The Burden of Grace

"It is in the struggles against difficulties that all that is best in man is nurtured into vigor and preserved from decay. Through labor we live, in enjoyment we die." -The Rambler, 1854


I never quite considered grace to be a burden until I read a book called The Cross of Jesus, originally published in 1647. The author is Louis Chardon, seventeenth century Dominican priest. His work brings to light that grace, special or ordinary, can be a burden to the soul. Your own personal experience may confirm this. God may have inspired a desire in you and yet, at the same time, he may have permitted circumstances in your life that temporarily made it impossible for that desire to be realized. Perhaps you were inspired to carry out a project but have met with failure; or maybe God has put a strong desire in your heart for children but you are infertile; or perhaps the spouse you vowed to love until death has walked away from your marriage. Whatever the case, God's will for us- as far as the circumstances he places in our lives -can seem to be a blatant contradiction to what he has called us to do. Jesus and his mother, Mary, exemplified how the cross beams of God's will intersect with each other; thus causing them suffering on one hand and yet affording them great opportunities to glorify God on the other.

As for the Blessed Virgin, she is the Mother of Jesus, her son, and the mother of all Christians; that is, all of those saved by her Son. Generally speaking, maternal instincts are such that they seek to preserve the well-being of the child. As it relates to Jesus, Mary was like every other mother who wanted very best for her first born: happiness, good health and a life longer than her own. However, she had a supernatural calling to be both the Mother of God and the Mother of the saved. In order that the latter could enjoy eternal happiness she was called upon to prepare her Son for the Sacrifice on Calvary. Pope St. Pius X said “it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice.” (Pius X, On the Immaculate Conception)

The more I read the writings of the popes and the Saints the more I realize that at every turn Mary hastened the hour of Christ's death despite her natural maternal instincts. To begin with, she made it possible for him to suffer by merely clothing him with her flesh at the moment of his of conception. From that moment on, Jesus was able to feel pain; even within Mary's womb. When it came time to present Jesus in the Temple, she received confirmation that a sword would pierce her heart so that the “thoughts of many would be revealed” (a reference to Judgment Day). In other words, God would add her tears to the blood of his only begotten Son to bring about the salvation of the world.

One would think that Mary would be dreading the day that Jesus' public ministry would begin. After all, his mission was destined for a cruel death. Although a natural dread might have afflicted her spirit, the Blessed Virgin took the initiative to ask Jesus to perform his first public miracle. His divine intervention only revealed the identity of his Messianic mission but to hasten that mission to its culmination on Calvary. Therefore, at the wedding of Cana when the Blessed Virgin informed Jesus that the host was out of wine, he responded by making reference to his hour; indicating that a miracle of turning water into wine would usher in that “hour” when he would turn wine into his own blood at the Last Supper only to be followed by the spilling of his own blood on the Cross.

It was there on Calvary that the Blessed Virgin became the Mother of elect. Jesus said to her, “Woman, behold thy son,” and to St. John, “Behold, thy mother.” St. John, who by nature was the son of mother Zebedee, became the son of Mary in the supernatural order. This is why the book of Revelation makes reference to the offspring of Mary. Indeed, as Abraham was father of God's chosen people in the Old Testament, the Blessed Virgin became the mother of all of God's children in the New Testament.

It was only by accepting God's calling to be the mother of the faithful that she found the strength to nurture the Lamb for his Sacrifice. The Blessed Virgin had two cross beams running counter to each other in her life: The first cross beam was her natural, maternal instinct to protect her Son Jesus from harm or anything that would threaten him. The second cross beam was her vocation to help bring about the salvation of souls. It was the latter that had to take precedence in her life. This grace to be the mother and nurturer of the Victim, although necessary and a cause for joy, was also a burden and sacrifice for her. Like other mothers, her instincts as a mother were keenly sensitive to the pains of her Son; as such, they demanded recognition.

As the first disciple of Jesus Christ she would set the example. She would show the world that trials and suffering were not incidental to being a Christian. In fact, to suffer with Christ would be every bit as necessary as preaching the Gospel. With St. Paul we can say to others, "So death is at work in us, but life in you." Or on behalf on the Church we can even dare to say: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church..." As for Mary her pain had to be offered to God on the altar of her heart whenever she witnessed Jesus suffer. These two beams- the love for her Son and the desire to see her spiritual children saved -ran counter to each other in Mary's soul and became for her a Cross she had to carry...all the way to Calvary.

With that said, what seemed like a contradiction in Mary's life turned out to be the greatest blessing for the world. It can be also said that she too benefited from uncertainties and contradictions of God's plan. Under Christ himself she is blessed- not only among all women -but all men too.

Next blog: A peculiar Cross our Lord had to carry and what we can garner from it.

Excerpts: The Mystery of Iniquity and Social Problems

“Excerpts” is a feature of Sky View which takes passages from old and dusty books because of some insight they offer or light they shed on current events.

Since in societies the State is best able to coerce, there follows a drift towards State regimentation with its logical culmination in the totalitarian State. Once materialism is granted as a premise, totalitarianism follows as a necessary conclusion.

Catholic social thought is dominated by the fact that man is destined for heaven. Society itself or the problems of society cannot be understood without taking this fact into account...We are to reproduce here as perfectly as we can the life of the blessed in heaven. The latter is our true life; heaven is our fatherland. On this earth we ought, like homesick exiles in a strange environment, strive to practice the type of common life by which our fatherland is characterized.

Nevertheless, the mystery of iniquity is at work. It's activities does not usually appear on the surface of events; rather, it operates through secondary causes. Therefore, when one traces the causes of social problems, one finds that the immediate reasons for these problems are quite natural and understandable by human reason. It is only by following the chain of causation back far enough that one is led to suspect the workings of the Evil One.

The Catholic approach on social problems must take both natural and the supernatural factors into account. Catholics must be concerned with natural factors underlying the evils of society and to meet these they must use natural methods suggested by experience. For this reason the Church favors social legislation, effective law enforcement, public health activities, efficient social work, and other up-to-date methods of meeting social problems. In this respect Catholic social teaching shows a strong but superficial resemblance to the thought of non-Catholic writers.

But mark this difference carefully!

Whereas these techniques are the sole solution of the unbelieving sociologist for all social problems, in the eyes of the Catholic they are only a sort of symptomatic treatment. The Catholic sees deeper and realizes that far beneath the immediate causes the mystery of iniquity is at work and that his real solution is to attack the latter. The unbelieving social scientist is like a physician who gives a sedative to a patient suffering from a brain tumor and does nothing more. The Catholic, on the other hand, is like a physician who gives the sedative indeed but then proceeds to the difficult and delicate operation which brings a permanent cure.

Only the Catholic has a fundamental remedy for social problems, for only the Catholic diagnosis the basic cause, which is the mystery of iniquity. To attack this he must use supernatural means. Therefore he must rely on such methods as prayer, the sacraments and the practice of the Christian virtues.

We Catholics have a precious possession in our doctrine of the mystery of iniquity. In it we have the key to the solution of many problems which torture our weary world. Realizing as we do that the mystery of iniquity is the basic cause of these problems, we can attack them at their source by the use of supernatural means. Herein lies the hope of victory.

On the other hand, unbelievers have the devices of human prudence on which to rely, and these are bound to fail. They might as well try to sink a battleship with spit balls as to attack the great problems of society with such puny means. When we cast to the winds all the mean counsels of of a purely worldly prudence, when we accept quite literally with childlike faith these precious revealed truths, and when we put aside all concern for the opinion of materialists, then we shall begin to make progress against the mystery of iniquity. Until that day we shall only be marking time.

