Visitors - Come on in and say hello!

Friday, April 28, 2006

Why is a Minister of the Circle of Sacred earth allowed to teach the Catholic Faith in Catholic Churches?

I've been recieving some hate mail lately, and I'm not at all surprised. After all, I was the one to throw down the gauntlet and call into question why a professed pagan is teaching the "sacraments" and "Bible study" at various Catholic parishes.

Her name is Gabriel Ashley Ross and in a previous post, found here, I summarized her actual beliefs, which she conveniently provided herself....all over the web. This is public info. I find the fact that a pagan is teaching our children and adults who had the same watered-down upbringing as I to be outrageous, and it needs to come to an end.

I do not know her nor, as one commenter suggested, would having a cup of coffee with the woman change the fact that Gabriel Ashley Ross's beliefs are directly contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm sure that if I met her I might even personally like her...generally, I get along with everyone, even those with whom I disagree.

Some may question why the actual beliefs of the teacher, in this case, Ross, really matters, especially if she's following general guidelines?

Simple. Let's use logic. I'm Catholic, right? So my values and beliefs are very much tempered by my faith, and I will tend to do everything from a Catholic perspective; that is, if I do have a correctly formed conscience in the Catholic faith.

Now, as a Catholic, would it be acceptable for me to go into a group of Wiccans and begin to teach them their religion? Or might they take offense, correctly arguing that I do not have a vested interest in their beliefs and I am "tainting" them with my own, and possibly planting seeds for their conversion to my own faith? Darn right that's what I'd be doing, and if you are gullible enough to beliefe that Ross isn't doing just that, whether consciously or unconsciously, then you need to get a grip on reality.

Here's an example of one of the hateful commentators, who apparently doesn't understand what it means to be "tolerant":

Boy, your "concern" is full of hate and fear. It is pure vitriolic. What are you scared of? That our children will learn about world religions and learn from someone different than you so that they can grow-up to be more tolerant, well-informed, productive citizens who try to understand their neighbors?

So let's discuss this. In my original post, I expressed concern that this pagan is teaching our faith, not in a public school or university, but IN OUR CATHOLIC PARISHES! Apparently it's quite unconscionable that a Catholic would dare to speak out against such an outrage. I guess I'm intolerant then. Fine. I am guilty.

First point: Fear. If I were fearful, I would not respond to this. I would pull the post down entirely. Especially after the hateful comments and the typical accusations of "intolerance". I am not fearful; but I sense fear in all who support this woman, for her time teaching at Catholic parishes is nearing an end, God willing. She can go teach at the Circle of the Sacred Earth; or she can denounce the New Agey religions she holds so dear, but she cannot continue to live this duality and expect that her behavior will be accepted.

This person asked what I am scared of...well, I'm not "scared" of anything. This just proves what Ms. Ross is teaching....the children at "her" parishes should not be learning world religions. They should be learning their own faith, for that is why their parents have brought them to a CATHOLIC Church. If Ms. Ross cares to teach about world religions, then she can do so in a government-funded or Wiccan-funded or Circle of Sacred Earth- funded venue and if Catholics want to go see her there, then fine. But stay away from children who need to grow up in their own faith before they chooose to enter the confusion that Ms. Ross peddals.

Going back to the comment, I fail to see how teaching world religions to children in a Catholic parish makes them more understanding of their neighbors, or better people? I'm thinking that this person is casting a judgment upon me without actually knowing me. Thank you, anonymous commenter, for making my point so well. Tolerance is a two-way street, and we're all supposed to be equals...but Catholics are less equal than anyone else. Our beliefs aren't respected but we are apparently supposed to cave in to whatever new ideal presents itself at our parish doors.


Let's talk about tolerance, then. Let's discuss the fact that in our society, tolerance applies to every sin under the sun, but those with dearly held belifs are not allowed to express those or demand that they be upheld in God's own house. This anonymous commenter so clearly expressed this sad truth about our society; if we stand up for what is right, and denounce evil, then we are intolerant.

Let's hear some more from that commenter: You say you never met this Gabriel but then you profess to know what she teaches, what her values and beliefs are, and what she stands for. That's blasphemous. Your citation from another parent is hearsay and only that person's perspective.

No, I never met Gabriel, but I can see her values and beliefs all over the web pages she advertises for herself. How is pointing out the obvious "blasphemous"?

BLASPHEMY: The act of expressing lack of reverence for God. Irreverence toward something considered sacred.. I took this definition from The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a secular source.

It seems to me that if "blasphemy" applies here, it is in allowing a professed pagan (again, announced all over the internet on web links I provided) into God's house to teach her own version of our faith. How is this respectful or reverent to God?

I have to wonder if this poster things that she is God since the accusation against my post is right there in black and white? I have not been irreverent towards God, but towards a woman who should not be teaching in our very parishes.

The commenter went on to say that Ms. Ross is very "tolerant and well-rounded" and apparently she knows more about scripture than a lot of other people. Fine. So does Jeff Cavins, but he has the respect to actually BE Catholic and so it is proper for him to teach it in our parishes.

I guess that some people, when saying such things about scriptural knowledge, forget that Satan was very well versed in scripture and he quoted it fluently when he tempted Jesus in the desert. The fact that Ms. Ross knows scripture does not give her credibility. There are thousands of denominations out there and they all split because they don't have the Magasterium to refer to as a yardstick when interpreting Sacred Scripture by using Sacred Tradtion. Nor does Ms. Ross.

Many people don't realize that Tarot, Divination, Faery-doctoring, Reiki, Eastern Spiritualities, etc., are all sins against the first commandment: "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before Me." Ms. Ross is into this other stuff, this faery-doctoring, she is a Minister of the Circle of the Sacred Earth, and as such, she is giving her allegiance not to the Triune God, but to her own gods. This is firstly, for a Catholic, a mortal sin. I do not know the state of Ms. Ross's soul, but she should at least be aware, if she is teaching the faith and even the Sacrament of Confession to children, that such things are a mortal sin. If she is not aware of this, then she should not be teaching for she is not informed enough to teach. Secondly, if she is aware that what she is doing is a mortal sin, then she should step out of her teaching position and either choose that or renounce it and convert wholeheartedly to Catholicism. She cannot serve two masters, and, speaking as one who was once involved in that stuff...she is not serving God. Nor was I when I was nearly inducted into a Voodoo Cult.

(As an aside: if anyone has any questions about my lack of "open-mindedness", then check out my Tarot story- where I could have lost my mind, my life, and my soul)

Now, as faithful Catholics, we have a right to speak out against such atrocities. Of course it's no surprise that this kind of thing happens; after all, there are a lot of misguided Catholics out there, and New-Agey things being interjected into our parishes is not new...but it needs to end for it leads people astray.

Perhaps Ms. Ross doesn't realize that she has no business teaching these things in a Catholic parish, as our belifs conflict so strongly. I'm sure she thinks she has the best interest of her pupils at heart, but the reality is that she does not share our beliefs and thus, he teachings are tainted at their foundations. Her very commenters express such ignorance and intolerance of our Catholic beliefs that they provide proof that if they are learning from Ms. Ross, she's doing a terrible job.

