Catholics and the Press

It's no secret that the Media hates us but if we are to be honest...it's partially our fault. 

Recently I happened to witness an exchange between a reporter and a Catholic spokesman and was dismayed by the image given to the Reporter about an important Catholic devotion, one that is quite central to our Faith. I also saw others try to explain things to a reporter who had no qualms in asking for details and clarification, citing that this was entirely new to him and he truly wanted to understand.

I believed him.Truth and sincerity were in his expression and body language, conveying slight embarrassment.  I also knew that the people speaking to him had their minds elsewhere and let's face it: it's really hard to explain our beliefs about things we take for granted because they have always been our practice and belief.

It must be terribly confusing for "an outsider", e.g.  the secular press, to come into any religious organization or something associated with a religious organization, and obtain details of an event, people, or person involved in whatever story they happen to be covering.

We bloggers are often the first to condemn the Media (yup, I'm right there in that crowd!) and harp at them for interviewing this or that dissident or mis-informed individual. We're always rolling our eyes and cringing when we hear or read a reporter's summary of our beliefs and practices or how it applies to a situation, and then, if the spokesperson of a particular place is quoted, we either tend to condemn that person as a "dissident" or, more likely, the reporter with some other defamatory label usually lumped in with "The Liberal Media."

I don't think that's really fair. 

Now, don't go off on me in the combox about the general fact that the Media as a whole is, in fact, actually quite liberal. Even most liberals agree with that! And they've got plenty to say about the "conservative" media, too, and I'll stand in line to condemn the "conservative" end, also without qualms.

So let's move past that and actually shine the light on ourselves as Catholics for a moment. It's necessary and we do need to take a good, hard look. 

Like it or not, if something is happening involving a Catholic parish, reporters and big trucks with huge antennae are going to show up and stick microphones in people's faces. We don't have to like that fact; few people do, even those who are trying to get a story into the News in some way. It simply isn't comfortable to be a bug under glass. The only people who are comfortable with it are veteran reporters and news anchors in cozy studios.

Let's look at things from a different perspective

First let's consider the Catholic psyche.

We Catholics often grow up in our faith and we are accustomed to our liturgical worship; it is quiet, it is contained, and it is constant. We don't just have the Mass which is infinite and contains everything in heaven and earth, but we have the Liturgy of the Hours (LOH) seven times per day, or for busy people, the Magnificat magazine (which is often a bridge to the LOH). We have Eucharistic Adoration, Processions (a bit more public than our typical form of prayer!), Rosary, various prayer groups and just a general culture of prayer that is inherent in our religion.


The world does not understand this intense form of prayer because it is not available for public viewing. While it may be emotional, it is hidden and is not open to reveal to observers who expect us to react in a different way. In the world of religion, Catholicism is very introverted for our relationship with Christ is so intense that we have no need to announce to others what we are doing and when.

But the world does not understand this and if we are in crisis or if a group experiences a great event that is somehow related to the Catholic Church, the general public is confused. They confuse our regular prayer cycles and think if it appears we do nothing, we in fact, are doing nothing when the opposite is true.

They are, quite understandably, a bit stymied by the fact that Catholics pray so quietly and in a crisis, we don't "rally" like many do, but we bow our heads and bend our knees and do this privately or in the silence of the Eucharistic Adoration chapel. If we don't have such a chapel, we to to the Sanctuary and we do the same thing with Jesus hidden in the tabernacle.  

Then enter the Press, in some form, mostly secular or participants in a different non-Catholic or non-Christian religion...or no religion at all.  

The Press is supposed to be conditioned to be "unbiased" (Journalism 101) but the reality is they are human beings and as such, they are biased. However, let us, for the sake of the virtue of charity, assume the best of these professionals and hope they really ARE trying to be unbiased, especially when it comes to religion.

Yet, the largely-secular Press, by practice at least, comes into a Catholic parish and is suddenly confronted with all sorts of theological terms: Liturgy, Eucharistic Adoration, Transubstantiation, etc.

Now, think of who is called upon to respond to the Press at a given event:  often it's the Priest, and really, dear Father has his mind on many things. Perhaps his explanation to the media is harried and clipped because while he knows he must give this interview, his heart is with his flock and all that needs to be done to serve them in this given event or crisis. The parish business administrator may be called upon to become the Spokesman and you know what? That person may not even be Catholic as his job calls for knowledge of business, not theology. He may give an explanation of a Catholic practice of which he has rudimentary knowledge and may even admire, but if he doesn't share the Faith or have direct knowledge through shared participation in a given devotion, he may get the explanation wrong.

It's also quite possible that the person giving the interview to the Press has his or her mind on the larger community, and out of lack of faith, fears our beliefs are not palatable to the general public, and further, may not have a succinct explanation of it. The reporters need word bites, not long theological treatises. So the spokesman bungle the explanation, or, more likely, hedges the explanation to make it seem like something other than what it is...maybe something more Protestant or more "generic" to the allegedly larger non-believing crowd.

Inherent Catholic Culture

As it is, what I'll call "orthodox Catholics" who tend to prefer the quiet, unobtrusive liturgical prayer that characterizes our culture are not very likely to step up to the mike and speak for us. It's just not part of our collective Catholic personality to want to be in the spotlight. Those Catholics who do, though, unfortunately tend to be overwhelmingly blustery and condemning.  Or perhaps they step up out of a sense of duty or parish role and do the best they can with what they have and just pray it all goes away quickly.

Now, when it comes to the blustery types, common to what the world wants to call we "conservative Catholics",  if I were a Reporter, I'd run far away, quickly, and never darken the door of that parish ever again. I'd certainly never call up such people for an interview. Who wants to be lectured-to and condemned as "liberal media"? Why even risk that?

We so often see that some of the more "socially-active" parishes have much of the media spotlight, and we know that those same parishes for some reason tend to be missing the proper theology to back up their explanations, too. But because the personality of those parishes is more extroverted, they are also more press-oriented and so the Media, as a whole, will naturally gravitate towards them. If you were a member of the Press, wouldn't you look for comment on a Catholic topic at a place where you were more likely to be well-received?

Heck, I would!  And, having worked with difficult people in many places, yeah, I'd call the nice witness before I'd call the one I knew was going to be a problem to me personally in the fulfillment of my job!

Here's the thing, my dear friends...we need to do a serious examination of conscience in our relationship with the Press and we need to see where we are at fault...and what we can do to change it. And really, it has to start with we bloggers because, at least online, we are the face of the Church. And we're scaring the secular  Media away. That's not going to help our cause.