-By Father Paul Furfey, The Mystery of Iniquity, 1944
Former Professor and Head of the Department of Sociology at the Catholic University of America

Terri Schiavo's Premature Death: A Defining Moment for America

Recap: Elian’s Plight and the Immigration Crisis

From the previous blog it was proffered that a defining moment for America was when the Clinton administration returned Elian Gonzalez to Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castro. If this young little immigrant- this one individual -was the victim of gross injustice by the government while others in power did little to stop it, can it be said that we really value immigrants? that every immigrant's quest for a better life is intrinsically valuable even when it is politically inexpedient? The Elian story revealed something about America. It represented where our priorities really are; particularly among the political Left. Because of the indifference towards the injustice done to one immigrant by politicians, the members of the media and many Americans, it is no wonder that our country has been riddled and divided by an immigration crisis. As was stated earlier, God uses, as his instruments of justice, those things through which we sin. This brings us to another fork in the road; another defining moment for this nation.

Saving Terri Schiavo: Minimal Efforts

I take for granted that the reader knows most of the details surrounding the premature death of Terri Schiavo in 2005. The evil committed against this woman is evident enough to Christians. What has not been fully explored, in my opinion, is that those in positions of authority- both civil and religious –did not go far enough to protect her. If you scroll down you’ll see a picture of Elian and being seized by force. It reminds us of how diplomacy was skirted and force was used to retrieve Elian so that he could once again be under the jurisdiction of Castro. US Attorney General, Janet Reno, spared no effort to carry out this injustice. Our Lord cautioned us about how the unjust goes all out to achieve their end: “For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” That is, they go to great lengths and employ innovative methods to achieve their unrighteous ends. As for the God-fearing, they often limit themselves to conventional and safe methods.

On the other hand, those supporting Terri Schiavo and her will to live, played it safe and stayed within the conventional means of warding off Michael Schiavo’s (Terri’s ex-husband) attempts to euthanize her. Florida Governor Jed Bush could have pulled a Janet Reno to have Terri whisked away like Elian. And I’m disappointed that, according to Catholic Answers, Bishop Robert Lynch of the St. Petersburg diocese was more interested in reconciling Michael Schiavo with the Schindler’s, Terri’s family, than he was in saving Terri’s life. Sadly, he was missing in action.
I refer you to the picture of Christ reaching over the cliff in order to save one sheep (scroll down two blogs). The vultures had their eyes fixed on this endangered sheep but Christ, so characteristic of his pastoral love, put himself at risk to retrieve a helpless creature. Through the prophet Ezekiel, the Lord said, “The lost I will seek out, the strayed I will bring back, the injured I will bind up, the sick I will heal (but the sleek and the strong I will destroy), shepherding them rightly.” (Ezekiel 34) To “seek out” and “to bring back” implies that a good shepherd may have to venture where wolves roam; to risk an attack from predators; and to snatch the innocent from the jaws of carnivores. This is the kind of model that leaders should aspire to. This is what God bids us to do.
The Schindler’s, as you know, were more than willing to take care of Terri. But a court order had her feeding tube removed and she starved to death. The will to kill trumped the right to life. From a corrupt legal process that ignored the natural law, evil prevailed; all this while good men and women watched. And in end, we can say that Terri Schiavo was a victim of selective healthcare rationing. Fast forward to 2010-2011.

Healthcare Rationing: First Terri Then America

At congressional town hall meetings across the nation there were a flurry of protests from the elderly and the public at large. There was a lively sense that under the vast bureaucratic machine of Obamacare political expediency would trump the best interests of the patient. This speculation is not unwarranted. There are other countries such as Canada and the UK that are more advanced in terms of nationalizing their healthcare. To be sure, there are countless testimonies of patients being treated more like a number than a person with dignity.

And of course the Conservative media caught wind of the Veterans Administration’s end-of-life counseling to its veterans in a program called “Your Life, Your Choices.” This highly immoral and unethical push for euthanasia was discontinued by the Bush administration only to be reinstated by the Obama administration. The various comments from our president gave indication that he favored euthanasia programs and healthcare rationing. In advancing the programs like “Your Life, Your Choice,” euthanasia will merely be accelerating an already existing widespread phenomenon. After all, starving and dehydrating patients to death is a nationwide epidemic today in hospitals and hospices; and I might add, it is becoming more socially acceptable. As the Baby Boom generation (a generation that had much fewer children than their parent’s generation) moves into the elderly age bracket, as the nurse to patient ratio and the doctor to patient ratio becomes disproportionate, the temptation to resort to euthanizing will be considerable. To be sure, the push for a more systematic euthanasia program will come to light and will be publicly justified as abortion is today.

Healthcare rationing by an unchecked Obamacare is- as it stands today –against the will of the majority of Americans. The feeling of helplessness by this majority was deeply felt as the 2000-plus page healthcare bill passed in March of 2010; just five years after (almost to the day) of Terri Schiavo’s death. The American public vicariously got a glimpse as to what many euthanasia patients feel when their life is being snuffed out against their will.


What It All Means:

These two episodes of Elian Gonzalez and Terri Schiavo are representative of so many other cases like it. As for Elian, it revealed how government is capable of treating, not just the citizen, but the immigrant it so often claims to champion. Force was used for an unjust purpose, risking a whole lot of bad PR. However, you rarely see this bold approach from Christians and those who hold traditional values. This latter point applies especially in Terri’s case. Intervention from civil and religious authority could have been more assertive and creative. Like Jesus reaching for the sheep, they too could have stood in front of the door to Terri’s hospice; the National Guard could have been called in; and the Bishop of St. Petersburg could have physically guarded her bed.

Radical! Undignified and unprofessional! You might say. If we saw every American- particularly our family members and our very selves –in Elian and Terri, we would have done more; our leaders would have done more!

As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, the worst thing is not sin, but the refusal to admit we have sinned. The Book of Wisdom says God punishes a little bit at a time so that we can repent as a people. With Egypt, the Lord didn’t just incinerate the whole nation in an instant. When the Pharaoh didn’t listen to Moses, when the Egyptians did not take heed in his warnings, God sent the first plague, then the second plague, then the third etc. He is giving America time. Mary, the Mother of God, has appeared and has exhorted her children to repent in America as well as all over the world.

As St. Peter said, judgment begins with the Household of God. Both initiative and leadership in terms of heroism has to come from Christ’s followers.

The Return of Elian to Cuba: A Defining moment for America

This blog is a continuation of Defining Moments in a Nation's History: How do the innocent fare?

Heroic Sacrifice for Freedom:

Some will risk everything for freedom. That is what Elizabet Rodríguez and her son, Elian Gonzalez did. In a desperate attempt to get away from the harsh conditions of Cuba, Elizabet and Elian, along with twelve other Cubans, precariously set sail into the Caribbean sea in hopes to live a better life in America. Tragically, however, all but two died during the long journey. On Thanksgiving Day in 1999, Elian was found (with another person) on a raft just 90 miles north of Miami. Soon thereafter, the INS then released Elian to his paternal great uncle. Indeed, this attempt to escape the dictatorship of Fidel Castro and the miserable conditions in Cuba was at a great cost. However, this young refugee would only enjoy the blessings of America for a short time.

Castro Wins, Elian Loses:

To make a long story short, due to the political pressures placed on the Clinton administration from Castro himself, the death of Elizabat, Elian’s mother, and eleven of her companions, amounted to naught. In June of 2000, Elian was returned to Cuba under the pretext that Elian’s father (living in Cuba) had paternal jurisdiction over Elian and as such, deserved to have him returned. Of course, we all know how important the rights of parents are to Fidel Castro; it had nothing to do with terrible image Cuba was saddled with after so many refugees had fled the country one year after another.

Injustice Met With Lukewarm Response:

At any rate, the significance of the Elian Gonzalez story is that here was a young migrant who miraculously found his way to America. His relatives in Florida were more than willing to take care of him. Yet, the dictator from Cuba publicly protested and as a result, the Clinton administration sends little Elian back to Fidel Castro. That was bad enough but the protest that came from the House Republican Whip, Tom Delay, was that the Republicans would have an investigation. Opposition, as least from what I remember, was minimal. Of course, nothing came from that “investigation.” It was a failure of leadership on all sides; most notably the Clinton administration who acquiesced to Castro. Keep in mind that Castro was known by Cuban exiles as a murderer; a repeated violator of human dignity.