Even I recieved better catechesis in the watered-down programs of my youth. I at least was taught that in order to be forgiven, I had to recognize that I sinned. I'm not sure, from what I have heard from witnesses, that she is able to use the word "sin", nor that she is able to declare that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.

Catholic parishes are Catholic, they are a house of God, and within them, Jesus himself resides in the Blessed Sacrament. Yet while the tabernacles in these parishes wait in silence and patience for the faithful to pray, instead, parishioners are in the parish hall listening to the distortions and misrepresentations of our faith straight from the misled lips of a Ms. Gabriel Ashley Ross. She's no messenger, friends, and she needs to stop teaching in our parishes, unless she renounces her New Age philosophies and ebraces the beliefs she is pretending to teach.

This is a Spiritual battle, folks...arm yourselves well.

For further information on the occult and New Age and why they are incompatible with Catholic belief, check out this article.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Sacrocanctum Concilium - Music

Welcome to Part 2 of my limited knowledge of the most abused of all Vatican II documents. This is a popular topic and so I look forward to many informative, and most importantly, opinionated comments.

I still have to refer you to my disclaimer posted at the top of the original post on this topic. I'm no expert and I am presenting very limited information on this topic. Again, I refer all readers to the document and to actually READ it before trying to interpret it. That's what got the American Church to where she resides now. Ignorance. Let's not be ignorant buffoons, like the "Liturgical Directors" of lore, but rather, let us be informed Catholics. Personally, I like that idea.

Music. What a great topic. It affects our worship. At Daily Mass, sometimes we sing and in the simplicity of the chapel the a capella notes of traditional songs bring a harmony and beauty to the most simplified Holy Mass. The echoing notes in a stone cathedral echo against the harmonies created by a well-tune choir, raising their voices to God and calling us all to a greater worship. Good music speaks not to our intellect alone, but to our very souls, and believe you me, the soul recognizes good music. I've often heard people refer to music with "soul", usually in reference to Jazz, or the Blues, and while I agree, I think that the ultimate is the ancient music of the Church, sometimes referred to as "the breath of God".

Maybe my pontifications on this deserve a place in another post and maybe I'll go there, but perhaps it's best to discuss what the Council actually said about music, and what has actually happened. Oy Vey! Uff Da! ?Que paso'? Quo Vadis?


The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any othe rart. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn Liturgy.

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action...

This part discusses the importance of music in connection with the Sacred Liturgy. It does allow for contemporary music, but does require the "needed qualities."

Discussion topic: what are the "needed qualities" based upon the above?

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services..

What do people NOT understand about the above sentence?

I have a CD called "Sublime Chant", which covers Gregorian Chant, Ambrosian Chant, and other chants. Maybe this is a good time to quote that work of art which is my namesake:

Adoro te devote, latens Deitas,
Quae sub his figuris vere latitas
Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit,
Quia te contemplans totum deficit

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more.
See, Lord at that service, low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

(I've read a few translations, but this is the one that got my attention).

Moving on...

In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

This section does allow for other instrumentation, with approval, and as long as it is suitable for sacred use "in accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute tot he edification of the faithful."

Personally, I don't think drums, electric guitars, and synthesizers fit the above definition. Now, there is a song called, "First Song of Isaiah" that our choir "performed" when I was in high school, and I was so happy to do this song, loved the kettle drums, loved the music and the uplifting feeling. But I have to admit that when we "performed" this song, while it was done at Mass, it was still a "performance" and I'm not sure that it was done so much for the edificatino of the faithful as it was for the edification of the fabulous choir.

I still love the song...but I'm not sure I would like to see it at Mass anymore. I no longer have the music so I'm not sure where it belongs in any of the categories below:

Father discussed three types of illicit liturgical songs, and this is a great topic for discussion:

1. Good melody, bad words. There are some melodies which are harmonious, which are easily sung by the majority, and which by their presentation are beautiful. The words, however, sometimes make no sense whatsoever. I believe he used "Here I am, Lord, " as an example.

Some would argue that the words are taken from scripture, and indeed they are. However, the literary perspective changes;

I the Lord of sea and sky, I have heard my people cry; I have wept for love of them.....

If we sing this song, we are singing as God speaking to his prophet. Maybe if this remained consistent throughout, it would make sense and reiterate one of the readings. But it changes;

Here I am, Lord, it is I, Lord, I have heard you calling in the night....

How did we go from the perspective of God to the person of the prophet? How did that happen, and how did the song become all about social justice? If you look through it, it leaves scripture behind and embraces the "feel good" non-theology which is so common today.

There are many songs which fit this general provision of good melody/ bad words although the particular details of this example may not match. Some may put this song into the last category. However, first we must discuss;

2. Bad melody; Good words.

I can't remember the example used by Father as I was paging through the hymnal he provided so didn't write it down. If you think you have a song in mind, please let me know. I have the following hymnals handy: Glory and Praise and "Breaking Bread 1993". If you know a title, comment and I'll see if it's in either book.

In our parish, on Thanksgiving the choir performed a very painful song which had notes flying all over the place with no discernable melody. I think it fell into the "Haugen Haas" category, but I'm not sure. It was so unsingable that even those who usually sang just gaped in silence and tried to hit a note here or there. It was horrid. I don't remember that the words were so bad but the music! I'm still retching at the thought. The good news was that it was so bad and so tuneless that it didn't leave a worm in my ear so I was able to eat dinner with my family in peace.

Now, on to the third category:

3. Bad melody; bad words. I hate to say it but in contemporary hymnals, there are numerous examples of this. I think Father used "Gather Us In" as an example of this category. Again; discuss.

Some of the songs he named I have to admit with much guilt that I have liked those songs, but I still had to agree with his assessment upon an actual examination of the music and the words. Personally, I love "Here I am, Lord", and this is why: When I was in my rebeiion against the faith, every time I did go to Mass, there were two variables which seemed never changed: Always, I happened to be there when they read the story of the Prodigal Son (Prodigal Daughter), and secondly, one of the hymns was ALWAYS "Here I am, Lord" and this is a song which had always spoke to me. Maybe I understood the song on a spiritual level; I realized it was a conversation between God and the prophet, and I realized that God was calling me to come home and that I was in rebellion. All He wanted me to say was, "Ok, here I am, Lord, I want to come home, please forgive me." At the time I wanted to be a missionary and I looked into many programs especially in Mexico, Central and South America, and this song also hit me there.

I think it just goes to show that God can work even through bad contemporary music.


Let's discuss. I hope those who stumble across this post do join in the discussion that I dearly hope happens in the comment section. Consider this a personal invitation into my "livingroom" to talk about the music of Holy Mother Church.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Archdiocesan Commission on Women

The Commission is seeking new membership to it's board. Oh, joy. Some readers may remember my discussion at length on the "Listening Sessions" which were done outside of Archbishop Flynn's approval. I will post a link to this further on.