Here are my suggestions for good Catholic PR: 

* If you are called upon to be a spokesperson for you parish or our Catholic-related event and need to use terms like "Eucharistic Adoration" or "Liturgy of the Hours" or "Vespers", for example, you need to have a concise definition fresh at hand, use the actual terms for our practices, and understand that our terms may be new to the reporter who visits us.

* Don't shy away from theological terms - such terms invite questions and questions invite answers which tend to develop friendly relationships. (Keep an eye on evangelization y'all. Maybe not that reporter, but if he or she gets it right because you took the time, it can go a LONG way!) 

* Be open to the reporter's requests for definition - have it handy! Write it down on a card you can hand out, even!  (Hey! Media-ready flash cards! I get dibs on the copyright and patent on that idea!) 

* Don't try to evangelize the reporter. *cough*  They're used to that and expecting it because of the fact they're visiting a church. If you don't do it, it will throw them off and you're more likely to help them get your comments right because they'll relax and stop worrying about how to politely turn down your invitation to their Bible study!  ;-)

* Be patient with the reporter. They're just trying to get a job done, they were sent to you by someone over their head and may not even want to be there. Give them the benefit of the doubt, be gracious, and know that this is part of your job, too, even if you're "just a volunteer". Or "just a random guy".

* Stop painting the Media as a whole with a broad brush condemning all. "The Media" is made up of human beings and they have editors who make certain demands. It isn't the reporters who are "in your face" who have the final word on a story: it's their editors. And probably other people, too, like investors. I don't know. I'm not a journalist. Thank God! (No offense to Journalists!)

UNCONCLUDED CONCLUSION

I guess, ultimately, what I'm trying to say is that if we want to change the state of the Media in the United States, we need to learn to be more friendly TO the Media and stop expecting them to acquiesce to us. We complain they seem to have this or that dissident theologian who has long been discredited, but really, if we don't throw out a welcome mat, they're not going to come pounding down our doors and asking us to comment or explain this or that detail.

We don't have to compromise our Faith; we just need to do better at explaining our beliefs. 

What I witnessed recently renewed my hope in the Press, and I think there are many who would really appreciate a good definition of terms, would be happy to have a knowledgeable Catholic on hand for questions and research, and truly, want to do a good, ethical job of getting the story right.

Maybe, for once, we should give them a chance and recognize that we are our own worst enemy and only we have the power to turn the tide in that regard. 

Heat Lightning

I didn't grow up with luxuries like air conditioning, and certainly not anything like central air. Summers for us were hot, humid and still, and when the wind blew, like the old adage says...it didn't blow anyone any good. A rising wind in summer was just training for storms, and the heavy pit in my stomach always grew heavier when darkness fell and with it, the wind, for I knew what was coming.

I grew up in a gentler time where the elements had more force but less surprise. Although the setting was Illinois, it wasn't much different than Mississippi in terms of summer heat and humidity, and our version of Boo Radley was an old guy named "Frank" who had a sledding hill in place of a cool tree.

We could go on all day about our respective characters and their motivations, but I have to admit, even having moved north, one of the most disconcerting works of nature, one that is so seemingly harmless, is the very same as that which I watched as a child, certain I would be sick in any moment.

We used to sit at our big living-room window and watch what Mom called "heat -lightening" shuttering in the sky across the river and beyond. Even miles and miles away, it lit up the shapes in the clouds and highlighted the barn over the river yonder, with its silver roof and weathered gray boards holding it up. I can still hear the haunting screams of the tanker trucks rumbling along the highway that ran by the barn, echoing over the stillness of the river to yawn in our still and silent back yard, embracing us with both comfort and warning.

Mom tried to decrease my fear of the storm by showing me her enjoyment of the far-away lightning, a freak of nature and science, natures fireworks appearing without thunder, without rain, without wind. She described it as the sparks we saw when pulling fresh laundry out of the dryer; lightning produced by heat and friction, God having a good time with static electricity.

I think at one point she described it as Angels doing laundry.

Her timing was bad, though; my brother had taken it upon himself to ensure that any static electricity whatsoever made its way to me at his hands, whether through a snap of a hot towel or feet rubbed on the carpet. As such, for me, such "lightning" was never harmless, but another set of creative torture devised to terrify me anew.

No Such Thing as Harmless Lightning

Perhaps my childhood instincts were correct.

In our culture, we have been lulled into the non-scientific belief that "heat lightning" is harmless. Those faint flashes from far away do seem to be nothing, but sometimes they get a bit close, don't they?

The fact is this: there's no such thing as lightning without a storm. Where we see the flashes of light, someone is suffering the onslaught of thunder, rain, maybe hail and wind. We may not be the ones touched by that particular storm, but we cannot sit back and pollyanna happily about its harmlessness. Not while people are being swept away a county or so away from us.

In recent  years, the flashes of lightening have become more and more brilliant, nearly blinding us, and we seem to have turned down the volume to the thunder that accompanies it. That's not to say it isn't there, but rather, that we have chosen to be dulled to the sound, that we have given into happy childhood myths designed to comfort fearful children...not rational adults.

There are many myths floating around our world today most directly with regard to people of Faith: some say that Religion is meant to be seen on one's own time but not heard otherwise. Others say that any revelation of belief in God is merely a revelation of weakness in an individual who refuses to use his or her intellect. Yet the most common bit of cultural heat lightning is this:  that we as Christians have no right to "impose" our beliefs upon someone else or society at whole.

Raise your hand if you've heard this modern adage. Raise your OTHER hand if you've stated YOURSELF the following: "I believe X, but even though I am Catholic I have no right to impose my beliefs about X upon others."

Keep 'em up were we can see 'em!. You're busted and about to be convicted of being both illogical and anti-Christian, no matter what you profess to be. Way to be a sellout!

Our OBLIGATION as Christians by our Baptism and the promises that accompany it is that we WILL "impose" our beliefs and values upon the society in which we live. This is a matter of fairness and objectivity, for each and every religion and group does the same. 

What is so sociologically and culturally fascinating, and horrific, in our society is this: that the majority (Christians) refuses to carry this out. We have the right and OBLIGATION according to our own fundamental beliefs to impose what we know to be True upon the society in which we live, in order to influence it for the better and more importantly, to save souls.

Yet, the mantra of our age is to stand cowed to the moral minority repeating roboticly, "I really believe in marriage between one man and one woman, and I am personally opposed to abortion, and I know we should keep Sundays holy and not use it for profane things like shopping and unnecessary labor...but I can't impose my beliefs upon others...."

To this I answer:

Why the hell NOT? As long as we refuse to impose the Truth upon our society, we become the whipped dogs of the minority imposing THEIR beliefs upon US...and we don't even have the gumption to bare our teeth!