This saga was a betrayal of who we Americans claim to be. And it contradicts the very principles upheld in the Statue of Liberty poem, otherwise known as The New Colossus: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Elian the Immigrant, Immigration and God's Justice:

In recent years, as you well know, America has been riddled with an immigration crisis. It has been a cause for division; especially with the Obama administration suing the State of Arizona and Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, returning the favor. If I am not mistaken, some of these Federal and State feuds are unprecedented. Our political leaders have yet to balance the compassion for the plight of immigrants who want nothing more than to eat and find work in America with its U.S. citizens wanting their legal rights protected and their institutions not to be overburdened. Humanitarian considerations in the former instance and the legitimate rights of a sovereign nation in latter should, in times of moral clarity, make its way into law. However, when moral principles are confused and virtues wanting, then what we have is internal division and crisis.

I pose a similar question that was previously asked: Could it be that Elian stood for something bigger than himself? Could it be that the failure to protect a young immigrant from a dictator has, as a matter of divine justice, occasioned great difficulties for America in terms of managing its immigrants? No one can divine the intent of God. Nevertheless, we know from Scripture and Church history that there are defining moments for nations as with individuals. We come upon a fork in the road: One that leads to life, the other to death. The former road is paved with justice, sacrifice and charity. The latter is paved with expediency, self-interests and cowardice. As for the return of Elian to Cuba, I think the political leaders and even religious leaders of our nation were too passive while an injustice was being done in public view. After it ceased to be a news item the American public moved on to something else. However, I don’t think God forgot about little Elian. I wonder if we forfeited some of his blessings by of the sin of omission in June of 2000. I wonder if we were too passive.

I hope you will come back and read about Terri Schiavo and the hope that still remains for America in the next and last blog of this series.

Defining Moments in a Nation's History: How do the innocent fare?

Two Defining Moments: Elian and Terri:

There are certain historical events which are defining moments for a nation. Quite often the event might receive some publicity but its impact and ripple effect goes unnoticed. Americans naturally move on to the next news flash but fail to consider the depth and significance of what just happened. However, with a working knowledge of bible and Church history, we know that what the world deems to be insignificant can be, in fact, a critical event; one that shapes a nation’s future.

Last March we celebrated the sixth anniversary of the premature death of Terri Schiavo (2005) and this June will be the eleventh anniversary of returning a young refugee, Elian Gonzalez, to the dictator Fidel Castro (2000). The circumstances surrounding Elian Gonzales and Terry Schiavo enjoyed plenty of publicity at the time; but I would argue that the majority of journalists and historians do not consider these events to have any historic significance. Certainly they are not deemed to be as important as 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and the 2008 housing crisis by many. Nevertheless, I caution the reader not to subscribe to a journalistic or historical template that minimizes the national importance of an event just because an injustice was done to only one or two individuals. It is sometimes the case when a victim suffers in view of a passive multitude- when only a few come to the aid of the innocent -the wrong done to that one person may be a preview of things to come for the public at large. Under certain circumstances it would seem that the injustice afflicting the victim is an index of what the people themselves will endure in the future.

Historical Considerations:

We know this to be true in the case of our Lord’s crucifixion. He said to the religious elders, “Destroy this temple and I’ll rebuild it in three days.” On Good Friday that is exactly what they did. However, Jesus also predicted the destruction of Jerusalem that would take place some forty years later. In 70 A.D., the Roman general Titus, in order to suppress an insurrection, surrounded the city and proceeded to destroy it along with the Jewish Temple. According to our Lord, these tragic events took place because the his people did not recognize the time of their visitation. To be sure, the crucifixion of Christ was a portent of things to come for the citizens of Jerusalem.

With that said, God in his mercy gives us time to repent: “Therefore you rebuke offenders little by little, warn them, and remind them of the sins they are committing, that they may abandon their wickedness and believe in you, O LORD!” (Wisdom 12:2) Within the last ten or eleven years there may have been signals from Divine Providence that its protection and benedictions, once enjoyed by America, may be receding. Just to name a few indications that there are cracks in the foundation: We had a significant divide in our country over the 2000 Presidential election between Bush and Gore; we had an unprecedented terrorists’ attack on our homeland on September 11th 2001; in 2008 our nation was jolted by the Housing Market Crash; and we’re are still looking at an impending financial crisis with Federal and State budgets.

Very seldom does a nation or civilization decline precipitously into ruin. A decline is, more often than not, characterized by a few steps forward and several steps back; a little progress here and a significant regression there. Close-up it is difficult to see but if one takes a step back what we find is a general decline in the graph. As Bishop Sheen said in 1948: "It is characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unconscious of the tragedy. Humanity in crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because it involves too much self-accusation and principally because they have no standards outside of themselves by which to measure their times…The basic reason for this false optimism is that he [the citizen] attributes to the fact that our civilization is mechanical rather than organic."

Elian and Terri: Two Steps Backwards for America

The sacred author of the book of Wisdom goes on to say that the Lord’s justice is exercised through those things by which we sin. America’s response to the highly publicized stories of Elian Gonzales and Terri Schiavo happened to be, in my estimation, those significant steps backwards or sins of omission whereby good men and women in positions of power did not put everything on the line to protect these two victims of injustice. Moreover, they served as a portent of things to come for this nation. Could it be that the immigration crisis in the border States, especially Arizona (in relation to Elian), and the threat of rationing healthcare for the elderly under Obama-care (in relation to Terri) is not only the natural consequence of wrongs committed but the effect of offending God? Could it be that divine justice is at wrok here?

More on Elian Gonzalez in the next blog.
____________________________________________________________________________________

"Bridging the Gap" is a blog that recaptures how, in part, the Roman empire fell in much the same way America is falling. When the innocent are assailed without the intervention of good men and women, then evil is to prevail. To read it, please scroll down.

God's Way of Speaking to You

Many assume that the life of Christ came to a close when he ascended into heaven. Catholics understand, on the other hand, that the Eucharist is the extension of Christ’s real presence on earth. In addition to his Eucharistic presence, however, his life continues in another form: through his Saints. Although God’s public revelation is contained within the canon of the Old and New Testament writings, his wisdom continues through the teachings of his Saints. The wealth of Christ's life, as with his knowledge, overflows through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in souls of his followers. And as for those who lived this life to the full and whose thoughts were wonderfully conformed to the mind of Christ, the Catholic Church has held them up as models to be imitated.

To better understand the Life we possess and to better to live it out, reading Scripture is essential. But a fine supplement to Scripture, indeed a essential supplement, is the writings of the Saints for our spiritual growth. It is in the writings and biographies of the Saints where general principles and virtues found in Scripture are translated into specific and practical ways to be holy. If there were any spiritual exercises the Saints recommended, it was spiritual reading (i.e. mediation on Scripture and writings of the Saints). Just as our way of speaking to God is through vocal prayer, his way of speaking to us is through spiritual reading. Don't do all the talking; listen to the voice of God. It is exercise where you will find concrete ways in living out the life of Christ. With this, deception and error are greatly minimized. Indeed, the Lord can better teach you how to see the world and day to day relationships as they really exists.

Take for example the subject of humility: Our Lord says in the Gospel, in so many words, that the first will be last and the leader of all should be the servant of all (he did this via the washing of the feet). With that said, Jesus left it up to the Saints to give practical examples of how this might be carried out. St. Francis of Assisi, for instance, does just that. He says that being silent amid criticism (i.e. biting your tongue)is worth more to God than ten days of fasting. This counsel not only leads to sanctity but it goes a long way in improving relationships; particularly marriages. What is more, when married couples engage in spiritual reading and share what they have learned with one another, they better fulfill their vocation in getting their spouse to heaven.

So, go out and by a book about a Saint or a book from a Saint. In learning their ways you will come to understand Christ himself in a deeper way and without a doubt you will learn to think with him.

In a Word: Judging Others

In a Word is a feature of Sky View which provides a short commentary or reflection on life, on a current event or a particular book.