Here is the Mission Statement of the Comission, which was instituted in a political move by Archbishop Roach; my guess is that he was tired of listening to the whining of misguided women and gave them a venue to whine to each other. This is the "Mission Statement" they posited on their web page:

The mission of the Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women is to empower, educate and support women to lives of service, spirituality and leadership to their families, parishes, communities and the poor of the world.

Seems pretty benign, doesn't it? I am amazed, though, as a Catholic organization, that while they mention the poor, they do not mention the slaughtered unborn. But I digress.

Now, if you want to know what they are REALLY about, check out the statement on the home page, but be sure to understand this within the context of their true agenda, revealed in the link provided on the main page of their latest "research" on women in the Archdiocese, marked "Listening Sessions" in blue.

The Commission on Women serves the Archbishop in an advisory role as we bring forth the voices of women who desire to serve the church with a greater use of their gifts and talents. The Commission is a unique organization within the Archdiocese that promotes women's voices in the life of the church and responds to women (and men) in crisis or alienating situations. There is no other agency that supports or communicates with the clientele of women that we reach. Very often, we are the only hope they have of remaining connected to the church. In an effort to further women's leadership roles, we research and study issues as they relate to women.

Note some of the wording in this statement: "alienating situations" "promotes women's voices in the life of the church", "remaining connected to the church". I find most of this ironic as they tend to create more alienating situations with their politics and "remaining connected" to the Church is not really what they are about on any level, from my observation.

( I do have to point one one issue in their mission statement: in this context, "church" should be capitalized as they are referring to the Church, not to a building. I doubt that this commission, as misguided as most of them happen to be, did not mean to imply that people are desperately clinging onto a brick building. I see this mistake all the time and it drives me crazy because those who are intelligent enough to write mission statements should really have a better understanding of word usage. )

Anyway, going back to the statement, pay special attention to the last line: "In an effort to further women's leadership roles, we research and study issues as they relate to women." Look around. Where are women NOT in leadership? Women have been messing up catechesis for years now. Um, I mean "leading" religious education from questionable platforms, that is. That's leadership, isn't it? Women are everywhere and without women, the Church would not exist. Some individual churches exist in spite of women, if you get my meaning. I'm still trying to fathom some of them. Everywhere I go, women are in charge of things. They hardly need a Commission to further this. But of course, their true idea of "leadership" is not as it appears.

I'm going to provide you an example of their "research" which was posted and summed up at the infamous St. Joan of Arc Parish in south Minneapolis. It might make you cry, whether in laughter or frustration is your option. Choose both. If you are a woman, you have that ability.

If you read this, you will see that they are painting a very misrepresentative portrait of the women of this archdiocese, most of whom think the above is completely foolish. It's left-wing craziness, and thanks to this Commission, it's front and center on a link on the archdiocesan webpage.

I'm offended by this. I'm offended that such garbage is being shown as an "accurate" portrayal of what Catholic women want. And because of this offense, I toyed with the idea of applying to the Commission so as to do some internal evangelization and hopefully leading people to what the Church REALLY teaches, and what women are REALLY about.

I'm not sure I'm the woman for that job, however. I did consider it, and sitting here on my desk is an application for the commission on women and/or committe membership.

I don't think they'd take me because I'd have to be honest in my responses. Here's some of the questions, for example:

How did you hear about the Commission on Women?

From a very unfortunate, nauseating article which trampled the true image of the Church and sought to push an agenda which is contrary to the image of the Blessed Mother which the faithful hold dear.

Do you have other community commitments? Are you a member of other organizations?

I'm a faithful member of the one, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church, Pepertual Adoration, and the Frassati Society. (I think those "groups" might disqualify me).

What skills/talents/abilities/interests would you bring to this committee?

skills: I can string a few words together here and there to create complete sentences and I know when to capitalize "Church" versus "church".

talents: I can sing "Adoro Te Devote" in Latin, and I memorized the English translation of the first verse. And I can sing the entire "Agnus Dei" in Latin.

abilities: I am able to read and comprehend various theological documents, such as the Bible or Sacrosanctum Concilium, and identify whether I need to question someone in higher ecclesial authority before innovating my own personal interpretation and implementation.

interests: I have an interest in obedience to Church teaching and in educating others regarding actual teachings versus fictional accounts.

This is my favorite: Describe your vision of women's participation in the Church, and how your participation on this committee would further that vision.

I would like to end the reign of angst perpetuated upon the men and faithful women of this archdiocese by the existing Commission through permeating the left wing feminist ranks. I would like to encourage women of deep and true faith to particpate in the committees and commission. I believe I have the talent and knowledge base required to garner interst in such a task and personally know several women who have a militant spirit, also. Women are meant to emulate the Mother of God, and with more women standing on the Commission to lead with this great example, I believe we can encourage more vocations for both men AND women from this archdiocese! The harvest is bountiful, but the workers are few.

Please tell us what the Commission on Women Mission Statement meanst o you at this time. .

I believe it's a bunch of political double-speak which really has no meaning with regard to the current agenda of heterodoxy. That needs to change. And it's not pro-life enough. We need to call attention to the babies being murdered in our midst.

Can you agree to promote the work of the Commission on Women and the Archdiocese as stated in the Mission Statement and can you commit your time and energy to that work?

No. I am faithful to the Archbishop and I embrace this archdiocese, but the Mission statement is way to open and hokey within the atmospher within which it currently resides. Either it has to change or the Commission needs to understand what it means to be obedient to the Magesterium, and therefore to Christ.

What do you hope to accomplish as an appointed member of the Commission on Women.

Revolution! Insurrection! Faithfulness to the Lord against the evil agenda of popular culture and rabid faminism which now holds the archdiocese in a chokehold! I am woman! Hear me roar!

Is there anything else you would like us to know about you?

I'm not sure you want to go there. I'm a revert. Don't mess with me, and don't try to take down the faithful. We will convert you.

So! Do you think they'd let me in?

Any faithful women want to send their own version of this app in, and prove that the faithful outdo the "prophetic" of the Archdiocese?


Sunday, April 23, 2006

Discernment or Vocation Avoidance?

Every so often I have to post on vocational discernment because it's one of the reasons I founded my blog.

A little over a year ago, I heard a "call" from the Lord, and I dove into that just as I dove into everything else in my life, but at the same time I realized that my past diving cannot serve as experience for vocation diving. And so I entered the discernment process, which first involves prayer and direction before diving. The waters of discernment are deep, and I really wasn't sure I could swim enough to keep from hitting my fool head on the only rock in the entire discernmental ocean.

So much to my frustration, I learned that just because the Lord was calling me to greater union with Him did not mean he was going to show me the way so easily. This was not going to be a matter of physical training or academic success, or a combination of the two; no, this was different. And for awhile, the Lord gifted me with a Spiritual Director, who helped me take the first step for my journey...understanding when my Shepherd is speaking to me. Learning to listen and to trust.

I could not get enough time before the Blessed Sacrament, and last spring/summer, I really needed that, so I went to adoration nearly every day, morning, nood, and night. I still look back on the words that came to me while I prayed before Jesus Christ himself, and I am humbled by the graces he gave me, and the direction he himself provided.

