The Desire to be Known and Loved

Having worked with and around children for a several years now, I have an observation I've been pondering for quite some time.

A few years ago, the Pastor at the parish where I am employed went to visit the Kindergarten class. They had some questions to ask him; simple but VERY important things that told them all they needed to know about him, such as, "What is your favorite color?"  "What is your favorite animal?" "What is your favorite sport?". There were more, of course, but those questions told the children all that was important about Father as a human being. They were relational questions.

You see, the children already loved and respected Father but they wanted to know things about him to which they could relate. It was of IMMENSE importance that they learn about his favorite color, animal, and sport  to see if those things were also THEIR favorite things!

Of course, each time Father answered a question, all of the children would pipe up with THEIR favorite things and start telling him all kinds of stories about their own favorite colors, animals (pets!) and sports, and naturally, that required them to expound greatly in detail.

Father, being  a very organized sort, had a very difficult time getting a word in edgewise and left that particular class session just a little rumpled in spirit.

I remember him telling me about this and all I could do was laugh at the mental image. "Father, they just want to make sure you know them as well as they know you!"

This is what I've been pondering for so long. Yes, it's clear to anyone that the children wanted him to know them and that they wanted to know more about him. But why?

The answer is simple:  Love. 

Think about it. This is "Human Nature 101".  When we love someone, we want to be known by them. Maybe we already know them or think we do, but it becomes of the utmost importance to also be known. To be recognized. To identify with them on some level. To be loved back.

This is the foundation of friendship. First it is superficial (identifying with another on favorite ie superficial  things) and then it goes deeper. Before it can go deeper, though, one must learn about things specific to that person and help that person recognize things that are specific to us as individual human beings.

Because I am an adult employee in a church, and therefore must lead many events and come into contact with many youth volunteers, sometimes I become the focus of a particular need. When one of our youth come to me for direction on a project or offer to work with me, even if I'd rather handle that particular thing alone and delegate them elsewhere, I have learned to let them help in some way. It might be painting a decorative mural for the wall for Vacation Bible School. . It might be asking them to carry this little box of pens (that I could handle myself just fine)  to that location. It might be just to be patient and answer their various questions about the simplest or most unrelated things. It might be just to listen and encourage an interest in a particular subject.

In the end, their questions and their tales about themselves and their families (from age 5 or younger on up to teens!) isn't about the event at hand. It is rather a simple request from one human being to another:  "Please recognize me. Please love me and let me tell you what I want you to love about me and how God made me!"

What I've noticed especially is that children love to talk. When they have learned to trust adults in their lives, they reveal everything. They latch on to their favorite people and tell them as many tales as they can about everything they know. They try to imitate that adult (or teen, even!). They will reveal their very souls and all this is really just an elaborate way for one human to connect with another. To say, "Please love me as much as I already love you!"

This behavior doesn't end with childhood; it's part of what adults do every day, too, although the form it takes is much more refined. 

Do you know why it's so hard to get volunteers for ANY given event, and why some need a personal phone call? Because a general call for volunteers isn't enough for some people. They need a little extra "I love you and know you so I'm calling you personally to take on this task."

We live in a world of broken families; families that have bourne children, now adults, in need of love that a shattered family simply couldn't provide when it was most necessary in their individual formation.. When a child comes to you and shares their heart, be open to them. Smile, even if you are sad about something. Smile, even if you are angry or stressed out. Take a moment  to enjoy the happiness of a child who is expressing that they love you and love you so much they want you to love them, too.

Do the same thing with adults because they, too, are the children they have always been, and they, too, are looking for someone to love them and to know them for who they are as fellow children of God.

As with young children, know when to encourage, know when to correct, know when to discipline. Human relationships can be very complicated, but everything comes down to one simple thing:

 What does the sacrifice that is true love for another human being, knowing they have been called to life with Christ for eternity, demand of you right now? 

And pray...

Pray for Our Lord to help you discern that answer in union with His Most Sacred and Merciful Heart!

Man in Relation to the Angels

Hello, friends, long time no see!  Tonight I am answering a couple questions the very patient Jose' asked me MONTHS ago!

Here is his question:

The question is on the Angels and where we stand in relation to them in the "Great Hierarchy". 


When I speak to most Protestants I find that they believe that it is man's destiny to surpass Angels and stand nearer to God than they. Essentially, that Angels are closer to God FOR NOW because of man's fallen nature, but that man was once closer to God than Angels in the time of Adam and Eve, and that humans shall be raised higher than Angels once again one day. Man, as God originally made him, is higher than the Angels. 