People judge others based on who, or rather, what they are. If a politician, for instance, is accustomed to lying and cheating others for short term gain, then when there is a question of someone else’s motive or character he will frequently judge others as he sees himself. This goes for the unjust, narcissistic and bad people in general. Because they are guided only by their own lights and refuse to conform themselves to God's law- a higher standard outside of themselves -it is difficult for them to consider other ways of thinking. And so they project their own ways of thinking and doing unto others.

The gift of faith, on the other hand, trains the mind to see morality and the world from a perspective other than our own. After all, our Lord bids us to take the plank out of our own eye before we attempt to remove the speck out of our brother’s eye. This requires that we take a second look at ourselves; especially from someone else’s vantage point.

With that said, those who are innocent like doves can make the same mistake as people with tainted motives. Those with a well-formed conscience sometimes get into the habit of assigning pure and innocent motives to those who do not merit it. For these who are pure of heart, it is difficult to imagine that someone can deliberately do something we consider to be evil. Perhaps, this is why Jesus said, “Be as simple as doves and wise as serpents.” Simple in that we should do good deeds with honorable motives; wise in that we realize, often painfully, that many in world do not aspire to high moral standards.

The Saints often assumed the best in others and the worst in themselves. Yes, they assume the best in others...until proven otherwise. When evil or immorality can no longer be denied and when trust has been broken, they more than anyone, took strong measures deal with the evil at hand. They were wise as serpents in that they spared no sacrifice to eliminate and purge the evil in their midst (cf. I Corinthians 5:13). Three motives inpsired such moral habits: 1. Love for the sinner. 2. Love for those who would be harmed by the sin 3. And out of love for God and his good will.

Christ calls each of his followers to spiritual and moral vigilance. To think with him is to think big. And to think big brings us to the realization that human beings can achieve the heights of sanctity, and, sadly, they can fall to the depths of great evil.

Ecce Homo: Behold the Man!

“Ecce Homo!” Pilate said to the crowd. That is, “Behold the man!” Behold the man, the Christ, who stands alone and rejected by his people.

To be an outsider and misunderstood is the lot of God’s closest friends. As far as I know, there is not a single canonized Saint who was not rejected by their own in some way and hence felt alone at some critical juncture in their life. Jesus warned as much when he said he came to bring not peace but the sword.

The Lord’s chosen instrument of pruning and purification is quite often being excluded by those closest to us. By far, the worst pain is to be endured during spiritual desolation; that is, when the soul feels totally abandoned by God himself. In this stance, the soul can be so deprived of the “sense” of grace that she deems itself to be denied of God’s mercy. Not a few Saints were tempted with despair; the feeling of being totally left behind by their Best Friend.

Consider the patriarch Joseph, one of Jacob’s twelve sons. He was sold into slavery by his own brothers. For twenty long years it seemed as if God abandoned him. But he was later elevated to prime minister of Egypt.

Moses, the great legislator of God’s law, was driven out of Egypt by Ramesses II for forty years. But he too would rise up and lead several thousand Hebrews out of slavery.

Before his anointing as King of Israel, David did not fit in with the rest of brothers and as a result would shepherd the sheep by himself. Again, it was not his brothers that Samuel anointed the second king of Israel, but David, who was overlooked by his own father and siblings.

The prophet Elijah, for his part, was not welcomed in band of the so-called band of prophets. The only real companion he had was his disciple Elisha.

As for the minor prophet Hosea, he was instructed by God to marry a prostitute named Gomer (she was to symbolize the infidelity of Israel) only to be rejected by her later on.

Indeed, the character and greatness of these patriarchs, legislators, kings and prophets of the Old Testament came about precisely because they were rejected by their own.  Rejection and banishment was no less the chosen instrument used by Christ in fashioning his Saints. Just to name only a few, there was his own family- the Holy Family –who had to flee Israel in order to take refuge in Egypt so as to escape the wrath of King Herod.

And centuries later there was St. Thomas Becket, St. Thomas More, and St. John Fisher who were rejected and martyred by their English countrymen. And we cannot forget Pope St. Gregory VII, a champion of Church reforem. He managed to get the State off of the Church’s back, but was eventually driven out of Rome by King Henry IV only to die in exile. About seven hundred years later, St. Alphonsus Liguori was kicked out of the Redemptorist order; the religious order he himself founded.

In modern times the Lord continued to set men and women apart for his work through the bitter trials of rejection. St. Edith Stein, for instance, was a convert from Judaism to Catholicism. As such, she was estranged from her own people because of her faith in Christ. St. Padre Pio was forbidden by the Vatican to publicly exercise his ministry for ten years. Unable to minister to his people, he became a prisoner of his friary. And there is Bishop Fulton Sheen, arguably the most gifted evangelist of the twentieth century. According to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Bishop Sheen was an outsider with regard to his brother bishops. He never quite belonged.

After becoming familiar with God’s friends in Scripture and the biographies of the Saints, this recurring phenomenon of being excluded should not surprise us. Our Lord himself said that no servant is above his master. And what did the Master say as he was dying on the Cross? He uttered the memorable words of Psalm 22: “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?”

Quite often the friends of God find themselvles in solitude because of their faith. From a wonderful book which captures this feeling of being alone in the desert, The Spirituality of the Old Testament, we discover that by no means are we singled out as if something unusual was happening to us. Instead, we are reminded that is the path many prophets and Saints traveled. The author, Paul Marie de la Croix, writes as follows:

“[S]ouls cease to understand the reason for the trials that afflict them and believe they are separated from God forever...divine conduct seems utterly incomprehensible, even extremely arbitrary and unjust. Everything bewilders them, causing uneasiness, anguish, obscurity. They more they seek God, the more deeply hidden He remains; the more they desire Him, the more he rejects them...they experience a reversal of God’s relationship to them. They seem to be permanently abandoned or even rejected, though divine favor and friendship had been theirs before.”

But as St. Francis de Sales once said, "an ounce of desolation is worth more than a pound of desolation." Through rejection and humiliations, we are given the opportunity to possess God for his own sake; to love the God of gifts over the gifts of God. To be sure, through the wine-press of suffering, we come to better understand our own sinfulness and unworthiness to have our prayers answered. Entitlement to his gifts and favors- the most common of faults–gives way to reality.

This is why we must never wince, never draw back when faced with the possibility of offending people by speaking the truth and doing God's work. Indeed, we may be rejected and excluded; we may have to eat lunch by ourselves in the cafeteria; we may risk losing a job; we may lose friendships and disappoint colleagues; and though it pains us very much, we may be ostracized from our family. Our Lord did not say to merely tolerate these trying circumstances, but to rejoice in them! As hard as it may seem, we have to ask Jesu the man that stood condemned before the crowd -for the grace to rejoice and see through short-term sacrifces to lay hold of long-term gains. It is only then we can stand with our Lord through thick and thin.

On Good Friday our Lord stood alone before his people as a rejected King. From the Thursday night to three o’clock Friday afternoon, God the Father, as if to side with the angry crowd, had seemed to reject his only begotten Son. Alone our Lord Jesus stood before Pilate and his people. A true outsider!

He was born outside of Bethlehem in a cave and he died a condemned man outside of the walls of Jerusalem. In the Sacred Heart of Jesus there is a special place for the ostracized and the rejected. They have not been forgotten by he who knows what it feels like to be forgotten.

Have you been forgotten or excluded from those closest to you? Well, please know you have a friend in Christ!