Yet I still drifted somewhat, or perhaps he called me to different types of devotion. After awhile, work became so busy that I was not able to go to the Adoration Chapel over my lunch breaks as I had becomed accustomed to doing...because I was too busy to take a break. Occasionally I would be hit with an especially difficult problem and so I went to Jesus to ask for help, or insight, or strength. Or simply that His will be done. And Jesus got me through those times. Since I couldn't go to the Chapel, I carried a crucifix and when I was in the depths of my struggles, I pulled it out and I looked at Jesus, and even if for only a moment, I considered what He had done for us, and I was able to get through my tasks.

Here I am, now, over a year later. I've learned much in the last year, academically, because I have been able to read and reflect a lot and spiritually, because God is good. I did speak with a couple of religious communities, but I have not done any visits. It seemed that every time I had planned to attend something, I was not able to pay for the trip (to Michigan, for example to visit Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist), or attend a local retreat, etc. I have a house, and I have dogs, and so it's not easy to get away to do these things.

I came to realize that my previous attitude of driving myself to success at any cost does not work with God; he works on His time, not mine. I realized that initially, I was panicking because I am 31 and so many of the good communities have a cutoff of 30 and I've missed the boat. At some point in that early frenzy, I understood that if I am meant to be somewhere, God will draw me to that place, and so I stopped my spiritual headlong rushing and gave it over to God.

Now, here I am, still having no idea what I'm supposed to do. I no longer think I am called to religious life, although I consider this with an admitted twinge of sadness. But I've had to seek my motivations. All my life, I did the right things for the wrong reasons, and somethimes the wrong things for the right reasons. And over and over, I have crashed and burned. God has given me everything I ever wanted, even when He knew that there was nothing but disaster lying in wait for me. But he indulged my impertinence, my willfulness, and he kept His divine hand over me. I've been amazed at the protection the Lord has provided me over the years.

But I don't think he's calling me to that life. I'm not sure he's calling me to marriage, either. I'm not sure if I want children, and certainly I should not get married if I don't want children. Yet, I have realized that if I marry and God gives me children, I will embrace them with the very love of Christ and the love of the Blessed Mother for Christ, and I will somehow get them into heaven. Such is the order God wills for us. Sometimes this appeals to me, and sometimes it does not. Sometimes the religious life appeals to me, especially when I consider the peacefulness of prayer and the nearness to our Lord. And yet sometimes I cringe at the though of living the life of a religious.

I am somewhere in the middle, having been chosen by neither and having actually chosen neither. For now, I am single for the sake of God's kingdom, and perhaps this is where He wants me for life. Perhaps God has something waiting around the corner, which is often the case.

I have resigned myself to His will...I can do nothing without God. I am tired of making demands for Him to fulfill, only to find out my demands were nothing but capricious folly. I am tired of searching for something that does not belong to me. I am tired of seeking things others want me to seek or think I should seek, and now, I just want what God wills for me.

This is a difficult place within which to reside. I have been stripped of professional goals...where I used to be driven, now I have seemed to have stagnated. I used to see a future for myself in my present postion, but as of about a year ago, I no longer want that future and yet I don't know where to turn for the next step. I dream of solitude, and the time to write and to dedicate myself to God and to writing, yet I cannot do this as long as I have bills to pay. Sometimes I just want to get rid of everything I own so as to have the freedom to exist as God desires, but I realize that so often these twinges are out of selfishness, not selflessness.

Now I have to make myself content to depend upon God's will for he has brought me to a type of desert in which my past is useless with regard to my future, and I can see no future for myself other than the presence of God and God alone. I don't know what He wants of me, and so maybe in the last year I have come to nothing. Have I squandered my time? Am I a "Sister of Perpetual Discernment"? Or am I simply a woman finally ready to accept the Lord on his terms and not my own?

Only time will tell. God will reveal himself when He desires, and until then, it is my place to continue to pray, to continue to worship, to continue to seek holiness in the simplicity of life without worrying about career advancement, the house, the bills, the next hobby, the next vacation or the next anything. It is time to learn to trust in the providence of God, and boy, is that a big step.

I haven't decided if I am avoiding a vocation and justifying it to myself, because sometimes I just don't want to be a Sister or Nun. Maybe I would have the same feelings if I was about to be married. I may never know.

So for now, I am simply myself, and hopefully becoming the woman God wants me to be, whether as His Spouse, a spouse on earth, or a single woman living for Him.

This desert is a difficult place, but I think it must be necessary or I would not be experiencing it. I'm sure that many have been in this place and know exactly what I'm talking about. If I am to work on patience, then so be it for I am an impatient person. God knows my flaws and where I need work, and I have come to realize that I am not ready, in one way or another, to committ to any particular vocation. I am a spiritual late bloomer, yet a tenacious dandelion in the world.

Guess I'll just keep spending time on my knees, and maybe, someday, I'll figure out what God expects of me.

God bless you all, and please offer prayers that the Lord calls more to His vineyard...although I am not asking you to pray that I am one of them. I am asking that we all pray, together, that God's will be done in everything.


Monday, April 17, 2006

Looking back to Lent and forward to Divine Mercy

I'm going to be completely candid with you. I made lenten promises just like everyone else...and as usual, I failed miserably. I'll admit that I did not fail as miserably as I did in past lenten seasons, but failure is failure.

Or is it?

I spent a lot of time thinking this last 40 days previous to the Easter Triduum, and I recognized a change in my behavior, overall. In comparing with the past, some years I did not give much up at all, and if I did, I did not take it very seriously. Sometimes in past years, once I had fallen, I continued with my vice, having decided that it was worthless to go on.

I still shake my head at my lack of fortitude at the time.

This year was different. Yes, I failed miserably and my willpower broke down, sometimes without a battle. I am weak. But this year, something changed; when I fell, I picked myself back up and I went on with my chosen cross. I resolved to do better, and if I had fallen, I also gave up some alternative craving, to be sure that at least I was making some kind of sacrifice that day.

I spent some time reflecting on my weak spirit when it came to me that this is what Lent is all about; a spiritual desert, a time to recognize that we are called to be holy, and in order to do so we need to cut ties to earthly pleasures. Legitimate pleasures which in and of themselves are not inherently wrong. Maybe some people gave up pleasures which are sinful for them, and this likely has even greater value in God's eyes as the task is that much more difficult. Or do we all do that? For example, what about chocolate? Do we overdo it on sweets to the point that it may be sinful? And if this is the case, isn't it harder to give up and a larger cross to carry than, say, giving up chocolate or sweets if we tend to enjoy them only on occasion anyway? For myself, I gave up a very difficult pleasure and I did so with the intention of following through, but I didn't do so well.

While amidst this spiritual desert, I came to understand how deeply I need the mercy of Jesus. I came to understand that I am a slave to my passions. I have not broken my bond with this passion of mine, however, through the grace of God, I think that the bond has been weakened. Isn't that a success?

I've realized that my "failure" to uphold my promises was not a failure at all, but rather, an enlightening example of concupiscense. If I cannot give up even a legitimate pleasure, how much more difficult is it to give up the sins I committ without even thinking about them each and every day?

