradition. The problems in reaching the people thatyou might be experiencing are nothing new. Look to the Saints for inspiration and to see what they did without compromising. Remember again that you must be able to answer "yes" to the four questions mentioned at the beginning if you absolutely must make any changes.

Instead of watering down the faith, give it to the potential converts in pieces...bite-sized pieces that they can handle. Try to figure out what they like, what they're all about, etc., and present the truth of the faith in a way they can understand...but without compromising doctrine or tradition. In other words, give them the parts of the catechism that they are most likely to be able to understand first. Establish a rapport and a dialogue, and then proceed from there. This is but one approach, but it provides a good pattern. Seek to understand your potential convert without compromising the faith, doctrine, or tradition, and then gradually help them to understand you, the Church, and most importantly, Jesus Christ. Through a personal relationship with you, you can help them develop a personal relationship with Christ.

These modern, radical changes are just quick fixes that provide a temporary solution. What you must seek is a long-term solution...and it takes work. Hard work. Our work is never easy, so let's not try to cut corners. In the end, we fail in our duty to God and also to the flock in our care.

The Anglican Church and the Ordination of Women and Homosexuals

2010-10-22T22:02:00.002+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has recently acknowledged that the issues of the ordination of women and of open homosexuals may cause even deeper divisions than already exist within the worldwide Anglican Church. Who in America can forget the shock of Gene Robinson's consecration and his "marriage" to his homosexual partner while wearing pontifical attire? Few things could scandalize a church any more than that. Couple this with the clerical abuse of altar boys, and it is little wonder why the universal Church has such a vocations problems.

The question of the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church of the USA was one of the chief causes of the continuing Anglican movement in the 1970s. The downside of Anglo-Catholics leaving the Episcopal Church to be in independent Anglican communions may have been that it left the Episcopal Church with a higher ratio of liberals to conservatives than before, thereby making it easier for radical reforms to take place. Nevertheless, the desire to be in a diocese within the Anglican Church (within the Communion or not) that adheres to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is entirely one with which I can sympathize. For the good of one's own soul, one wants to be in an environment that is God-centered, not a social experiment masquerading as a church. That is far more important, and that is, for example, why our own beloved Archdiocese exists. The Metropolitan See was founded as a diocese in the early days of the continuing Anglican movement and continues to offer haven to this day to those professing the faith and wanting a God-centered church in the Anglican tradition.

The social experimentation in the Episcopal Church has gotten more and more radical over the years. It ultimately amounts to an attempt to change the Church to follow along with every liberal social trend the world can come up with in a misguided attempt to be "representative." Concerns of parishioners are flatly ignored as the steamroller of liberal heresy charges forth.

Once they "won" the women's ordination battle, they turned to the issue of homosexuals. There are moves afoot to have official rites for blessing of unions or pseudo-marriages...and some priests have already been doing this on their own, anyway. Open homosexuality has been tolerated as perfectly acceptable (apparently they ripped out certain parts of the Bible), and there is the question remaining of openly-homosexual clergy. These issues have caused severe splits in the Episcopal Church. In addition to clergy and parishioners leaving for independent Anglican dioceses, the Roman Catholic Church, and elsewhere, several American Episcopal dioceses seceded en masse and formed a new communion.

The social experimenters seem to think that keeping up with secular trends is more important than keeping the Church together. Apparently that whole unity thing Christ mentioned has escaped them. Of course, they put the blame on the conservatives in the Church who oppose this, saying that they are sexist for opposing the ordination of women or homophobic or anti-gay for opposing the ordination of homosexuals. It is the social experimenters and liberals who are the ones at fault. They can hardly blame the conservatives for trying to stay with what is proper according to Sacred Scripture and the tradition of Christ's Holy Church for the last 2000 years. A conservative who opposes the ordination of women does not hate women because of this. Women are and should always be welcomed in the Church, following the many similar examples of Christ in the Bible. Yet, the role of the priest is also defined in the Bible, and it is clearly limited to men. Similarly, a conservative who opposes the ordination of homosexuals does not hate homosexuals because of that. Indeed, homosexuals are accepted into the church. It is not them we hate, but rather their sin. This is not a matter of hate, but a matter of doctrine.

It is long since past the time that the Anglican Church worldwide has got to work for real unity, centered on true Catholic doctrine that has sustained our faith since the beginning. Social experimentation has no place in the church.

To give the Chalice or Not to Give the Chalice...

2010-10-21T20:08:00.002+09:00

A.M.D.G.

The Sacrifice of the Mass

It is sometimes a contentious question amongst Anglicans, even Anglo-Catholics, as to whether or not communion should be given in both kinds. Some vehemently defend that it "just isn't communion" without giving the Precious Blood to the faithful. Now, I could easily go into hygiene issues of a hundred people drinking from the same cup, especially during cold and flu season, but this is intended instead to be a theological discussion. Also, let me state that if a parish wishes to provide the option of receiving the Precious Blood, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. The question being addressed here is whether or not it is theologically necessary for the faithful to receive communion in both kinds to receive the saving grace of the Sacrament and to be in accord with Christ's commandment.