The Miter and the Scepter

The picture to the right is a painting by Anthony Van Dyck of St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, physically preventing the Roman emperor Theodosius from enter into the cathedral. It so happened, that the emperor, in order to suppress an uprising in Thessalonica, killed 7,000 of its citizens. St. Ambrose demanded that he do several months worth of public penance; and penance the Roman emperor did. This was a crucial turning point in world history. The era of the all-powerful State was coming to an end.
______________________________________________________

The third and final post of this series: The Miter and the Scepter: Let Them Meet. Aquila's words leads us to St. Ambrose

Bishop Aquila posed the question: “[H]ow many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ‘right to abortion’ … and still be able to receive Holy Communion?” This, of course, is a rhetorical question. The bishop is simply stating a fact: It has gone on too long. He also posited that the easy access to the Eucharist by those who publicly contradict the truth of human dignity by promoting grave evil is a scandal to onlookers. It further undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church when there is no discrimination between a faithful communicant and one who blatantly dissents from the Gospel of Life. Regardless of what the intention of the Eucharistic minister may be, giving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ to those politicians who publicly oppose our Lord’s teachings is a pastoral action that speaks louder than words. It essentially says that the Eucharist- the greatest gift of the Church –is not that important. It also ignores St. Paul’s admonition that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

“If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability is not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather it is a failure in the exercise of governance,” says the bishop. He goes on to imply that if the hierarchy of the Church took a stronger stand against those priests who publicly dissented from Church teaching against contraception in 1968 in Washington DC, perhaps the Church would not be dealing with the problem of abortion, same-sex unions, and other problems in the Church.

From 1968 to the present day, Catholics in “name only” have been groomed and fed right along with faithful Catholics. To be sure, the wolf and sheep were given equal status and in some cases the wolf was given preferential treatment. When no distinction is made between the friends and foes of Christ, and when the shepherd does not separate the two, the wolves quite often devour the sheep. This is why St. Paul gave the following pastoral directives to the Christians at Corinth: “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people.” And he then added with an exclamation point: “Purge the evil person from your midst!" (I Corinthians 5)

However, the parable of the wheat and the tares seems to contradict these measures, some might say. After all, in this parable Jesus says that to pull out the tare is to jeopardize the wheat. Some take this to mean that public dissidents should retain their communion with the Church lest its members be scared away. Christian love bids us to just leave them be...right? Wrong! This modern interpretation is contradicted, not only by I Corinthians 5 (cited above), but by several passages in the New Testament. Chief among the passages is Matthew 18 where our Lord says, “If he [the sinner] refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” Mind you, a Gentiles and tax collectors in a Jewish context were excluded as outsiders. Our Lord seems to be suggesting that tolerance has its limitations and mercy is conditional. There comes a point when diplomacy can be exercised to a fault.

As for St. Paul, wayward or unrepentant Christians were to be publicly reprimanded (I Tim. 5:20); the names of heretics were to be published (I Tim. 1:20) and as cited above, the unrepentant sinner was to be expelled from the Church (I Cor. 5). Therefore, the "wheat" and the "tares" that are to be separated on Judgment Day symbolizes the saved and the damned, or, if you will, sinners and Saints. After all, the Church is not endowed with the ability to determine the eternal destiny of souls; nor was she called to separate these two classes of people before the Day of our Lord. But what the Catholic Church does have the ability to do- what she is duty bound to do -is to separate the unfaithful from the faithful, the dissident from the disciple, or the disobedient from the obedient. And this she has done not only for the protection of the faithful and for the integrity of the Faith, but for the medicinal purpose of saving the obstinate sinner. From Pentecost to the 1960’s this ecclesiastical discipline has been applied. It is only recently that this act of fatherly love has been called into question and dismissed altogether.

The importance of Bishop Aquila's address to his seminarians cannot be overstated. It is an attempt to dust off the model of leadership left to us by our Lord, the Apostles and the Church Fathers. When the Church does not draw a fine line between the sheep and wolves; when she fails to make the bold distinction between good and evil, then spiritual and moral confusion in society is but the natural result. And more often than not, what we are left with is a powerful State which attempts to organize the social disorder remaining from such a confusion.

On the other hand, when the Church speaks with one voice and with moral clarity, she is a force to be reckoned with. She is a font of spiritual and cultural renewal. In periods of the Catholic Church's strength and confidence, clergy and laity alike have spoken with moral clarity; sometimes at a great cost. Indeed, the Catholic Church has a legacy of protecting the citizen and the lowly from the tyranny of the State. And one of her greatest accomplishments was that she tamed the overbearing dominance of the State to a kind of governance which understood itself to be the servant of its citizens; a servant who had to answer to a higher divine law.

One man who helped changed the way people looked at the State is St. Ambrose. In 392 A.D. the Roman Emperor Theodosius II killed 7.000 Thessalonians in an uprising. Having been informed of this while the emperor was still miles away, St. Ambrose, a bishop of Milan, wrote him a letter. In this letter he said, “I urge, I beg, I exhort, I warn, for it is a grief to me, that you who were an example of unusual piety, who were conspicuous for clemency, who would not suffer single offenders to be put in peril, should not mourn that so many have perished.” In no uncertain terms, the saintly bishop cautioned Theodosius that “sin is not done away but by tears and penitence. Neither angel can do it, nor archangel. The Lord Himself, Who alone can say, ‘I am with you,’ if we have sinned, does not forgive any but those who repent.” St. Ambrose then recounted a dream he had of the emperor coming into the Church. Upon his arrival, the Lord had forbidden the saintly bishop to offer the Sacrifice at the altar. St. Ambrose took this to mean one thing: confrontation if need be.

Inspired by these convictions, St. Ambrose was determined to publicly call the Roman emperor to public penance. There came a day when Theodosius presumptuously attempted to enter the cathedral where St. Ambrose was presiding at. However, this heroic bishop physically prevented him from entering. Ambrose demanded that this powerful head of State repent from killing so many people before partaking of the Holy Sacrifice of the Liturgy. This Saint and Father of the Church was too concerned for Theodosius’ soul to let his sin go uncensored. It was not only an act of courage but the highest kind of pastoral love a spiritual father could give to a son. It was furthermore a precedent that the great shepherds of the Church aspired to in the centuries that followed. It’s just that we haven’t seen it in the last five to six decades. But with bishops like His Excellency, Samuel Aquila, the miter and the scepter will meet again. The golden standard of pastoring will be restored; a stronger Church will emerge; and civilization will once again give public honor to Jesus Christ.

A Bishop Pierces the Darkness

The picture to the right is a painting by Anthony Van Dyck of St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, physically preventing the Roman emperor Theodosius from enter into the cathedral. It so happened, that the emperor, in order to suppress an uprising in Thessalonica, killed 7,000 of its citizens. St. Ambrose demanded that he do several months worth of public penance; and penance the Roman emperor did. This was a crucial turning point in world history. The era of the all-powerful State was coming to an end.
______________________________________________________

The second post of this series: A Bishop Pierces the Darkness: Why Bishop Aquila's words are rays of hope for the Church

In March of 2011, Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo Pennsylvania gave an address at a symposium of seminarians. The Catholic News Agency's article, “Bishop Aquila urges clergy not to let ‘lies’ take hold among faithful” provides excerpts and a fine analysis of the talk.

What I would like to do is to reference some of the things he said and elaborate a bit on their importance. I do believe his address to be a historic one in that it signals a renewal of both the episcopate and the Church itself. Indeed, Aquila's words can be likened to God's rays of sunlight piercing through the clouds in the sky. After decades of being lost in the desert without a compass, so it would seem, the Bishop of Fargo points to the promise land. His words are reminiscent of the insight and pastoral wisdom of the Fathers of the Church; in particular, St. Ambrose, a bishop that will be introduced in the next post.

Bishop Aquila's recent talk to his seminarians gave special attention to the pastoral exercises of our Lord and the condition of souls that sometimes warranted a forceful and direct approach. The Bishop said that Jesus' “forceful” language towards the Pharisees and Scribes would never be tolerated today but the Gospel writers did not hesitate to pass them down. He further explains that “In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.” And then he adds that the clergy (and even laity in positions of authority) need to speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church. I would elaborate by saying that the sheep and wolves have existed side by side for far too long in the name of compassion. As result of this mixed population of the faithful and dissenters, the visible unity of the Church has been impaired. Thinking with one mind, speaking with one voice and uniformity of action have long been undermined. From this has come mixed messages and sometimes scandal.

“Bishops and priests,” Aquila continued, “should turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise their authority in governing the Church.” When they “are hesitant in exercising their authority, the 'father of lies' takes hold of the hearts and minds of the faithful.” Hesitant about what? you might ask. Hesitant about exercising authority that a father- spiritual or biological -has to exercise from time to time with wayward souls. And the exercise of that authority I referred to is one of discipline and punishment. Because we have downplayed the reality of sin and deleted its term from our lexicon (i.e. sermons, teachings and other venues of public discourse) the consequences of sin, especially hell and damnation, have suffered from extinction; at least in our own minds.