This lenten season was a true lesson to me in how much I am in need of a Savior, how much I need to rely on the Divine Mercy of Jesus because I do not have the power within me to break with my passions.

Dearest Jesus, I am a sinner, a miserable sinner, and I cannot even do so much as pray without your Divine Grace. Have mercy on me, Jesus.

For the next year, I now have a lesson in humility; remembering that even if I make strides in my spiritual life, I am still nothing but a sinner in need of God's grace. But Jesus went to the cross knowing that I would sin, he suffered because I cannot break with my sins so he took it upon himself to do it for me.

I still have things to work on and I can now look back and understand that even though on the surface it seems that I failed, overall, Lent was a success because had I not fallen, I would not have obtained a greater understanding of Jesus' mercy.

I am of course praying the Divine Mercy Novena which began on Good Friday, and this year it means even more to me. I will finish the Novena and approach the Feast and the devotion on Divine Mercy Sunday with great awe and gratitude for the sacrifice Jesus made for us all and the great love he demonstrated when he gave everything by pouring his lifeblood out upon the world.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, in celebrating this beautiful, renewing season of Easter, don't go back to your old habits, but let those broken bonds carry you forward so that you can grow even further in holiness. While we are now in a time of celebration, it is not a time of excess but rather a season to rejoice in newfound freedoms and revel in God's great mercy. How can we properly observe this by backsliding? Simple. We can't.

We all need Jesus' mercy. We all need to approach the fount of mercy as described by St. Faustina (as revealed to her by Jesus Christ); we need to go to Confession, pray the chaplet for ourselves and others and to trust that Jesus will lead us all home.

Jesus, we trust in thee.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006


I'm not going to talk about the bogus "gospel"; I have not read it nor do I need to in order to know it's a piece of crap.

This post is about the true Biblical Judas and the purpose he served.

I have never understood Judas. He was one of the apostles, therefore he was called by Christ. And Christ, being God, already knew all about Judas, and still he called him. And Judas came. But what really motivated him?

We know from the Gospels that Judas was a thief; he held the money bag and complained when Jesus' feet was annointed because he, Judas, was stealing and wanted the money for himself if any was to be spent. Therefore he was a con. He was a traitor, but was he really? Maybe he was more of a spy, because in order to be a traitor one has to actually hold the opposing position prior to betraying it. He was never converted. He was a criminal in his own right, was Judas.

Judas was a sinner.

We know that Judas betrayed Jesus Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane with a kiss for only 30 pieces of silver. We know that he later repented, knowing that he had betrayed innocent blood, and he tried to give the money back, but the bloody hands of the Pharisee's refused the rejection of an act which was already completed and signed in blood.

Did Judas sell his soul in order to betray Jesus Christ?

It says in the Gospels that after Judas took the piece of bread which was dipped in the same dish as Jesus, Satan entered him. So was Judas acting under the possession of Satan, or of his own willful accord or both?

Judas repented, though as he realized his sin. He repented and he returned the blood money. He repented.

I can't get past this.

Judas repented.

And then he hung himself. He repented and then killed himself.

We, as Catholics, believe that suicide, the taking of one's own life, which is murder, to be a mortal sin. We also recognize that some who committ suicide do so under the duress of a mental illness, and so the sin may be mitigated. Only God can read the heart.

When I was a teenager, I nearly committed suicide, and that is for another post. I believe that my sin was mortal; I knew what I was doing and I was rejecting God. My Mother, a few years later, also attempted suicide and was subsequently hospitalized as I signed on as her guardian for the purposes of the 72 hour hold when I was only 18. She was mentally ill and had been diagnosed long before. I do not believe she committed mortal sin because she was not thinking clearly....she was not acting by her own hand. But what of Judas? From all accounts, he was not mentally ill and was fully aware of what he had done.

Was it despair? Was his real sin despair? He realized that he had betrayed Jesus Christ unjustly, but did he really know who Jesus Christ was, or did that realization hit him after the kiss upon his cheek?

In Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", Judas looked over at a decaying ox which was crawling with maggots. I read an account or maybe heard one on Relevant Radio explaining the scene...the camera pans to the the oxen which shows the teeth in the center of the shot. It then pans to Judas, weeping, his teet in the center of the shot. They had to do the scene over and over again, and finally they told the actor, "Pretend that the ox is your soul". The result was the impact we see.

I can't help but feel compassion for Judas because I am a sinner, too. How many times have I betrayed Jesus? How many times have I rejected him in favor of some shiny trinket, or even 30 of them?

Search your souls, people. You are Judas, too. You have been evil, you have betrayed Jesus, and you have sold yourself for all sorts of sins. We all have.

And that's why Jesus had to die. For the maggoty likes of us.

But did Jesus die for Judas?

I do not mean to imply that he was a good guy because he certainly was not. He betrayed Christ.

But I can't get beyond his repentance his and subsequent suicide. What I see here is that he was aware of what he had done and he despaired of reconciliation because he could not turn back the clock. He could not go back and make things right; he could not even apologize. He knew that he had killed the Savior through his actions and he could not even bear to watch because he wore that blood also.

Is that what we are to learn? That Judas sinnned more in his despair than he did in the act of betrayal itself? And when he hung himself for a tree (as Jesus was also hung from a tree), he officially turned away from the mercy of Jesus which could still have been available to him.

Judas could still have been "saved". Can you imagine a Gospel where Judas arived at the foot of the cross and begged for Jesus' mercy? Wouldn't Jesus have absolved him on the spot, begging the Father to forgive for he knew not what he had done?

But Judas did not even explore that possibility. He ran away. He fled, and instead of life and redemption, he chose death. Is that what the Sacred Scripture teaches, and what the Church teaches?

I am asking this in all sincerity as I have never taken a Bible study course. I have never had the opportunity either due to financial concerns or work schedule. I am no theologin and even my religious training at St. Mary's University in Winona was heretical, sad to say.

I ask of those of you who have actual knowledge of the Church's teaching to please comment and reveal how we are to see Judas...or are we only to leave him to the mercy of Jesus. Are we to pray for his soul, or is he considered to be a lost cause? I read somewhere that his is the only soul the Church deems to be in Hell, but is this true? I somehow doubt it because it contradicts the message of Divine Mercy and the very death Jesus died on the cross for all of us.

It's for all of us, not all of us except Judas.

I can't get past the mercy of Jesus...what are we to do about Judas?

Monday, April 10, 2006

Divine Mercy and Eternity

This morning I got up, vowing to do more penance, pray more, etc., trying to fininsh Lent with a "bang!" So it didn't really surpise me this morning that I had such a strong desire to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Over the last couple days, I felt like I was supposed to be doing the novena, but that does not begin until next Friday. In looking back, I have prayed the chaplet every day, anyway, but I was not offering up any intentions in particular such as that with the official novena.

This morning's prompt was particularly strong, and hit sometime around 6:30 to 7 am. I was busy getting ready for work and "didn't have time" to pray the Chaplet, but I planned to do so en route to work.