Protestant churches and even the modern Roman Catholic Church under the Novus Ordo gives communion in both kinds as a matter of practice. The Tridentine Rite churches within the Roman Communion still give only in one kind. All but the celebrating priest receive the host only. Other traditional churches sometimes do similarly. The question is whether or not communion in one kind is somehow deficient, and whether or not it is really necessary to give the Precious Blood to the faithful.

Before I continue, I must stress that this is not a Roman/Anglican debate, an attempt to supplant Anglican tradition with Roman, or anything else of the kind. It is, rather, a discussion of what is theologically proper and logical versus what is not. It is a catholic/protestant discussion.

Let's begin with the oft-cited justification that both kinds must be given, viz. the Articles of Religion in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which were adopted in 1801 by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the US. Now, if a parish celebrates mass under the rubrics of the 1928 BCP, it might make sense to give communion in both kinds to follow the traditions of that book. That is, of course, not what we are discussing here. Article No. 30 of the Articles of Religion states that "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." The Articles of Religion, though, have often been challenged by Anglo-Catholics as being thoroughly infused with protestant notions. For example, the Articles suggest that adoration and relics are not appropriate, while the use of images and icons, adoration, etc. are common practice among Anglo-Catholics.

So, are the Articles of Religion in the 1928 BCP truly representative of catholic doctrine, even within the Anglican tradition, or are they peppered with protestant heresy? When I read the Articles, they read to me like a document written by committee. Such documents often deem somewhat disjointed when there are opposing viewpoints on the committee writing them. Since the Protestant Reformation got a foothold (and sometimes a stranglehold) on the Anglican Church beginning in earnest during the time of Elizabeth I, there have been these competing factions within the Anglican Church, one Catholic, one Protestant. When I was receiving catechism, I was actually taught to take the Articles with a grain of salt due to the protestant influence.

Let's now travel back in time to the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent. While the Council of Trent was Roman, there is no need to say that it should be disregarded by Anglicans. In fact, when learned men of the Church come together to discuss a doctrinal matter of great importance, and they reach a conclusion that refutes protestant claims, it should be given its due. Furthermore, the points made by the Council of Trent, it should be pointed out , were nothing new, but were simply upholding the traditional positions of the Church up to that point.

The protestant claim at the time was that the Real Presence did not exist and both kinds must be given at communion. To refute this heresy, the Council of Trent came up with several key points. The first was that the celebrating priest was joined inherently to the Sacrifice of the Mass, and hence had to receive in both kinds to keep the comm-

The celebrating priest must receive the Chalice.

andment of Christ made at the Last Supper, "Do this in remembrance of me." At least in this sense, the protestant and catholic viewpoints are in some agreement.

The second point made by the Council was that there is no Divine precept requiring the faithful or non-celebrating priests to receive the cup. While both kinds were frequently given in the early church, it was not universal, and the use of giving communion in both kinds fell out of practice almost universally until the Reformation.

The third point made was and is the most crucial. Because of the hypostatic union of Christ and the indivisibility of his glorified humanity, Christ is really present in both the Body and the Blood. They are indivisible. This is signified in the mass with the commixture. Christ is indivisible, and therefore he who eats of his Flesh experiences the same spiritual communion as he who drinks of his Blood. The faithful are not deprived of spiritual graces by communicating only in the form of the Body.

It was the Reformers, denying the Real Presence and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, proclaimed that the people should receive both kinds in order to fulfill the commandment of Christ. A century earlier, this same heresy was promoted by the Hussites, interestingly enough, though they did not deny the Real Presence and Sacrifice of the Mass. It should be remembered, though, that we do not individually get to come up with our own interpretations of the Sacred Scripture. This has never been permitted, nor was it ever the intent. Saint Peter himself said that such interpretations are not appropriate.

Procedures for administration
of the Sacraments must always
be chosen for the right reasons.

This whole issue is really that of Catholic doctrine versus Protestant heresy. Anglo-Catholics, then, ought to be reminded that there is no requirement, Divine or otherwise, that the faithful must communicate in both kinds. They may do so if deemed appropriate by Church sacramental law, providing doing so is not an attempt to suggest that both kinds are required, as this would cause a doctrinal violation. Similarly, the faithful must not be permitted to demand communion in both kinds as if it is their right or a necessity, as such would further be a doctrinal violation. What they receive sacramentally must be in accord both with doctrine and Church law. The Apostles and their successors were given this authority to tend to the flock. The Church leaders determine the appropriate methods for administration of the Sacraments.

So, it seems that administration of the chalice may be done for the right reasons. However, administration of communion in one kind also is equally valid and provides just as much sacramental grace to the faithful. It is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Church doctrine and practices that should and must govern how we administer sacraments, not the influx of protestant heresy that has been allowed to remain in practice for the past 500 years. Give the Precious Blood to the faithful if you wish and ecclesiastical authority approves, but it must be done only in accord with doctrine. Otherwise we fail in our duty to the faithful as shepherds and teachers.

Getting out the Vote...in the Church

2010-10-20T23:28:00.000+09:00

A.M.D.G.