Without knowing about the bad news, who will care to hear the Good News? Without the preaching of divine justice, people will feel that they are entitled to the mercy of God whether they go to church or not. If hell is not a real possibility, then speaking to Christ and conforming our ways to his ways becomes optional. The “business” of saving souls assumes that souls can be lost. If this assumption is absent then the necessary pastoral measures will not be exercised in order to save souls from their own destruction. To inspire holiness and virtue is not enough! The greatest of the gifts of the Holy Spirit- the fear of the Lord, must be cultivated. To fear the Lord and to fear, not only his displeasure, but the consequences of that displeasure, is a good thing! This is why St. Paul can say to the Philippians to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

“(T)oo many people understand correction or punishment as not loving the other or as dominion over the other, and this is the work of ‘the father of lies.’ A reluctance or hesitancy to correct and properly punish does not invite the other into the truth that frees and ultimately fails in true charity.” These words by Bishop Aquila cut to the chase. Christian love, real Christian love, is willing to offend and hurt feelings if it means speaking the truth about specific sins so as to liberate souls from the bondage of sin. God is a loving father who punishes. Without punishment, not only love but the freedom to become holy is undermined.

This all presupposes that the mercy and goodness of God is proffered. However, the blind spot of our generation is that we entirely omit truths like sin and hell. We further fail to mention that the flesh, the world and the devil- this unholy trio -is the enemy of the soul; at least that is what Scripture and the Saints say. In fact, we no longer speak about enemies. That would be too impolite. Indeed, we are soft and delicate. And as such, evil all the more is unhindered in our world today. Especially unchecked are those worldly and unrepentant politicians who march into Catholic cathedrals and churches throughout the world only to put their hand out to receive the Eucharist; the Holiest Thing (or pearl) the Catholic Church has to offer. But how does the love of Christ bid us to respond?

We already referenced what our Lord said about giving holy things to dogs and pearls to swine. However, Bishop Samuel Aquila had spoken about this specific issue at his March symposium of seminarians. His insights and the historic conflict between St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and the Roman emperor Theodosius in the next blog.

To Spare Feelings or to Save Souls

The picture to the right is a painting by Anthony Van Dyck of St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, physically preventing the Roman emperor Theodosius from enter into the cathedral. It so happened, that the emperor, in order to supress an uprising in Thessalonica, killed 7,000 of its citizens. St. Ambrose demanded that he do several months worth of public penance; and penance the Roman emperor did. This was a crucial turning point in world history. The era of the all-powerful State was coming to an end.
______________________________________________________


The first post of this series: To Spare Feelings or to Save Souls- Sometimes we have to make a choice

The man of faith used to care more about the soul of his neighbor than his feelings. He knew that it was necessary at times to disturb the latter in order to save the former. In recent decades, however, pastoral practices in the Catholic Church have, more often than not, catered to feelings rather than to the soul.

Take for instance the following examples:

It is a common practice in the Church to marry a couple who is cohabitating without having them repent by first living apart (thus to demonstrate a willingness to practice the virtue of chastity);

It is a common practice to have infants baptized and to have his or her parents renounce sin during the baptismal rite when they have no intention of returning to Mass the following week;

And it is common practice to admit candidates into the fold who have not resolved to believe and live out all that Christ commands through his Church. This is especially to the common practice of contraception; an issue that many Catholics in positions of authority will not

These low pastoral standards are justified on the pretext that by requiring the sinner to repent before having access to the Sacraments is tantamount to scaring them off. It is further based on a mistaken belief that saying “no” or denying something sacred to an unrepentant sinner is contrary to Christian love. Clergy and laity alike have forgotten the age-old principle articulated by St. James: “For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” (2:10) That is to say, it is not enough to accept only some of what Christ taught; as if his commands were optional. We must, on the contrary, accept the whole corpus of his teachings. Easy access to the Sacraments for people who have no intention of repenting from serious sins and amending their lives gives an impression that the commands of Christ are optional.

In any case, the results of such practices are far from attracting the multitude to the altar. On the contrary, prospective converts yawn at our low standards and go elsewhere. In fact, as Pew Research studies have indicated, if non-Catholics were a denomination, it would be the largest one in the United States. Low Mass attendance, the closing of parochial schools and an increase of ex-Catholics in recent decades can be traced to an over-accommodation to those who want both Mammon and God. These low pastoral standards and offering the Mysteries of Christ to anyone have led to a demystification of the Church and an overall breakdown in unity. With that, the Bride of Christ, that is, the Church, has less appeal to souls who are in search for God.

These considerations are not even the most important when it comes to the pastoral and moral standards we hold up (or let down). These accommodations (the lowering of the bar, if you will) find no justification in Scripture, in the writings of the Church Fathers, among the Saints, and Tradition at large. Let me say it another way: The Church’s low requirements for being admitted into the Church, for being catechized or for receiving any of the Sacraments are a departure from the pastoral traditions of the mid-twentieth century and every century going all the way back to the Apostolic era. As recently as the 1940’s, to be Catholic or to stay in communion with the Church one had to believe all of Catholic doctrine and live according to those doctrines; that is, live the life of Christ to the full. In early Christianity, for instance, bishops repeatedly examined candidates over a three year period in order to ascertain their commitment to Jesus Christ. The Catachumenate (ancient version of RCIA) was principally one of spiritual formation- and a probation period; it was not just a series of listening to talks or a process of passively receiving information. And to be sure, being admitted into the fold was not automatic. Mother Church was a jealous mother.

Our Lord said do not give holy things to dogs and pearls to swine. Without saying as much, we deem that to be a little too judgmental; at least according to twenty-first century standards. We think no more about what Jesus said and then we open the doors of the church without requiring anyone to repent. The result is that we leave the sinner unchanged! Feeling unchallenged to live up to high standards, these people leave the Church. To attract these unformed and unchallenged souls back to the fold, we develop ministries like “Catholics Come Home.” Although an excellent ministry in its own right, Catholics Come Home compensates for the problem of having low standards. In addition to reaching out through ministries such as these, we would do well to deal with the root of the problem itself. And what might be that problem? Again, the failure to demand repentance like our Lord did, like St. Peter did, like St. Paul and other Apostolic Fathers did- a kind of repentance involving a change of life that conforms to the life of Christ –as a condition of entering the Catholic Church and remaining in communion with her.

And so we come to address given by Bishop Aquila of Fargo, Pennsylvania to his seminarians in March of 2011…the next blog (the second post of this series)

Bridging the Gap

This article I wrote was originally posted on the Catholic Culture website. Due to the length of it, I only posted a small section of it below; and for those of you who want to read the rest of it, you can click in Bridging the Gap Continued in the right hand column.

Bridging the Gap: Why the effective communication of the Gospel is vital for the preservation of human dignity.


A World without Christ: Will the 1st century repeat itself?

The year was 60 A.D. Seneca, a Roman philosopher, decided to go to the show; not a play in the theatre but a show of a real life and death drama. He didn’t know what he was getting into. He had heard about the gladiator shows at the Coliseum, but he wanted to see for himself what the hype was all about. Thinking that he was going to be entertained and distracted from the burdens of everyday life, he instead witnessed something he would never forget. He discovered that his beloved Rome— the home of the most “civilized” empire yet to date —gave no thought to human dignity during its state-sponsored entertainment. In his own words:

“I come home more greedy, more cruel and inhuman, because I have been among human beings. By chance I attended a midday exhibition, expecting some fun, wit, and relaxation…But it was quite the contrary…These noon fighters are sent out with no armor of any kind; they are exposed to blows at all points, and no one ever strikes in vain…In the morning they throw men to the lions; at noon they throw them to the spectators.”1

Another prominent figure during that time was Petronius, a contemporary of Seneca, and a fellow advisor of the Emperor Nero, who had a different opinion of these shows. With a feverish anticipation, he wrote to a friend reminding him not to forget about the gladiator show; after all, there was a new shipment of fresh blood. He could barely contain his joy as he writes:

"Don't forget, there's a big gladiator show coming up the day after tomorrow. Not the same old fighters either. They've got a fresh shipment in. There's not a slave in that batch. Just wait. There'll be cold steel for the crowd, no quarter and the amphitheatre will end up looking like a slaughterhouse. There's even a girl who fights from a chariot."2

Seneca and Petronius were both products of their culture. Seneca was a refined gentleman who seemed to rise above the times, yet even he endorsed infanticide without the slightest hesitation. He once said, “We drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal. Yet it is not anger, but reason that separates the harmful from the sound.”3 As for Petronius, he was an unabashed sponsor of human cruelty through and through. He had no scruples about the moral decadence that surrounded him.