As I got into my car and headed off down the road, I was thinking about St. Faustina's diary and about the benefit of Divine Mercy for the dying. The diary described how the Chaplet brought great refreshment to those who were in their final moments and how those who are tormented become suddenly at peace and die in a much better state.

I prayed the Chaplet, wondering why I was thinking about dying persons when no one I knew was dying. But I didn't know what to offer the chaplet for so I put that offering in God's hands to address.

This morning was very busy and I am the only person handling our workload from the weekend and today as my co-workers are all at various trainings. I don't know why that happened especially on a Monday, but it's out of my hands. So I was plugging away while people were filling up my voice mail.

One of the messages was from my brother. He never calls me at work, and his tone was serious. Ignoring all my needy customers, I called my brother.

I knew what the news would be before he actually said it, and in fact he didn't say it but talked around it.

Grandma, our last grandmother, passed away this morning. We were unaware of it, but about two weeks ago she was diagnosed with late-term terminal cancer. They tried to treat it, and this morning she took her last breath and granted her soul back to God. The funeral is this week and I'm not sure I can make it but that's another story.

I remembered the sudden propmptimg to pray Divine Mercy right NOW which I had largely ignored, so I asked my brother about her time of death.

8:05 am Eastern Time, making it 7:05 am Central time. Meaning the Holy Spirit prompted me to pray for grandma as she was dying and I ignored the request.


I thanked my brother for calling me and tried to go about my business. After all, I was the only one to do the work, and leaving suddenly was not good...our customers needed help, too.

But I could not keep my composure, especially when I considered that I was told to pray for her which might have eased her last moments, but I did not. I prayed the chaplet after she had already died.

Finally I gathered up my purse and I headed to a nearby adoration chapel so that I could pour my grief out to Jesus. While I was in the chapel, I sensed the Blessed Mother very close by and I offered another Divine Mercy for my Grandma's soul.

I returned to work having prayed for the strength to get through the rest of the day. I headed to the bathroom to clean myself up and try to appear presentable. Two managers walked in (neither of them my manager) and tried to console me and told me that I should go home. It took them to talk this sense into me.

I was so busy worrying about all the work that needed to be done to really realize that I had a right to leave when such an emergency was presented. I was so busy being a Martha that I did not realize it was time to be Mary.

Of course my Manager gave me permission to leave and told me not to worry about what needed to be done. They would take care of any incoming calls.

I've learned a few lessons today that I want to impart to you all as you also journey to Calvary during this last week of lent:

* If you are prompted to pray, even if you don't know who you are praying for or why, don't ask questions and don't delay. If you cannot stop doing something, then pray as you do it. Even if you don't know the why and what and who, God does, so trust him and offer what he asks you to offer in the spirit of obedience.

* "Martha, Martha, you are worried about many things. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her...". Don't be a Martha. Take time to pray, especially when it's obvious that that's what you need to do. Don't worry about the work, the lack of personnnell, etc. God has his hand over that, too. Take time to sit at Jesus' feet and pray.

* If you are grieving, unite your grief with Jesus and look at Calvary and the Passion of Christ from the eyes of the grieving Blessed Mother. Maybe you will understand Jesus in a whole new way.

* If you are suffering, offer your suffering, no matter how small, as penance for each wound Christ bore for all of us. Remember that Jesus was not ONLY crucified, but he suffered many small injuries also, to include bruises and scratches. The smallest penance is still penance and is much greater in the eyes of God than we realize.

I ask you all to keep my grandmother and our family in your prayers.

God bless you this Holy Week.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Why is a Methodist teaching First Communion to Catholic Children?

This is really unacceptable. Before you read the link please consider that the person teaching has never been instructed in the Catholic faith. Apparently she is operating under SJA's lack of authority, so her own misunderstanding of the Eucharist can be excused. She likely doesn't know that what she is teaching is not in conformation with the Catholic faith.

So who is responsible for this lesson to the innocent children of SJA parish in Minneapolis? Who is to answer for this lack of catechesis, which is even worse than that which I recieved?

An excerpt:

Drama: We joined Jesus (Larry Sheehan and Mary Donovan) at the Passover meal. Jesus washed the feet of the first communion children, asking and explaining, “Do you understand why I just did this? I am your leader, and I just helped you by washing your feet. If you want to be great, you need to help others like I do.”

I have no problem with people explaining things so that children cannot understand. We can consider the Apostles to be children of a sort, but the commment, "If you want to be great...".. is beyond prideful. Jesus never suggested that the Apostles would be "great". The understanding children have of "great" is much like that of adults: We know greatness. Jesus was great. Secretariat was great. George Washington was great. Abraham Lincoln was great. Liberaci was/is great. Children are not stupid, and such a word cannot be used if what one wants to convey is that Jesus, while "great" was the servant of all. He was the epitomy of humility, and this is something that SJA eludes in understanding and in teaching.

Believe you me, I struggle with humility myself, and SJA is NOT the source I look to to find it. I am so sorry to see that the children are growing up with the same lack of understanding of their parents.

Church: “The most important part of communion is ‘union,’” began Kathy Itzin. She talked about the importance of making peace with others before taking communion.

Now I agree that the teaching is to reconcile with one's "brother" prior to approching the most Holy. This is very important. But let's look at what SJA teaches is the "most important part" of Communion: union.

How is "union" more important than the fact that the bread and wine become the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ? This is a BIG DEAL!

I am not surprised that SJA is enforcing their own rhetoric upon the children and so I ask you to pray throughout this Holy Week for the children especially.

And if you have any doubts about what the "teachers" really believe, then check out their reference to the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood of Christ:

She also said it was “good church manners” to eat the bread right away.



Consuming the Body of Christ is not "manners", nor is it optional. It is a requirement of the faith. It should not be suggested that not consuming the flesh of the Risen Savior immediately is optional.

Kris Sundbergh led a scavenger hunt in the sacristy. Every child was given a list of items that are kept in the Sacristy. Among the items were the priest's vestments, baptismal candles, communion supplies and even the sink where the unused wine is disposed of.

The children really NEED to understand that once consecrated, the wine is no longer wine, but the actual Blood of Christ. Clearly, they are not learning this. One gets the idea that reading this page that "wine" is simply poured down the sink and into the sewer like so much refuse.

No wonder the wounds of Christ are bleeding so heavily.

I do not mean to say that I am not a sinner, but I am a sinner who has been subject to this type of "teaching" and I am angry. I am angry because I was never taught the Truth of our faith. I never had a firm foundation, and now I am seeing generations of children raised with an even greater lack of understanding of our faith.

Maybe we can let the adults go their own way, but how can we allow SJA to continue to mislead the children?

Jesus said, "Let the children come unto me,", and yet, the children are being prevented. I guarantee that if SJA is still using pita bread, the children, while innocent, are still not partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, but only a cheap substitute.

This cannot continue. What can we do? Please offer your Holy Week devotions and sacrifices for both the innocent children and the mislead adults of SJA.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Local Freemasonry and their Satanic Rituals

It's on the web, people. It's on the web and it's among us. A friend of mine sent me several links today and I recognize the name of the writer of the "Gnostic Mass" from other readings about paganism, satanism, and the like. Pray before you read, my friends. Ask for the intercession of St. Michael. But look at the wicked, evil, twisted parody that does not even pretend to worship the One True God. I will not summarize or post here as I do not want the filth directly on my site, but I will post the links for you.