The fact is this: the stuff we thought was harmless "heat lightning" and lulled us into complacency has become an imminent EF-5, destroying the moral culture of our country with the same efficiency as the real one that laid waste to Joplin, MO only a month ago.

My friends, it is our moral OBLIGATION to impose our beliefs and values upon our culture, politically, personally, through policy, through law, through debate, through education, through any moral means.

Ironically, although we made the promise we will do this at our very Baptism, and sealed to do so at our Confirmation, do you know the ONLY group that refuses to "impose" in our modern world is also the ONLY group losing numbers to religious oblivion is....Christians.

No wonder "gay marriage" (what a misnomer) is on the plate before us; if we had imposed our beliefs with the same conviction the homosexual activists had imposed their beliefs upon us, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Food for thought...

Oh, and by the way...stop chewing your cud and start IMPOSING before it gets any worse! 

It's not just heat lightning, folks. Just because it's not striking YOU doesn't mean thousands haven't already been lost to the whims of static electricity from the sky and all the destruction that accompanies it.

Self-Hating Catholics

Earlier this week Cathy_of_Alex had a great post about Catholics with an Inferiority Complex. Her post reminded me of an incident I witnessed a few months ago.

Early this summer I had to attend a meeting related in part to my work at a parish. This meeting encompassed both Catholics and Protestants, and we met over lunch, which of course, involved saying grace.

As a firmly practicing Catholic, I am accustomed to saying grace in public, including making the Sign of the Cross, and even given the "mixed company", although it was led by a Lutheran, I of course did as usual. At the completion of the prayer, as is our custom, I again made the Sign of the Cross. A woman sitting across from me hastily did the same, seeming embarrassed to be doing so.  As she finished, she apologized to the Protestants at the table, "I guess I'm still a little Catholic..." and a couple other words of apology.

I was quite taken aback. After all, this woman was there representing a Catholic parish, and her position is one in religious education! Was she not actually Catholic? To my knowledge, her position requires that her religious faith be Catholic, consistent with her teaching role. So...why was she apologizing!

Really, I had no idea how to respond so I just burst out, "I LOVE being Catholic!" *insert big smile here*.  She stared at me balefully, and as I later learned, badmouthed me to the co-worker I was actually covering for that day.

This isn't the first time I've come across someone apologizing for being Catholic, and it won't be the last. The Protestants at our table didn't bat an eye at my making the Sign of the Cross; they obviously would expect me to do so.

So....what is there to be embarrassed about?

I can't figure it out.

Why do some Catholics so hate their faith that they are embarrassed to share it in the simplest of ways?  

Some, of course, don't know much about their beliefs due to the lacking catechesis over the last 50 years or more (even prior to Vatican II religious education was lacking), and so when in the presence of Protestants, may be afraid they'll be questioned. Clearly, this should not have been the case at this particular event I detailed above.

Some Catholics may fear debate, for they are not debaters by nature (I am not a debater myself so I understand) and may think that in "mixed company" they may be forced into a debate or perhaps made to look foolish.

Some Catholics avidly disagree with Catholic teaching and yet are held in by the "cultural Catholic" connection, much like that of the infamous Kennedy's or the, sadly, average Catholic in the pew who attends Sunday Mass on occasion "because it's what my parents did".

I suspect some of the fear and the "self-hating" comes from a misunderstanding of ecumenism.  Having often sat through deanery and other archdiocesan meetings, I constantly have heard of parish "leaders" demanding we become more like the Protestants, doing what they are doing to be "relevant", not realizing in the least that the Church is not called to be "relevant" but TRANSCENDENT.

"Relevance" is according to whim. "Transcendence" absorbs relevance, elevates it, and in the end, creates holiness without ever having to become profane.

I don't really have an explanation for self-hating Catholics. I can only offer the fact that I am saddened by such an attitude and hope that those who find the need to apologize for something as simple as making the Sign of the Cross in public and in the presence of Protestants do some real soul-searching and find their way to a good Catholic education class, maybe even seeking out a good RCIA program that truly passes on the eternal Truths of our Faith.

Jesus isn't made present among us every day in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that we may tuck our tails and apologize in embarrassment.

We are called to be Saints and Martyrs....not mangy curs. If you're going to act like a mangy cur and pledge shame for your "faith", then you aren't Catholic. Period.

The Conversion Was Not the Call of St. Paul the Apostle

Today, the Apostle Paul himself tells us of his conversion, and the story is well known. There is a reason, though, that we celebrate it not as the Call of St. Paul, but rather his Conversion. I think that the reality is that the Call of the Apostle Paul happened many years prior, when he was still a young man.

A few months ago it was my privilege to attend a conference in which a priest offered a possible link between the man who went away sad and our beloved St. Paul.  In my opinion, this link is worth considering and I have pondered it often, for there is a great deal of truth in the idea, including something of human psychology we can observe in people around us who have missed their calling or have outright rejected Christ.

Let us review the relevant passages to this meditation:

Mark 10:17-31 The Man Who Went Away Sad

17As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'" 20 He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth." 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." 22 At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

Now let us look to today's Feast and read part of what Paul has to say about his conversion in

Acts 22:36-11

“On that journey as I drew near to Damascus,about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me,‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? I replied, ‘Who are you, sir?’And he said to me,‘I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.’ My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.I asked, ‘What shall I do, sir?’ The Lord answered me, ‘Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything appointed for you to do.’

Do you see the link between the two?

The priest who made this connection advanced it carefully, not to be considered dogma but rather for a point of meditation. If you have not guessed, he advanced the idea that the young man who approached Jesus asking, "What must I do?" was Saul who became St. Paul the Apostle.

In that young man of the reading from Mark's gospel,  the priest saw Saul, who we know to have been a Pharisee, a privileged man, one who persecuted the Christians without mercy.  In the first passage from Mark, we observe a young man who is struck to his very being by what Jesus is saying, so much so that he RUNS to Him, falls on his very knees and asks what he can DO!

How does Jesus respond?  First he asks Saul to go deeper into the mystery.  He asks him, "Why do you call me good?  No one is good but God alone!"

In this question, imagine Jesus looking into Saul's eyes, perhaps putting His hand on Saul's shoulder to emphasize His words and express His goodwill.  "Why do YOU call ME 'good'?  NO one is 'good' but GOD ALONE'."   Jesus does not break eye contact.  He is asking Saul to go deeper into himself, and into HIM to see the Truth of His very being...and what He is really asking.

Imagine a moment of silence as Saul ponders this question. "What does Jesus mean?  What is he saying?  Is he...claiming what I THINK he is?  That HE is....GOD?!!!!!??????"