These two men failed to realize, as did most at the time, that when even one person’s human dignity is violated or ignored, then it is a loss for humanity; a loss that eventually finds its way to the indifferent. It should not be surprising then that the culture of death caught up with both of these men. Indeed, Seneca and Petronius were forced to commit suicide by their beloved Emperor Nero; an emperor whom they faithfully served.

This was the world without Christ; a place where cruelty was the rule, not the exception; a world where human dignity was but a dream.


Why We Must Bridge the Gap

Bridging the gap between Faith and Human Dignity is a mission of great urgency for the Catholic Church today. The wider this gap, the more human dignity will be a dream of days gone-by rather than an everyday ethic of life. In the world of Seneca and Petronius the Gospel of Life was in its infancy and the culture of death and cruelty had yet to be contested. As we had just seen from firsthand witnesses, human dignity does not fare well in an unbaptized world. For that reason alone, it is a world worth avoiding.

The key to the preservation of human dignity is the same today as it was in the first-century: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. To the extent the Gospel fades from the public square, human dignity becomes unclear and more difficult to define. The only definition of human dignity that has withstood the test of time is the one that Christ gives through the Catholic Church. It is based on where we came from, who we are, and where we are going. This definition not only comes from the Author of our human existence but it fully corresponds to the truth of who we are. As James Cardinal Gibbons said, Instructed by His example, the Church deals with men as they really are.

As history has shown, in order for human dignity to be universal, permanent, and practical, the following truths of the Gospel need to be acknowledged:

•That every human being was created by God;
•That every human being was created like God;
•That every human being was created for God.

It is also true that we were created for own sake and for no other person. Although every unborn person is utterly dependent on his or her mother, that baby does not exist for the mother. Second to God, the person— unborn or otherwise —exist for himself. The life that was given to him was a life he was meant to enjoy. Not even parents own their children. They are custodians, not owners. Ownership, properly speaking, belongs to our Creator. And because we belong to God and ourselves we can rightly complain if we are being used by others. From the beginning, human beings were meant to be loved for their own sake. This is why slavery or modern day human trafficking is such a travesty.

With regard to a person’s body, it is God who has the exclusive right to say, “Mine!” People talk about “my” body or “my” life as if they themselves created it. They forget that it was given to them by Someone else. We did not will ourselves into existence; it follows that we do not have the right to will ourselves out of existence. This is why abortion, murder, and even suicide are grave sins in the eyes of God. We are custodians of our body like a tenant who rents property. We have the responsibility to use it properly, but we do not have the right to do with it as we please.

If human rights are not founded on God’s rights, then there is no rational basis for respecting human life from conception to natural death. Humanistic or even humanitarian incentives are not enough. If God’s authority is not in the equation, or the definition, then someone else’s authority will be; the authority to decide who lives and who dies. When this kind of power is usurped from God by the State or by the medical community, then the value of human life is subject to revision. Let there be no doubt, the beneficiaries of this revision are far fewer than God would have it.

Therefore, in order for each person to benefit from his or her human dignity, the Christian definition of human dignity itself needs to be publicly recognized and accepted. Christ came to restore our human dignity on this side of eternity with the same force he used to save our souls for the other side. We sometimes forget that what our soul profited for eternity, our body benefited in time. That is, because of the example Christ left us, his Church became the benefactor of those in physical need. This is why Thomas Woods, author of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, could write: "It would take many large volumes to record the complete history of Catholic charitable work carried on by individuals, parishes, dioceses, monasteries, missionaries, friars, nuns, and lay organization. Suffice it to say that Catholic charity has had no peer in the amount and variety of good work it has done and the human suffering and misery it has alleviated."

The Conclusion: Why a Male-only Priesthood

The third answer of why only men are admitted to the priesthood has a lot to do with what C.S. Lewis touched upon in the previous blog.

Human sexuality symbolizes who we are in relation to God. Fr. Manfred Hauke, a German theologian, wrote a book published by Ignatius Press with the title, Women in the Priesthood? In it he gives a philosophical and theological exposition on how masculinity and femininity respectively symbolize different modes and attributes of God. Although his work is quite scholarly, I intend to provide a simpler version of his insights. If you like JPII's Theology of the Body then you might take a liking to Hauke's work.

First, a man represents something that he is not! His spiritual and psychological nature, as well as his physical anatomy, prjects outward and as such symbolizes the transcendence of God. In other words, the trait of masculinity reveals that God is beyond us, above us and is without limit. Men are restless creatures by nature; much more so than women are. He is constantly driven outside of himself and outside his domestic environment. Rarely is he content with his surroundings; he seeks to venture beyond the horizon. The discovery of the New World, the first flight across the Atlantic ocean, and the landing on the moon, although dangerous enterprises, were envisioned and accomplished by men. Whether it be the quest to conquer the world or the quest to save it, such ambitions are the making of man's spirit. His ambition to transcend space and time is not only a “guy thing,” but it reveals a strong underlying desire for heaven where there are no limitations. However, in the absence of divine grace, this desire for transcendence can be destructive. Hence, high crime rates, terrorism and dictatorships are often the products of masculinity gone wrong.

We find, however, man's perfect compliment in the female sex. In contradistinction to men, a woman symbolizes something that she is. What she symbolizes- in her physical anatomy as well as her psychological and spiritual nature -is God's intimacy and his indwelling. She, unlike her counterpart, is much more intuitive and sensitive to relationships. This gives her the moral advantage. Indeed, she possesses a keen instinct which allows her to detect problem spots in marriages and in relationships.

After all, human life has its origin within her. Perhaps this is why the book of Genesis used the Hebrew terms “built-up” to describe Eve's creation. In fact, the expression “built-up” is also used to recount the construction of sacred places; most notably the Jewish temple by King Solomon where God chose to dwell. To be sure, just as God dwelt in the holy of holies in the Temple, and just as he dwells in tabernacles in Catholic churches throughout the world, the female womb would come to serve as a sanctuary of the first nine months of human life. In her, human life begins and through her it is nurtured. It can even be argued that two human beings are never so close as when a mother is pregnant with her child.

This leads us to why it is important to retain a male-only priesthood and the masculine image of God as Father and Son. It furthermore explains why creation and the Church is depicted in the feminine. The relationship between a man and a woman in terms of procreation reveals the distinction between God and creation; it further illustrates the relationship between Christ and his Church.

At conception, the unity between the mother and the child is ever so close as mentioned above. With this, the distinction is less pronounced between a mother and a newly conceived child than with a father and a newly conceived child. As a matter of fact, father's child can be conceived when he is miles away. Therefore, the creation of human life, or its beginning, is closely bound up with the mother but not so with the father. Indeed, there is a gap, a physical distance if you will, that inheres between the father and the inception of life. Indeed, it is he who learns about the pregnancy from her.