Local Freemasonry- read about the uses of their "temple" here and note the link to the Gnostic mass:

Full text of the satanic mass is linked below. It contains links with more chilling explanation of their practices and rituals. This is always held in a secret location and those who attend must arrive on time as the doors are locked so that no one can enter nor can anyone leave until it is complete. Note also that they require all to partake in "communion". Refusal is not an option.

One thing to make clear is that there are two seperate groups above. The Freemasons rent their "temple" out to the satanic group, and my friend revealed to me that many of the masons attend the "worship" of the satanic cult. I am sure there are some very good but misled people who become involved in Masonry, however, when they are exposed to such trash, this clearly can lead them away from the Lord. Anyone who walks into that temple walks into the lair of the devil.

Pray, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Pray.

Thursday, April 06, 2006


I was watching Seinfeld yesterday and it happened to be the episode where his dentist had converted to Judaism for the jokes. The dentist prided himself that as an ex-Catholic he was entitled to tell Catholic jokes and Pope jokes, and as a Jew, he could tell Jewish jokes.

Seinfeld and the gang were (rightly) concerned by this behavior so Seinfeld went down the the dentist's previous Catholic parish, and entered the Confessional. When the good priest moved the slide back to reveal the "screen" which hid nothing to us, he found Seinfeld seated on the kneeler.

(I have to admit I found this humorous).

The priest told Seinfeld to tell him his sins.

Seinfeld revealed that he was actually Jewish, and the priest quipped, "Oh, that's no sin.."

Now, here's my point in all of this:

When was the last time you needed to speak to a priest about some matter and headed on down to the confessionals? Really...I am asking this in all seriousness.

Does the media in general and Hollywood specifically think that we keep priests locked up in boxes?

"Oh, dear, I have to see Father about something...."

"Oh, there's a Priest-in-the-box down at the corner of Central and 5th..."

If we play the pipe organ he jump out at us when the music stops abruptly?

Why do all these Hollywood types put priests in boxes....ALL THE TIME??? Now, that's not to say there aren't priests dedicated to Confession...St. Padre Pio was one of them. But when you need to speak to a priest, don't you call the rectory, the parish office, or the like? It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the mystical Body of Christ, but most parishes are sorely lacking in Confession time.

In some of those places, maybe the priest can be more easily found engaging in civil disobedience at the latest fad march for immorality or left wing peace rallies. Or maybe just working himself to the bone at a parish, what with administering the sacraments, rushing to the hospital to annoint the sick (also a sacrament), preparing his homily for Mass, counseling an engaged couple, etc and so forth. How on earth would the poor priest have time to just hang out in the confessional waiting for a random Jewish comedian to stop by and complain about his dentists' jokes????

Have you noticed that every time a priest is portrayed as someone with real authority or spiritual guidance, he is portrayed ONLY in the confessional? And when he is a "bad" priest, he's found everywhere else.

While on the surface that doesn't seem like such a bad portrayal, consider the limitations being placed upon the priesthood by the filmmakers and such. Consider the view of priest being maniuplated so easily.

Now, I am very blessed to be a member of a parish which offers abundent confession: after every daily mass, which is 3 times per day, every Saturday from 9am to 10 am and 4pm to 5 pm, and by appointment. I have even seen our priests stopped by people requesting confession. Recently a friend of mine revealed that on a Sunday morning before Mass she saw one of our priests at prayer in the Adoration Chapel. She commented that she was so comfortable with him that she quietly asked him if he would hear her confession. He immediately stopped what he was doing to provide her the grace of the sacrament.

Did you notice that even a person in need of confession didn't just enter the confessional and expect to find him occupying the box? Nope. She found him in prayer. God bless this priest!

But maybe Hollywood, in their stupidly bumbling way, is really on to something. Maybe we should expect to find a priest in the box. Maybe this should be a marketed ministry. (I think it was in Cologne, Germany and regularly in some places in Europe). Maybe this portrayal isn't so bad, and it does hold an element of truth in that the best priests really do dedicate themselves to hearing confessions. But they are all so much more than that and they are so valuable to the world!

I am insulted that apparently people think that all priests do is preside at marriages and hang out in boxes, so maybe we need to step up and help educate the general public.

We need to do a better job of proving to the world how much we value our priests. We need to share our stories of them, to pray for them, to encourage them, and support the call to more to the priesthood. Maybe Hollywood and the media will take notice.

Maybe I'd better not push it.

God bless you all and please pray for me as I go see our local Priest-In-The-Box tomorrow evening.

Don't Talk About the Obvious

I read this today and realized that doing so was the equivalent to banging my head against a brick wall. If you read this, you can share in the experience.

ST. PAUL (AP) - Sexually transmitted diseases including chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis climbed to a record high last year, with outbreaks concentrated among teenagers and young adults, the Minnesota Department of Health said Thursday.

Some 15,785 cases were reported to the Health Department, according to a news release. Chlamydia cases rose 5 percent to 12,187 - doubling since 1996. Gonorrhea was up 18 percent, and early syphilis more than doubled.

"This is the highest number of cases we have ever seen in a single year," said Kip Beardsley, who oversees the department's sexually transmitted diseases and HIV section. "It represents an alarming trend that says loudly that too many infected people are going untested and untreated."

Teens and young adults accounted for almost 70 percent of chlamydia and gonorrhea cases, while the vast majority of syphilis hit gay and bisexual men in the Twin Cities area. The suburbs saw a 9 percent increase in chlamydia cases, while cases were up 6 percent outside the metro area.

Untreated chlamydia or gonorrhea can lead to infertility, while untreated syphilis can cause blindness, brain damage, heart problems and death. Sexually transmitted diseases also increase the risk of HIV infections. The diseases often don't have initial symptoms, but their spread can be prevented with the use of condoms.

Let's talk about sex and the consequences of our culture's worship of sex:

Teenagers and young adults are experiencing chlymidia and gonorrhea in record numbers. So much for "safe sex" programs. Glad to see that their (Planned Parenthoods', et al) theory is so effective. I hope the proponents of sex are proud of themselves, that is, if they can ever pry themselves away from the phone as they await the results of their own tri-annual HIV testing.

How dare we Catholics suggest that immoral behavior has consequences, and that such consequences are a result of said immoral behavior?

I found this quote to be especially precious:

"It represents an alarming trend that says loudly that too many infected people are going untested and untreated."

What this really says is that too many people are rutting like wild animals without regard for the dignity God gave them. Did you catch the numbers on syphilis? Maybe we wouldn't be seeing these statistics if places such as Planned Parenthood would stop touting condoms and abortions and start facing the facts that rampant sex is akin to suffering and death. And in fact, abortion is murder of an unborn baby. And, in fact, people die all the time, horrible deaths, from AIDS, and people rot away from syphilis, and people die of cancer caused by other STD's such as chlymidia and HPV (that's warts, people).