Jesus emphasizes the Ten Commandments...the Law of God HIMSELF.  It is God HIMSELF speaking here, the Word Incarnate giving spoken expression the Word that is HIM.

Saul has broken eye contact. He looks away and in meeting the gaze of Jesus again, he sees everything...he recognizes who he is in the face of God, who LOVES him.  God LOVES Saul, but still tells him what he is lacking...he is not free to follow Him. He must purge himself of his worldly attachments, give to the poor...and follow.

That's where Saul goes away sad. 

So often this scripture is interpreted in a way not supported by scripture itself.  I've heard many homilies and lectures giving rise to the idea that the young man went away sad because he didn't want to part with his belongings.  Maybe that's true, but where in scripture is that verified as reality?  I pondered this myself  years ago when teaching RCIA, and in light of what Father said, I ponder it even more.  It seems that the man who went away sad isn't actually the end of the story.

 It makes sense that we consider this testimony in the light of Paul's Conversion...and Apostleship.

Look seriously at and ponder the story the Apostle Paul tells us today. If we can assume the negative about the Gospel of Mark, can we not ponder it in light of Paul's testimony in ACTS?    What did he do?  He HEARD a voice...a voice he recognized especially when Christ Himself spoke.  The conversation is almost an echo of the first!.

 Saul has matured and asks, "Who ARE you?"

Jesus simply identifies Himself, knowing Saul will remember and BELIEVES that only God alone is Good.

Saul doesn't question the identification.  This good Pharisee who questions EVERYTHING and is ready to kill on contact lies there on the ground and recognizes the voice of the Good Teacher from his youth.  This time, instead of asking, "What must I do to inherit eternal life" he asks a more open-ended question, "What shall I do?"

Jesus, instead of giving him an open ended answer, gives him one far more specific...and tells him where to go, and to whom.

Saul goes.

The young man, maybe Saul, went away sad. He had many possessions.  Perhaps he was prideful and expected to be told how wonderful and holy he was.  Perhaps he expected the Teacher to  hold him up as a perfect example.  Perhaps it was a moment of humility that made him approach with such zeal,  but upon learning that the greatest possession he had, himself, was what he had to give up, he went away knowing he could not do so.

He is the epitome of the sin of Adam, juxtaposed with the New Adam

He goes away, and considers all he has, and most importantly, that he is being asked to die to himself.  In order to follow Christ, he has to give up EVERYTHING, perhaps not understanding that Jesus is the fulfillment of every belief he has ever held, and that his people have ever held.

Saul struggles and succumbs to the world and his own will, which, as St. Francis de Sales calls it, his self-love.   He becomes angry, and when his life doesn't pan out as he thinks it should, he becomes bitter. He recalls that intimate moment with Christ, where he knelt at His knee, made eye contact, and recognized...the Call.  Which he rejected.

Saul, in his battle with himself, expresses it as a battle towards the early Christians.  He persecutes them mercilessly. Instead of attacking his own sin, his own faults, he puts to death those who reveal the Truth Incarnate, the real love of Christ that would not abandon him to his own disorder, his own superficiality, but would call him out of it for the benefit of eternity.

Because he rejected such a gift, he must try to destroy it, knowing all the while that this war is futile...and it makes him that much more furious in his persecution.

It all makes sense. The Young Man is the Apostle Paul.

We who struggle to know our Vocation, especially we who are so LATE can find a friend in the Apostle Paul through this particular meditation.  Maybe we identify with an earlier Call...and we went away sad. Maybe we didn't trust, maybe we were hindered in some other way. Maybe it had nothing to do with us, but with legitimate worldly and holy obligations.

But we can't look at it without looking honestly at ourselves, considering our own unholy flaws.  I can see it clearly now that it  has been pointed out. I can understand some of my own anger and rejection of Our Lord over the years in light of this, and can more clearly understand others, even those who claim to be Catholic, who spout off so publicly in anger at Jesus, Christianity, and the Church.

I wonder if maybe they recognize that once they were LOVED...but either that love was distorted or because of their own Pride, they chose to run away...and try to kill that which loves them the most in hopes they will eliminate that terrible ache within that calls them onward..towards Christ.

It's easier to attack than it is to succumb to the sacrificial love of Christ. I know this from experience. And it's easier to run away.  

Maybe we can give up things, but are we ready to give up OURSELVES, to lose our own lives in order to partake in the life of Christ?  Are we willing to forego those things we "love" because we love God more?

Or will we reject a Call we sincerely hear, in favor of a few trivialities such as social status or education or...simple, pure...love?

Maybe the reason Saul was angry was because he rejected Christ and instead of pursuing him, focused on a lost Vocation he would prefer to destroy rather than pursue.  Maybe some of us who are miserable are clinging to who we think we are instead of accepting that we are to become who God created us to BE.

The good news is this:  maybe the Young Man came BACK...and leads us all still today.  Perhaps we who think it is too late, can find, in the Apostle Paul, a Patron Saint for Late and Lost Vocations.  Perhaps if anyone can understand...it is him.

St. Paul the Apostle...pray for us! 

A Little-a This, a Little-a That

This time of unemployment in the lull between the job I hated and the beginning of Grad school has provided me some time for contemplation. Are you ready for these deep thoughts? Good! I knew you would be.

A Haunting. Have you ever seen that show? It's interesting, talks about various hauntings, dramatizing the stories of people everywhere. Their stories are literally hair-raising, they all go through denial, and then realize something has to be done. And the expert they call invariable recommends that they call a priest. Whether they are religious or not, or Protestant or not...they call a priest. One family consisted of what they self-identified as "faithful Lutherans" (although I noted a strain of cafeteriaism there, too), and their Pastor came out to bless the house. But the told them that if that wasn't enough, they'd have to call a priest. And this story played out like this over and over again...call a priest. An exorcism is needed. Even if the family was total relativistic new-age-whatever-comes-along. The New Agers even recommenended an exorcism by a priest, because all they could offer was "a cleansing".

That's amazing to me. How can someone recognize the authority of the priest to command demons, the authority of the Catholic Church...and not convert? How can a Protestant Pastor (God bless his humility) defer to another religion, recognizing the only authority to which a demon will respond? How can he remain a Pastor of another religion?

Just something to ponder. How can the world continue to persecute the Church as being the Whore of Babylon in one breath, but rush to kneel at the feet of the One True Church when they are beset by demons? But it happens, over and over again in movies and in these re-enactments? (Um...that's a broad comment meant to cover a lot in a small space).

Think about it. The World recognizes this authority...and yet, people look down on Catholics. Wow.

Moving on...