This distinction is important when it comes to God and his creation. There is a profound difference between the Creator and creation as we know from Scripture. The masculine image assigned to God and the feminine character given to creation preserves the distinction between the two. The Lord speaks and the sea, the land, the moon, man and woman came into being. Hence, creation is receptive while its Creator is proactive. However, if a feminine imagery would be assigned to God such as “mother” or “daughter,” then such designations would convey an entirely different kind of God; one that is receptive like creation itself. He would become confused with the world that he created. History demonstrates this. Is it no wonder then that New Age spirituality and other forms of paganism have their goddesses and also wroship nature? I remember praying in a chapel that belonged to a convent of feminist nuns (I was unaware of their orientation at the time) and I happened to read their invocation of “Mother-Earth” and the “four winds” on their prayer cards. Worshiping God as mother quite naturally leads to pantheism- the worship of creation.
St. Paul reminds us that the world before Christ was replete with this kind of paganism. He said the "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes."

The leads to the last point about Christ the Bridegroom and his Church the Bride. This, as you can imagine, parallels with the logic of God and his creation. Christ, in his masculine nature, takes the initiative and gives of himself in the Divine Liturgy. At the altar, as with the union between a man and a woman, our Lord gives to his Bride, the Church, his body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. We, as his Church, receive him. And this, of course, is done through the priest who is an icon of Christ. Not only through the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar does our Lord assume the male role in giving us the bread of life, or, if you will, the seed of life; but during the Mass the priest, who represents the Son of God, takes the initiative with the greeting. He begins by saying, “The Lord be with you.” And we, the faithful, who play the feminine role, respond, “And also with you.”

The male-only priesthood is loaded with symbolic significance. To alter it would lead to a whole new set of theological errors and moral dissoluteness. And although our culture is doing away with gender differences under the guise of equality, we, the faithful members of Christ's Mystical Body, must refuse to go along.

So next time you greet your parish priest as “father,” know that it stands for much more than a man having authority in the church. It should remind us that God has chosen to reveal himself to us as a Father would to a Son; not as a Master to a slave. And for that, we should be eternally grateful.

Why a Male-only Priesthood? II

When defending the male-only priesthood of Jesus Christ one is almost socially obligated to provide a litany of wonderful qualities of the female sex; as if to apologize for this unchangeable doctrine. But this misses the point. The Catholic priesthood of only men has nothing to do with the personal merit of a man or a woman. The Catholic Church, more than any other religion or institution, honors women throughout the year by celebrating female Saints; most notably the Blessed Virgin who is heralded as the holiest of all the Saints and human beings. Perhaps this is why when the Catholic Faith was most influential just a few centuries ago in Europe, the station of women was elevated far above than what it had been in pagan civilization.

In any case, the male-only priesthood has everything to do with this one fact: Sexuality symbolizes the unseen spiritual world. Indeed, human sexuality and spirituality are so tightly interwoven with one another that to change the attitude or practice of one is to change the attitude or practice of the other.

Man and woman were created in God's image. According to Scripture, God has chosen to reveal not only who he is but the truth of his creation as it relates to himself; especially with regard to God's relationship with the human race. Keep in mind that our culture has become increasingly egalitarian in previous decades. In addition, with the advance of same-sex marriage, the sexual attributes of masculinity and femininity have come to be seen as superficial categories. Some ask, “What is the difference if a child has a father and a father rather than a father and a mother?” “As long as each parent is loving,” they say, “that is all that matters.” Under this radical version of equality, men and women have become neutered to great detriment of humanity.

With that said, we can restore the proper understanding of what a man and what a woman really is by returning to God's revelation. And the bearer of that revelation is the Catholic Church.

Someone who made a brilliant case for the male-only priesthood was a non-Catholic, C.S. Lewis. In fact, he belonged to the Anglican Church; a church that eventually renounced the male-only priesthood. He points out that God's identity as Father is closely bound up with men being priests; and that God invoked as Father brings to light who we are as his image.

“Suppose the reformer [innovator] stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.”

Lewis goes on to say, “One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.”

If it doesn't matter that God is invoked as mother or father then it does not matter if Christ is seen as the bridegroom or bride. To reverse the traditional imagery, dare I say the imagery revealed by God, then it is no exaggeration to say that we will find ourselves in a different religion entirely; one closely akin to ancient paganism. With pagan religious beliefs we will soon be led to pagan morality;you know, the good old gladiator games in the Colosseum and the human sacrifices on the pyramids.

Rarely do people follow doctrines- be it revealed or man-made -to their logical conclusions. Nevertheless, the revealed doctrine that the Priesthood of Christ is to be transmitted through men only preserves the correct belief in the Holy Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is also guarantees the doctrine of how God and his people relate to each other and who we really are. Take away the linchpin which binds only men to the priesthood, and the rest unravels. Sad but true, a fine illustration of this unraveling is to be found in the twenty-first century Anglican Church. It has severed so many of its ties with primitive Christianity. King Henry VIII would not even recognize it.

How the male and female body represent who we are in God...in the final blog.

Why a Male-only Priesthood?

A friend of mine had recently asked his friends how one explains why Christ instituted a male-only priesthood. Because of the emphasis our society puts on absolute equality- forgetting that equality in no way implies sameness –this question gets asked of Catholics quite a bit. As with non-Catholics not being able to receive Holy Communion, a woman not being able to become a priest is a sore spot for many people. Keep in mind, no matter what answer you provide, it is not likely to have an immediate effect on the inquirer. After all, if one subscribes to egalitarianism- the belief that men and women are not only equal but psychologically, sexually and spiritually the same –then this radical version of equality needs to be discredited before they accept the Christian version of equality.

In any case, there are three answers you can give. The first is quick and to the point; although true, it is not likely to win over many skeptics. The second answer better utilizes certain principles that are relevant in our entertainment culture. However, I consider this one to be more like an appetizer; hopefully it will lead to another explanation having more depth.

The third one requires that your listener has a long attention span. Most of the time simple answers are the way to go. But for this one, it really is worth it to chew on this explanation and let it settle. Americans, as Tocqueville once said, have an aversion to meditation and deep thoughts. They are more geared towards the practical doing. True enough. Still, I would press on with this third answer as to why Christ instituted a male-only priesthood. Challenge your audience- be it family, friend or co-worker –to think a little deeper and a little broader. I believe this to be the best answer once the other answers have been exhausted. It explains why C.S. Lewis could say: You can have your priestesses…but it will not be Christianity.

As I said, the first answer is quick and to the point: Christ instituted a male-only priesthood. The Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority to change it. And that's that! But this is a "...because I said so!" kind of an answer. It may be be true but it is not that satisfying to most. Invariably, you will get a response along the lines of: “Well, at the Last Supper, when the priesthood was officially instituted, only Jewish men were present. Why, then, did the Church go ahead and ordain Gentile men in subsequent decades?” I will leave it to you to explain why the ordination of Gentile men (non-Jewish men) and the ordination of women are apples and oranges. Perhaps the second answer will help.

The second answer: The Mass is rightly characterized as a prayer, the most perfect one on earth, which is directed to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. At the heart of this great liturgical prayer is a sacred act or play in which the sanctuary and altar is a kind of stage where the priest plays Jesus. That's right. The priest who presides at the Mass not only recites the words used at the Last Supper when Jesus said, “This is my body...” but he also acts out what Jesus did. Few think of the Eucharistic sacrifice as a play simply because it is often associated with entertainment. Nevertheless, by lifting the host and then the chalice the priest reenacts the part of our Lord at the Last Supper.

Now, even Hollywood can relate to this principle. If a movie were to portray the life of George Washington, for instance, who would doubt that a male actor would be chosen to play his part? True, what happens at the altar is more than just a play or a reenactment. Through the words of consecration the body, blood and soul of Jesus is communicated. Since his body is male in essence, it is only fitting that a male priest mediate the person of Jesus Christ. Indeed, in order to uphold the integrity of the play and the consecration of bread and wine, a male representative is required.

It would seem that the second answer to the question of why only men can be priests is a reasonable one. After all, Hollywood uses male actors to represent men in the story and the same goes from women. No one questions that policy. It would seem in the case of the Mass that requiring male priests to represent Jesus Christ, the Son of God, would apply even more considering the above stated reasons.

With that said, the second answer makes for a good segue into the third. If you think your listening audience can stomach it, then you might want to give the third answer a try...on the next blog.