Let us pray that the eyes of those around us who cannot see the obvious be opened. Let us pray that they come to know and to love God and stop this crazy worship of sex and denial of real consequences. People are dying, spiritually and physically, in droves, all out of the refusal to open their eyes to the Truth.

I'm going to give anyone reading this a very simple piece of advice: if you are not married, then STOP HAVING SEX! STOP RUTTING AROUND WITH MULTIPLE "PARTNERS"!

Am I casting stones? No. Jesus loves each and every one of us so much he took a beating-several, in fact, and then stretched out his hands and endured nails in his hands and feet, a crown of thornes on his head, and he died in dire agony, all for us. All for YOU personally. His death was personal for all of us.

But let us remember that when Jesus stopped the stoning death of the adulterous woman (that's the same sin as sexual relations outside of marriage), his next line to her was,


Sunday, April 02, 2006

Priestly Celibacy and Female Ordination

This topic comes up over and over again and I have to admit that at one point in my life, I also had not thought critically about this before suggesting that we allow priests to marry.

I obvioulsy did not understand marriage. I obviously did not have the ability to think critically; I was just spouting the same trash as groups like Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful. They don't understand Catholic theology and they don't seem to care. Too many people are wrapped up in what they believe and what they want to bother paying attention to what makes sense.

I, for one, am sick and tired of the rampaging minority. They're making American Catholics look like a bunch of fools, and only a few of us are really fools.

Let's think critically. What does a priest do? He celebrates Mass, and he's the only one among us with the authority to do so. That's why he's a spiritual leader, and that's why we call him Father. But his title is so much more than symbolism; it is Biblical and it is real. When a priest is ordained, it is a marriage ceremony between the Church and him; and each parish is his family.

What does a Marriage do? A marriage creates children, and in the case of a priest, we, the laity as a whole, are his spouse and the children are the progeny of the work of the Holy Spirit. The priest does not run the Church; he heads it and he leads us spiritually, as a good father should. We are family and we also work to keep the parish up in running; we provide money, we provide work, we provide society and even food. We clothe the poor and feed the hungry. And all the time, new converts come into the Church and infants are baptized into God's family.

Now we have to discuss again what a priest does: he administers the sacraments; Baptism, Reconciliation (Confession), Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Annointing of the sick, and if he has the authority, Holy Orders. What does all this entail? His entire life. The priest, when he is ordained, (meaning: sent), gives his life for his flock. He renounces the world in favor of helping the world find eternal life. He shepherds his flock. The teachings of the Church are the pastures and define the boundaries of the pasture land, and it is his job to protect us. Just as a father defines the parameters of where he will allow his children to go, so does a priest. A priest has a full time job; he has nary an hour to himself and if he does, he must be praying. He cannot do his job without the Lord at his side. He is on call at all hours for he cannot predict when one of his children/sheep may need his authority at their bedside to send them on their way if they need to go and meet Jesus in the next world. He constantly has people in need of his attention.

The world would have us all believe that Marriage is only about sex and lust and the convenience of tax breaks, but to follow that philosophy is death. The world that seeks to teach this also calls as a solution the idea of the renunciation of priestly celibacy. Big surprise. As though sex is going to change anything.

The reality is that those religious orders and lay orders that call out for married priests are graying and thinning out. They may heartfully believe they are encouraging vocations, however the Holy Spirit is speaking to many and the true measure is in the real vocations; for both men and women religious and for priests, there is an upwards trend in late vocations, and for orthodoxy. Now that the outcry of the dissidents is dying out along with the fading of their hair color and health, the true voice of our Shepherd, our Triune God, is being heard, even by those late in life. My theory is that if so many had bothered to think critically, we would never have had a shortage in priests. The very dissonance between culture and real faith is the cause of the vocations shortage; crying out for non-celibate priests has prevented young men from aspiring to the seminary.

A priest is married to the Church. Let's explore this idea. Step back for a moment and consider what you know about the Church; consider her trappings. The Church is a living Church, and therefore is referred to by a personal pronoun: she, not "he". The Church is feminine in nature; consider the statues, the classic architecture throughout history; consider the music, the reverence in prayer. Isn't all of this very feminine? The contemplation, the meditation, these are classicly feminine atributes and practices women take up far more easily than most men. And yet, this does not exclude men, for the Church is both male and female in practice, but in presentation, very feminine.

Just as a zygote in biology is always feminine, that is "X", in order to become a male embryo, a "Y" is needed. All men are partially female at the foundation of their very personhood, just as the Church, as X, needs the priest to add the Y in order to come to fruition. This cycle is completed at ordination, just as it is completed in marriage.

God has ordered the world in such a way that male and female cannot exist without each other, and the union brings life at all levels of being, including spiritually.

It does not make sense to have married priests; for to have them would be akin to polygamy. Speaking as a woman, if I am married, I want to come first in my husband's life. I want him home to help me raise our children, not off at all hours blessing people annointing people, etc. I need him, too. I have a friend who was "ordained" a Protestant Pastor, and he left his full time ministry. Why? Because he could not devote himself to his family and he correctly surmised that his family came first. I will leave you to figure this out for yourself, or are you too enlightened to read between the lines?

It absolutely slays me that those who cry loudest for priests to be allowed to marry are women; the very women who would have to embrace the self-sacrifice needed in order to be a wife of a priest. I really have to question if any of them have any idea what self-sacrifice means. Furthermore, if they did become the priest's woman, they would be the woman left behind; they would always play second fiddle. Do they really want this? No, probably not. It goes against their entire enlightened being. But that doesn't stop these people from spewing rhetoric they clearly do not really understand.

I would never want to be the wife of a priest. If I was to give that level of sacrifice, I'd prefer to be the spouse of Christ himself.

Oh, WAIT! The Church provides religious communities! Nuns! Sisters! Brides of Christ!

Again, I'll leave you to consider this.

The next step for the Loud Obnoxious Minority is to cry out in a tantrum for female priests. Never mind celibacy, because most of them are also advocates for murder of unborn children and disobediece to true authority so what is a little sex on the side? For illicit sacraments of someone who does not understand their true origin?

It makes no sense for priests to be female. Go back and read what I already wrote. Female and female do not beget children. An XX gene and an XX gene cannot reproduce. An XY and an XY cannot reproduce. The Church is female, and the priest is male, and though his sacrifice and through the sacrifices of the Church, "children" of a sort are born.

A female priest cannot bear these children for there is no power in the world to beget life to a disobedient woman. The only progeny there cannot be of God.

A female priest in the Catholic Church is a lesbian relationship. It makes no sense and the parts do not match.

If you can really think critically and if you are truly enlightened, you will see that those who are calling for the end of celibacy and the beginning of priestesses are not speaking for and of the Lord. They are thinking of themselves; they are advancing their own personal agenda. They have not taken time to listen to God, to be open to the Holy Spirit and they are at outright war against Jesus Christ himself, no matter how much they throw his name around.

Stop. Think. Pray. Open your eyes and take the time to really listen to Jesus, and no matter how far away you are, Jesus will speak to you, and he will not ever contradict himself or the true teachings of the Catholic Church.