Little House on the Prairie: I grew up on this show. Michael Landon was a hero in my house, and even when I got older and read the books, "Pa" had the face of the actor I'd grown up loving as the father of Laura and Mary and Carrie.

And I've always hated Mrs. Olesen. What a gossipy bit of muslin she was! And her daughter Nellie...just fluff. All she was was another brat wearing fluff.

A secret...since my family grew up poor, that show helped me see what wealth did to people, and I met many "Nellies" in my days on this earth. Thankfully, MOST of them weren't as insufferable as she...but they always made me grateful for my poverty. Even though I didn't realize it at the time.

And all this rain, all this damp. While our neighbors to the south are still being drenched by the flood waters, I'm whiny and "priveliged" enough to complain about the dampness in my own house. I'm sick of the gloom. I'm sick of the clouds. I'm sick of the drizzle. There have only been only one or two days since I left my job that I could consider to be "good weather". The rest has been hot and humid or cool and rainy. I'll take the cool and rainy over the hot and humid any day, but that doesn't stop me from compaining.

Everything in my house in damp. Completely damp. I can feel the dampness in the carpet, the dampness in clothing washed and dried days ago, dampness in towels I'm using to dry my dishes, dampness in bathroom towels...and the stagnant air does nothing to help. NOTHING is drying out. I can almost sit and watch mold grow.

So today I gave in...I turned on the AC. Not because I was too hot (for ever since I had heat exhaustion, I can't tolerate heat very well); but because I can't take the damp anymore. Not when I can control it. I don't have a de-humidifier. But I DO have working AC.

It didn't take long for things to feel better, although the humidity is still in the air.

Yeah, I'm a whiny wimp, not much different than Nellie Olesen. The only thing I'm missing is pink muslin, hoop skirts, blonde curls, and huge pink bows over puffed sleeves.

For the record, though, I'm not blonde, I've never worn a hoop skirt (not even at prom...I never went to prom. Thank God. What a waste of time and money), and I don't have curles. Or bows in my hair. Not really my thing.

I think Terry's logorrhea is wearing off on me.


Note: Check out the link to "logorrhea", and be sure to read the Amazon.com ad. ROFL!


Now please excuse me. I got my hair cut today so now I'm going to go color it to refresh what's left of my highlights from last spring.

Comments please commence!

And they DARE to ask why we are offended?

You can read for yourself the reviews of the play which has caused so much consternation among Catholics. The following excerpts are taken from the Pioneer Press article by Dominic P. Papatola.

Is "The Pope and the Witch" sacrilege, blasphemy, an affront to the Catholic Church?

Turns out that's the wrong question, based on the assumption that the controversial play now on stage at the University of Minnesota is about religion.

It's not, or at least not exactly. Most of Nobel Prize-winning playwright Dario Fo's work is political in nature, and "The Pope and the Witch" is no exception. This is a satire of the church as a maladroit bureaucracy, but also a dramatic tract about the world turning a blind eye to the problems of the Third World, and a farce putting forth overblown solutions to gigantic tragedies.

Several points to make here. Contrary to popular opinion formed by an overly-politicized world incapable of seeing anything outside the spectrum of political terms, the Church is NOT, nor has it ever been, a political organization.

Of COURSE this play was about religion; without the theme of Catholicism, it simply would not have worked. There was no story without being able to poke cruel humor at the expense of the Catholic Church. To see it otherwise displays flagrant ignorance.

This post is not a refute of the article; I only quoted it to give a snapshot of what "they" are saying and how they see it.

This entire fiasco really displays in full relief that "tolerance" and "fairness" and "equality" do not apply to those who hold the beliefs of the Catholic Church. We live in a world so terrified of lawsuits and the ACLU that to even RISK offending someone causes great backpeddaling and profuse apologies followed by complete worship of the group that was nearly offended.

Yet, when we as Catholics spoke up and said that this play is offensive, we were officially and summarily dismissed by the leadership of the University of Minnesota and their pet, the Theatre Depatment with the words, "We don't think it's offensive."

Of COURSE YOU don't think it's offensive, but what does our obvious offendedness have to do with your opinion?

If I were to use a racial slur and the person at the other end of that slur told me that I had offended them by my words and attitude, it would not be acceptable for me to tell them, "Well, I don't think it's offensive." In fact, such an attitude in some places would result in my death, or at the very least, great bodily harm.

This is the litmus test applied to everyone and everything save the Catholic Church. We simply don't apply.

But as long as I live and breathe in this country and my URL is not banned in China, I will speak up in defense of my Church because the right to do so applies to us as well, even though my words will be dismissed yet again and again. They did that to Jesus first, so I guess none of us should be surprised that we who try to follow in His footsteps should suffer some of the same humiliations.

To the claim that the Church is not political; let's take a look at what the play is attacking: issues of abortion, contraception, and poverty.

These are not political issues taken at their core; they are issues surrounding individuals, children of God, even to the smallest, most insignificant, and most defenseless.

These are issues which have been addressed by the Catholic Church since her inception, and they were never political; until the world chose to see and redefine them as political so as to justify their own immoral behaviors as "moral".

So in all charity, and since a proper forum has not been provided for us to answer to the offense against us, I take my place at the podium now before me, to give a defense of what we hold dear; our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and our allegiance to the Magesterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We do not divorce ourselves from our guiding light for it is the Church that gives us our mission, that of seeking to be holy as Jesus is holy, that of love of neighbor as ourselves. The Church is not a political organization; it is a spiritual organization. When you attack the Vatican and focus your attack upon our practices and our beliefs, you have undermined your right to have an opinion because you have already displayed that your opinion is not valid. I will explain.

The very issues in the play which were skewered as "political" can be found from the earliest days of the Church.

I submit exhibit A; the Didache. This is a document which can be described as the earliest catechism. It was used in a time when the Apostles were still walking the earth, teaching, preaching, and living the Gospel. It was a time in which the Gospels were referred to as "the Memorials" of the Apostles. It was a time of great unrest, great immorality, and those teachings of Christ were of great importance in order to show humanity the fulfillment of what they were always designed by God to become. It is not part of the canon of scripture, but more a type of supplement; a summary, if you will of those teachings of Christ.

(As a note, recognize the references are not necessarily from what we now refer to as the New Testament. This is because the Old Testament can only be interpreted in the light of the New Testament, and the New Testament can only be understood in the light of the Old Testament; the New is the FULFILLMENT of the Old. Additionally, note that the Didache does not note the Letters of the New Testament; they were not yet written for the Didache IS the teachings of the Apostles themselves in a condensed form. )

So let us look at these moral teachings:


Chapter 2.—The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden

1. And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2. You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pæderasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, Exodus 20:17 3. you shall not forswear yourself, Matthew 5:34 you shall not bear false witness...