Yet, as I watch EWTN I often find individual Theologian's often putting Angels closer to God than man, by nature. In Psalm 8 we find a line that says "Only a Little lower than the Angels you made us", and that to me sort of sealed the deal in favor of Angels, by nature, being closer to God. Recently, though, I have found that not all translators say the same in that Psalm. Some Translators actually say the PSalmist writes "Only a little lower than GOD you made us." ...That tips the scale in favor of my Protestant friends' belief that MAN has the higher nature, fallen as it currently is. What do you think?

Great question!

To answer it I looked not only to Sacred Scripture, but also to the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas who, of course, is far wiser than I am!

First, to Scripture. I went to my  1966 Jerusalem Bible and inquired there first, with the passage in question:  Psalm 8:5.

The Psalm states:

YHWH, our Lord,
how great your name throughout the earth!
Above the heavens is your majesty chanted
by the mouths of children, babes in arms.
You set your stronghold firm against your foes
to subdue enemies and rebels.
I look up at your heavens, made by your fingers,
at the moon and stars you set in place -
ah, what is man that you should spare a thought for him,
the son of man that you should care for him?
Yet you have made him little less than a god,
you have crowned him with glory and splendour
made him lord over the work of your hands,
set all things under his feet,
sheep and oxen, all these
yes, wild animals too,
birds in the air, fish in the sea
travelling the paths of the ocean.
YHWH, our Lord,
how great your name throughout the earth!

Now that we have the Psalm in front of us, we can consider the proper context. Notice first that the word "god" in this translation is not capitalized. The footnote for verse 8 states, ""The author is thinkin gof man in comparison with the mysterious beings that constitute the court of YHWH, Ps 29:1+, the 'angels' of Greek and Vulg. see Cf. Ps 45:6+"

With those directions, I look to Psalm 29:1:

"Pay tribute to Yahweh, you sons of God,
tribute to Yahewh of glory and power,
tribute to Yahweh of the glory of his name,
worship Yahweh in his sacred court." 

Psalm 45:6  

"Your throne, God, shall last for ever and ever..."

Then I went to look at the margin to see what directions this Bible gives me for  understanding Psalm 8:5.

It references Gen 1:26-28:

"God said, 'Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wold beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth."

and Wisdom 2:23:

"Yet God did make man imperishable,
he made him in the image of his own nature;
it was the devil's envy that brought death into the world,
as those who are his partners will discover."

and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 17:1-4

"The Lord fashioned man from the earth,
to consign him back to it.
He gave them so many days' determined time,
he gave them authority over everything on earth."

Taking all those scriptures into consideration, it is clear that God did not establish Man to be above the angels. First, in looking at the Psalm itself in its full context, the Psalm indicates Man was granted dominion over the earth and the creatures of the earth; to wit, all the works of God's hands here on earth. Man, too, was fashioned from the earth he rules.

Looking also at the fact that the word "god" is not capitalized, the footnotes in the Bible ring true; the word is not referencing the Lord, and doesn't use the Tetragrammaton as it uses throughout the rest of the Psalm when speaking of the Lord. Rather, the reference to "mysterious beings" and the common language of the Greeks for "gods", used poetically to mean "angels" in the Hebrew context does make sense. Therefore, the Psalmist was not saying that Man had ever been higher than the angels. If so, where is the reference to Man being set above the angels? It isn't there.

Secondly, then, I looked to St. Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologica, Q108. Article 8, Reply 2, he states, "The angels according to the order of nature are between us and God".


Now, that brings us to your second question:

I am aware that there is ONE human being that has risen above the Angels. That is, of course, the Queen of Angels the Holy Virgin Mary. Yet, I must consider that she is hardly the answer to that question. She is, after all, a VERY VERY SPECIAL human being. God touched her nature in a very special way at her very Conception. She had a very special relationship to God in His human life on Earth. And of course there is her EXTRAORDINARY virtue to consider. She has the whole package in a way no other human, that isn't also God, has had or will ever have again. If we were talking math and statistics, I would consider the Virgin Mary an OUTLYER than skews the results. I can't help but think, "Yeah, SHE is held in Higher esteem by our Lord than the Angels, but....Who ELSE could God hold closer to our older brothers, the Angels, than she? There can't be anyone else."

The Angels were created as pure spirit and in the beginning, had free will. It was the creation of Man and God's plan of salvation that brought about the division of angels and demons;  those who, led by Lucifer, cried out, "Non serviam! I will not serve!" made their final choice in that moment. That was the, for lack of a better term (in my vocabulary in any case) the particular judgment of the spiritual beings we call "Angels".  After that point, Angels no longer had free will because it was not and is not necessary.  Angels are more intelligent than we are, they are always privy to the Divine Processions, always gaze upon the face of God, and always did.

Man was not created with the intelligence, or even the capacity for the intelligence of the Angels. Man was never higher than the angels (except for Mary).