I recently read a pastoral letter by the Right Reverend Brian Marsh of the Anglican Church in America's Diocese of the Northeast. (Read the whole letter here...) His Grace is addressing the issue of accepting or not accepting the Pope's corporate conversion offer. He makes a rather good point that it seems unusual to break apart a diocese or a parish in order to achieve the end of unity. Indeed, where is the unity there? This is a struggle that many Anglo-Catholic parishes and dioceses are going through right now.

What I am particularly interested in are his comments on parish voting on this matter. He suggests not putting it to a vote in a parish as such, but rather trying to seek a consensus. The reason given is that a vote turns the matter into a result of "winners" and "losers." I wish to commend Bishop Marsh on his wisdom here, and the advice is really good advice for the Church in general.

The Church is not, has never been, and never should be a democracy. I do not suggest she should be an authoritarian, tyrannical dictatorship, either. However, the concept of "theology by popular vote" or "liturgy by popular vote" simply doesn't work. A vote on the church picnic might be fine, but not on more lofty matters. This is why God gave us church leadership. I am not in favor of vestries making major parish decisions, and ADSW Canon Law also prohibits this. Church leadership must remain with those whom God has put in charge, viz. the Bishops as successors to the Apostles, and the priests and deacons working in concert with them.

A parish should not be allowed to devolve into a case of "us" versus "them" or winners and losers. This is one way disaffected people leave the parish, the diocese, or the church as a whole. Voting doesn't help. It is not possible that every member of the parish will agree with everything the parish does at all times, but those who disagree should still not be made to feel on the outside. The strong leadership of the Rector is needed to bring the parish into a consensus as much as possible, without compromising doctrine, canon law, or sacred principles. This is easier said than done, but then, nothing in our work is easy.

Ecumenism - Is it really a good thing?

2010-10-20T11:36:00.007+09:00

A.M.D.G.

Saint Pius X

Ecumenism is all the rage these days. What is the nature of this ecumenism, though, and is it really and truly good? The Society of Saint Pius X, for example, suggests in their literature that ecumenism leads to a "silent apostasy."

The history of the Church has seen several Ecumenical Councils: The Council of Nicaea, which developed the Nicene Creed, the Second Council of Nicaea, which ensured the veneration of icons, and several councils in Constantinople, to name a few. These councils consisted of the world's bishops coming together to discuss matters of the faith and doctrine. They were to be authoritative ways of settling how things should be done. Schisms and political disputes have made universal acceptance of some of the councils impossible and sadly have rendered the possibility of a truly ecumenical council highly unlikely in the present time. Add to this various heresies and theological differences, and it deepens the divide even further. The historic ecumenical councils are one type of ecumenism, and a generally healthy one.

The ecumenism today seems an entirely different beast.

Ecumenism of today can be best summed up by a statement told to a group of protestant youth at their church, which was next door to a Roman Catholic church. The pastor said that they in that protestant church were firm in their beliefs, believing themselves to be right...but did not say that anyone else, including the Roman Catholic church next door, was wrong. But wait! Wasn't the whoole protestant reformation about saying the Roman Catholic Church was wrong? And didn't Roman Catholics believe that protestants were wrong? If you believe you are right, then by definition you must believe anyone who holds opposing views to be wrong. The logical inconsistency is clear. This lack of logic is a sad and unfortunate part of the relativistic world we live in today.

Now, there is room for healthy debate and some disagreement in the Church, at least to a point and on certain matters. Theology, for example, is not open for such universal debate that each individual makes up his own personal theology. This is the message of today, but St. Peter warned of the invalidity of such individual "interpretations." This is what ecunenical councils are for.

Council of Nicaea

The Church weakens her message when her leaders equivocate on key issues. This age of half-measures is not good at all. If we tell our flock that one thing is right, but then in another breath tell them that the protestants also are right even though they totally disagree with us, we are sending mixed signals to our flock. If we send mixed signals, then how can they have any confidence in us whatsoever. This is a lesson I learned riding horses. Give mixed cues to a horse, like giving him the lead to canter when your body is in the position to trot, and he'll get very confused and not trust you. Just as a rider wants and needs his horse to trust him in order to have a safe and effective ride, leaders of the Church must have the trust of their flock. This trust does not come from the church leadership being perfect, which is certainly is not. The leadership is fallible and subject to the same human frailties just like everyone else. Rather, the trust comes from the leadership delivering a clear and consistent message and behaving in a consistent manner.

The Society of St. Pius X has a point. If we equivocate and teach what is essentially doctrinal and moral relativism, we can hardly be surprised when the faithful become to slip ever so slowly into apostasy. They can easily lose their faith, but it isn't something that happens overnight. It is something that happens slowly, building like a cancer within the body of the church. It begins when the church leadership takes the extreme ecumenical, relativistic position and spreads like through the ranks of the clergy and faithful alike until it becomes terminal.

Ecumenism is not inherently a bad thing. The Ecumenical Councils were generally good things. What makes ecumenism bad, however, is the manner in which it is carried out. Ecumenism these days, short of another truly ecumenical council, ought to be in the form of reaching out to our brother and sister Christians in a spirit of brotherly love, while still firmly and resolutely maintaining the sacred truths that we have held for two millenia and which have been the holy glue that has bound the Church together for so long.