Chapter 5.—The Way of Death

1. And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rapines, false witnessings, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; 2. persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing requital, not pitying a poor man, not labouring for the afflicted, not knowing Him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.

Please click on the link above for the Didache and read the entire document for yourself. It is not very long, and as you can see, it is also not difficult reading.

Let us now discuss the criticism of the Church.

The Church has ALWAYS been open to criticism, and as we, the faithful, we are likewise open to criticism, but let's at least have the integrity, all of us, to admit that serious criticism is not an attack; it is a dialogue. Additionally, it must be legitimate. As the U of M has completely dismissed us and people everywhere have demanded that we "take" this "criticism" I have to ask, logically, why the U of M has not responded to our legitimate and reasoned criticism of them?

Clearly, although Dario Fo and his devotees at the University of Minnesota are so enlightened by their navel-gazing, they have not bothered to see what the Church, and the Pope that is their scapegoat in the original script had to say both about criticism and the Church as a political institution.

So I will let the Pope speak for himself in defense of the Church:

While it is right that, in accordance with the example of her Master, who is "humble in heart"13, the Church also should have humility as her foundation, that she should have a critical sense with regard to all that goes to make up her human character and activity, and that she should always be very demanding on herself, nevertheless criticism too should have its just limits. Otherwise it ceases to be constructive and does not reveal truth, love and thankfulness for the grace in which we become sharers principally and fully in and through the Church. Furthermore such criticism does not express an attitude of service but rather a wish to direct the opinion of others in accordance with one's own, which is at times spread abroad in too thoughtless a manner.
John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, Article 4, p. 9

On the Church:

"...the Church cannot remain insensible to whatever serves man's true welfare, any more than she can remain indifferent to what threatens it. In various passages in its documents the Second Vatican Council has expressed the Church's fundamental solicitude that life in "the world should conform more to man's surpassing dignity" in all its aspect, so as to make that life "ever more human." This is the solicitude of Christ Himself, the good Shepherd of all men. In the name of this solicitude, as we read in the Council's Pastoral Constitution, "the Church must in no way be confused with the political community, no bound to any political system. She is at once as sign and a safeguard of the transcendence of the human person."

~ John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, Part II, article 13, page 25

(note: all phrases in quotes taken from the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, footnoted in Redemptor Hominis as such)

And they wonder why we are offended? Let's see...

* The play takes the trappings of the Church and mocks us. That alone is something we're used to, but being that it's sanctioned by a University funded by tax-payers...yeah. You figure it out.

* The play has a WITCH dressed as a nun working hard to corrupt the Pope...and succeeds. This is an attack against our belief that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. And in fact, this claim has held up; through two millenia, although we've suffered bad Popes, NONE of them have spoken ex cathedra that is, infallably on moral issues. In fact, the Church's teachings on faith and morals have been consistent! This play attacks that reality and they dare to ask us why we are offended?

* The play, while it does not name the Pope, uses John Paul II as the obvious scapegoat, which is quite ironic considering his history, his life, and his writings. He was a champion of human dignity for all, especially the poor, and he was a champion of morality. I guess that latter issue is the reason he has been lambasted so transparently as a buffoon. And they dare to ask why we are offended?

* The play skewers the consistent moral teachings of the Church as "political" and attacks the Church as a "political" institution. The basis for the attacks are the MORAL teachings of the Church which have been consistent for TWO MILLENIA! It is the job of the Church, as designated by Christ Himself to carry on His mission, to speak to the dignity and the morality of humanity, effecting the fulfillment and restoration to union with God. This is not political; it is spiritual. The fact that these fundamental moral issues have become politicized in our culture does not negate their moral foundation, nor does it negate the duty of the Church and her faithful to speak out on these issues. Furthermore, the Church has a well-documented history of dedication to the poor and marginalized throughout the ages. Locally, Sharing/Caring hands is a charity founded by a Catholic and staffed by Catholic volunteers (as well as others). Catholic Charities, anyone? Birthright? - oh, right, that one isn't politically correct because they act to SAVE babies which would otherwise be aborted by people inflicting their will upon the defensless beings.

And they ask why we are offended?

And so I ask...how, exactly, given the evidence above, can anyone actually support this play and refer to their own opinions as "valid". Validity implies a basis of knowledge in the subject matter; Dario Fo, and anyone associated with the U of M has proven that they have no knolwedge, nor do they have understanding, nor do they have a will to understand. Thus, their opinions with regard to whether or not Catholics should or should not be offended has been rendered completely invalid.

If you are going to claim that this is not offensive to Catholics, then you'd better be prepared to defend yourself. To date, I have not seen any valid arguments as to how this play is not offensive, but I sure have seen and spoken with a good number of offended people.

And if you are going to ask us why we are offended, then be prepared to hear the answer, and we will expect a legitimate response, not the dismissal we have constantly received.

Can you really read all of the above and really question why we are offended?

Holy Protest!

Tonight I met up with friends and fellow bloggers, Ray of Stella Borealis and Cathy of Recovering Dissident. Our Mission; to join up with the SJV Seminarians in a protest against the blasphemy at the University of Minnesota.

The trio of us arrived a little early, noting the presence of a squad car in front of the Rarig theater. We didn't start anything initially, preferring to wait for the cavalry to arrive although we began to get nervous in thinking they weren't coming. The squad left, apparently thinking we looked like theater goers; our rosaries weren't yet in our hands. It was a cold evening, typical after a snowstorm, so we found a warm lobby in the parking garage across the street, and somewhere around 7:10 or so we ventured out to either take action in the form of prayer or to see if any others had arrived.

Immediately we saw a line of men and women standing on the sidewalk across from the theater, and it was Ray who discovered they were some of the people we were waiting for...already praying the rosary. One of them was Veritatis Splendor.(The photo above is compliments of her). We went to the end of the line to join in.

Shortly after that, a police officer arrived and asked who was in charge? We pointed down the line; it certainly wasn't us.

A young man stepped forward while the rosary continued. I am nosy, so listened to the coversation, which was about logistics. The officer was setting the parameters; keep the sidewalks clear so people could pass, don't interfere with traffic, etc. No problem. She didn't have a problem with our presence, already realizing that we weren't there to do anything more than to provide a visible witness of our faith and peacefully protest the outrage against us being held inside the theatre.

I nearly screamed and cheered when I heard the man say that there were "about a hundred more guys coming." But alas, I remained demure, my fingers moving along the rosary beads, praying on one hand, listening with one ear to the conversation at hand.

I watched the people coming by; some ignored us, some glanced over curiously, some laughed, jeered, and pointed. I remember one guy especially in a black fuzzy hat, the expression on his face, the derision in his smile. I blessed him, afraid that if I did not, I'd be offended.

The Gospel reading for today is so pertinent to the situation; "Bless those who curse you; pray for those who persecute you." I realized that we were there not so much in protest, but to pray for those who persecute us, and to bless through our prayers, those who curse the Church and we who live in her.

Just a few short moments after the police officer left, the Cavalry from SJV arrived and set up shop, so we crossed the street to join them. They held their banner, and let me tell you, these guys are HARD CORE! They wore cassocks and surplices, but no coats, not hats, no gloves. They stood with their banner and we all grouped behind them, now on the gathering area in front of the theatre.

I didn't count the people, but given that the majority of the crowd came from SJV, suffice to say it was mostly male, with a few women joining into the fray. They called for sopranos, and sopranos they got! All in all, it might have been 80-100 Catholic men and women there, all told.

It was beautiful; I have never before been surrounded so completely by male voices singing with such dedication and resonance. Usually, in church, in choirs, most of the singers are women, but tonight was different. We female voices added to the prayers and to the songs as a compliment, rounding out the tones raised in glory to God.

The prayers were powerful, they were bold, and above all, they were peaceful.

We stood out in that cold, shivering, protesting, and showing the world that we, as Catholics, have a living, vibrant faith that will not be quashed by the intentional misconstrual of our beliefs. By our prayers for the Pope, we displayed our solidarity to the Vicar of Christ, while behind our backs the Pontiff was being mocked in full theatrical glory to the amusement of those worshipping at the altar of secularity.

By the end, my fingers were so numb I could barely move them over the beads of my rosary and I thought my toes had been lost. Many were shivering, shuffling, but no one faltered, no one stopped, no one gave up.

Our prayers consisted of a rosary, the Glorious Mysteries, prayed in unison, with a hymn between the mysteries. We offered prayers for the Pope, and a Divine Mercy Chaplet. Before we disbursed, Father Baer, SJV Rector, gave the group a blessing.

I already felt blessed, just to be there, to stand up for Jesus Christ, to proclaim by my presence that He is Lord and Savior. When our faith is being mocked, there is no better time than that to stand up and proclaim it. When our beliefs are being willfully misrepresented and ridiculed mercilessly, there is no better time than that to respond and explain for faith and reason go hand in hand. And when our Pope is being maligned, there is no better time than that to assemble and pray in support of him and our dearly departed Popes.

The Pope and the Witch is having its day, and there's nothing we can do about that. The University of Minnesota has shown its true colors - that as an anti-Catholic institute for "higher learning". So be it. They aren't the first and they won't be the last.

But as long as there is persecution, expect to find Catholics willing to stand up for what they believe. We won't threaten to bomb you, we won't attack you, we won't jeer or throw stones. But we will pray. We will raise our voices in song, and in the end, the Glory ALWAYS goes to God.

Pope and the Witch won a small victory in being allowed to go on, but it is a futile victory; God has already stolen the show.

Thank you to the men of St. John Vianney Seminary; you are an inspiration and we will keep you all in our prayers!

Curtain Down on Pope and the Witch

...at least for tonight.

God has spoken, and in his justice, he has sent a terrible snowstorm which has decimated Iowa and Southern Minnesota, and now the Twin Cities, resulting in the cancellation of tonight's opening night.

Unfortunately, it's set to go on tomorrow. So be it.

This morning the Pioneer Press ran an article written by Paul Tosto with regard to this play which has so rightfully been condemned by Catholics and our leadership.

Cathy at Recovering Dissident has a great analysis of this article, and as I have no desire to be an echo chamber, I will direct you there for her great synopsis.

However, I do have a few statements of my own to share. (Big surprise!)

To quote:

The play's director says it's a political and social farce, not an attack on the faithful.

Written by Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo, the play includes a pro-abortion witch, revelations of evil in the Vatican hierarchy and a paranoid pope who is convinced that thousands of orphans massing in St. Peter's Square are part of a plot by birth-control supporters to embarrass the church.

The play is purposely outrageous but deals with "real things, real tangible issues," director Robert Rosen said. "Sometimes when you do that, take an extreme view of something, you can say, 'Gosh it made me look at that a certain way.' "

Rosen said the play isn't about the Vatican and disagreed with those who don't see the Vatican as a political body.



First of all, again, Dario Fo did not win a Nobel Prize for this play. The fact that this keeps coming up is a red herring to make it appear that he has credibility with regard to his barbs. He does not. He's a hack, and the play is a result of his hacking.

Rosen is dead wrong; the content of the play is about the Catholic Church's teachings, which have been consistent for the last two millenia. The fact that these issues have become politicized in the current day does not change the moral reality and graveness of abortion and contraception. The Church has ALWAYS had an obligation to speak out on moral issues; the current social view of abortion and contraception does not negate the immorality of the acts, or the immorality of the U of M's presentation of this play.

It is, in fact, not an attack on the Vatican, but a direct attack on the Catholic faithful who uphold these teachings, and what's more, UNDERSTAND them.

This is my FAVORITE part:

On Monday, P.Z. Myers, a University of Minnesota-Morris biologist who writes Pharyngula, an internationally known science blog, castigated people who are angry at the U for producing a "blasphemous" play.

"Blasphemy is highly educational, and I hope our university can do more of it, Myers wrote."We are not here to reassure you that "your ignorance and prejudices are alright, we're supposed to shake up our students."

I'm sorry, I have to say this. What a blithering fool, but I have to give him credit for hitting the nail on the head; this is how the larger society sees the teachings of the Church. Unfortunately, I don't think this poor man has any idea what he is saying. He's pretending at being enlightened, but in reality, he's ignorant and suggesting that the propagation of ignorance in U of M students is something to be admired.

He must be a product of the U of M himself. Speaks volumes, doesn't it.

Note that he's attacking moral teachings that he has not bothered to even attempt to understand, finding it more pleasurable to directly attack Catholics in a personal way. Note the use of direct object in his statement: "We are not here to reassure you that "your ignorance and prejudices are alright,.

Catholics are not ignorant and prejudiced; we are not the ones killing children in the womb who have been deemed "imperfect" by flawed medical testing. We are not the ones euthanizing people we find to be "inconvenient" in their disabilities. We are not the ones suggesting that women pump their bodies full of hormones which do nothing to correct medical conditions but rather, cause an entire host of medical problems, emergencies, and actual infertility. We are not suggesting that babies be concieved ala "The Matrix" and used in inhumane, immoral, and unpromising medical experiments.

If this guy and others like him would actually take some time to understand, first of all, what philosophy is, what it is meant to be, and the true meaning of tolerance and prejudice, they would understand the validity of the moral teachings of the Cathlic Church and they would be as outraged at this blatant attack as we are.

I congratulate Mr. Tosto on finding an actual anti-Catholic to display and speak for the ignorance of the U of M in full, truthful glory.

Pope and the Witch - opens this week

The play which has so served to discredit the U of M and especially their theatre department and President Bruinicks is set to open tomorrow evening.

I was just watching the news, and Channel 9 has a story on it tonight.

Sadly, they featured a student who is "passionate" about population control; ostensibly because the play attacks...oh. ahem, right...."discusses" the Catholic Church's teachings about abortion and contraception.

I wonder if the guy who is so "passionate" about population control is aware of the population implosion that will render his Social Security benefits non-existant, or if he's aware of the implosion over in Europe? The story of course did not discuss what his position is on "population control" but given the overall tone of the story, he was approving of Dario Fo's attack...ahem...discussion.

Right.

So sad, to live in such a world that finds it appropriate to propagate such a travesty in the name of "education". I wonder what's going to happen to all the Catholic students as people start to question them on the Church's moral teachings? What will they say? To date, catechesis has still not been great, although it's improving, so what we have is a bunch of defensless Catholics who are not prepared to face the backlash that could come against them as a result of this play.

I guess the U forgot to consider their Catholic students when they agreed to allow such a play to go on.

I do have to comment on one thing, however; the news was stating that there have been some threatening e-mails. They didn't indicate what kind of "threats" were involved, and I am saddened that some people seem to feel that the way to get their point across is to threaten others. Not very Christian, and definitely an act to be condemned.

Real Catholics don't send threatening e-mails. Period. Real Catholics remember that Faith and Reason are necessarily linked, and we use those things as the basis for our response against unjust attacks against our beliefs. Threats have no place in our theology or in the practice of our faith.

"Pope and the Witch" in the National Catholic Register

Anthony Flott has a byline in the National Catholic Register; and from his position in Nebraska, HE can smell the sulpher oozing from the cracks and crannies in the U of M Theatre Department...so why can't Minnesota Catholics?

To recap, the University of Minnesota is endorsing flagrant Catholic-bashing, supported by all the big media chains around here, primary of which is the Star Tribune, which, incidentally, hasn't won a Pulitzer Prize for a record-breaking length of time and their financial record is in the toilet.

Yet that doesn't stop their editors from epitomizing the author of the blapsphemous play, Dario Fo, with regard to his accolates as a Nobel-Prize winning playwright. Yet let's keep in mind that Fo did NOT win any awards for THIS particular play, it's never had great reviews or attendance, and in fact, the only thing it does is highlight his intolerance of Catholics and Catholicism. So if we go with the popular logic, since The Strib hasn't won any prizes, can we completely discredit them to the same degree that they use this prize to credit this hack of a playwright?

That's my first question in logic to you all. Why does the media think that Fo's status as a prize winner give him any credibility in this topic? It's a red herring and only serves to display the depth of ignorance and lack of defense for their endorsement and propagation of religious intolerance.

Now, let's leave the substandard media offerings behind us, and focus on the criticisms of those of us defending our faith; taken from Flott's article, a comment by anti-Catholic play director Robert Rosen:

Though it doesn’t debut until March 1, Rosen says he already considers “The Pope and the Witch” a success. “And we haven’t even begun rehearsals yet,” he says. “The amount of talk, Internet talk and print has been amazing.”



Both people who purport to be "good Catholics", and people who support the play think that they are logical in stating that Catholic outrage has fueled publicity for the play. But let's remember how Satan works.

I'd like to use another example, taken from Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". Remember in the Agony in the Garden, Satan whispered sweetly yet menacingly into Jesus' ear, saying, "A man cannot take on the sin of the world..."

Satan always tries to discredit; he tries to stem the tide of affront to his work, for the battles fought by believers against Him always leaves him crushed, as opposed to his own hellish goals. So it goes that when people say, "Your protest only fuels support for X endeavor", it is really Satan running scared, doing all in his power to intimidate so that we will be quiet and stand down.

And that is exactly what play supporters are trying to do by saying that the letters written by we protesters only fuel publicity. This very claim should cause us all to open our eyes and see what is at work here; and it sure ain't the stagehands. Everyone in support of this play gives witness to their position as pliable puppets in the hands of the devil, and if we let them dissuade us from defending our faith, then we have lost. And folks, we Catholics can't afford another loss; we are under attack as it is. Why would we want to make it easy for the enemy?

And more false logic; supporters of any anti-Catholic agenda love to say that our outcry against that which offends us is "censorship", but I have YET to see a similar-themed attack against Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any other major religion. Yet we as Catholics are supposed to "buck up and take it". Fine, we can take some punches, but we have no problem in hurling spears back...and we tend to have very good aim.

Catholics, as a rule, are not violent people. We protest, but we don't bomb, nor do we threaten any such thing. We respect human life, and the rights of others to disagree. But that is not to say we are doormats. Far from it! Words carry weight, and a good logical defense is worth more than a few trite, unsupported words from a sulpher-smelling University with no leg whatsoever to stand on.

I know of a few Catholics who will not take this lying down, nor will we accept the ridiculous lack of logic in the "defense" taken up by the U of M and their brainwashed anti-Catholic supporters.

We will continue to speak out against this blatant attack against our faith, and we, encourage all of you to do the same.

I'd like to thank Anthony Flott for taking the time to publicize this issue at a national level, and for local bloggers Ray Marshall and Janice LaDuke for speaking out so strongly in defense of the Church.

And for you local Catholics who currently subscribe to substandard anti-Catholic poor-excuse-for-a-newspaper Star Tribune...isn't it time to cancel your subscription to them and purchase one for the National Catholic Register?

And don't forget to withhold cash from any U of M sponsered event, boycott any alumni requests for funds, and write to the appropriate authorities in protest of your tax dollars going to support a University that perpetuates, illegally, an affornt and demonstrable intolarance to your faith while hiding behind a pretext of "First Amendment Protection".

We have a right and a duty to stand up for the truth, and if we aren't willing to take the flack for speaking out on behalf of Jesus, then we don't deserve to call ourselves Christians.

Don't let the media or ignorant supporters of "Pope and the Witch" intimidate you from responding with righteous indignation to the insults layered upon you; If all those who call themselves "Catholic" would have the backbone to speak out, then this play would never again see the stage.

That's true power. Use it.