As you alluded to, through the action of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, God did indeed create Mary immaculately, preserving her from the stain of sin, and to her, He gave jurisdiction over the Angels. This is why she is called "Queen of the Angels" in one of her titles. It is why in art that the Archangel Gabriel kneels before her; the art is revealing this truth of who she was and more importantly, who she was asked to bear. It was her fiat that brought salvation into the world, and for this reason, she has been elevated the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Queen of Angels, Queen of Heaven.

Keep in mind that Mary also had free will; she could have refused the Angel's message. She could have said "no". But no, she bowed her head and in joyful humility proclaimed, "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to Thy Word."

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

We know how this story ends!

I hope that helps, Jose, and I hope my very brief, in-a-nutshell explanation suffices! Please let me know where I have been unclear or of course, if I botched an explanation. This, of course, is not meant to be an entire theology of the angels, but there are some wonderful books out there that cover the subject. I believe. Fr. Groeschel has one and I can think of a few others as well. Unfortunately I can't recall their titles so hopefully someone will happen along and help us out!

God Breathes - Man Receives - and Reciprocates

It occurs to me upon watching August Rush for the umpteenth time (I'm a slow learner), that the pipe organ scene that makes me cry EVERY TIME I watch it has a deeper meaning.

I connect it of course to the Mass, for as a teen I was a cantor mostly accompanied by the Pipe Organ, always wondering why my Mom was head-over-heels for it. In my life it seemed merely consequential. In fact, at the time, I hated cantoring for the Organ and  preferred piano for its unwavering 5th grade simplicity. It didn't challenge me, ergo I could sing with it, without ever being challenged beyond the level of elementary music.

Now, as I hear the gloriousness of the Pipe Organ through August Rush, even though my own parish has the premier Pipe Organ in the entire Archdiocese, I so rarely hear it.  Every time I do, via film or in real life, I am brought to my knees, and when is my own parish, and I hear it during the Sacred Liturgy, I am not just brought to my knees, but to tears for it so brings me to God as it is designed.

You see, the Pipe Organ hearkens back to Genesis...it gives back to God what He gave to Man (to US as humanity for the theologically-challenged among us).

God gave us (Man) life by breathing into Adam and therefore, all his progeny (US!).

The Pipe Organ is man expelling that breath back to God in holiness, a response of thanksgiving, supplication, praise, and sacrifice in ultimate worship.

Take a deep breath. Now expel it with all your force, knowing others are doing so the same time as you during Mass - all over the world, in every time and every century, including now and eternity beyond us all. 

That is what the Pipe Organ represents and why, as described in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document on the Mass, holds it in such high and necessary regard.

When such a noble instrument falls silent we lose our liturgical life and the worship due unto God in its complete fullness.

Explains a lot about our sad liturgical times, doesn't it?

Fallen Heroes

Over the last few months, when my brother and I have gotten together we've been renting the "Twilight" movies and syncing them with RiffTraxx, which is a humorous voice-over commentary ripping on a given movie. Having heard the "Twilight" riffs were hilarious, we decided it was the ONLY way to watch the series of movies, and of course, we split our sides doing so.

Understand that the viewer controls the volume of the actual movie, and it's important to be able to hear the lines as often the commentary references them. So it was that yes, I watched the Twilight movies (well, through "Eclipse" and observed a few patterns that sadden me.

Initially, I wondered what the draw was on this particular series. While I don't mind the fictional premise, the way it plays out is surprisingly overly-emo and totally...depressing. Yes, really. We got to the end of the second movie and thought it both went on for WAY too long and quite honestly, if I'd been watching it without RiffTraxx I might well have hung myself by the end. (Yes, this is hyperbole!)

Having watched three of them now, though, I considered the patterns. What is the draw of these angst-filled, dark, depressing, overly-emo movies?

The answer came to me at Adoration yesterday and  perhaps more fully this morning at Mass, on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. It seems odd, doesn't it, to have such a weird Epiphany on such a Holy day in such a Holy season, doesn't it? At the same time, that is how Christ comes to us; in the darkness, in our struggles, as we ponder the profoundly wounded part of our human nature; the nature Jesus took on to restore and glorify.

Bella, the protagonist of the Twilight series, is a teenage girl who happens to be "in love with" an animated corpse and his corpse family (Yeah, they're vampires, but they are non-living ergo, they are corpses and not human any longer), and this corpse is "in love" with her, while at the same time, so is a Werewolf. And "poor Bella" is for some inexplicable reason at the center of everything and constantly being rescued by the Vampire and Werewolf families who are always having to protect her...even dying to do so. And they won't let her participate much in her own salvation. She's supposed to just go along for the ride, and while she's unconscious or bleeding again or sleeping because she nearly died of hypothermia out of pure stupidity (as portrayed by the movie), we are subject to long monologues and dialogues and much pontificating over who loves her the most and who is best for her...etc etc etc. It goes on and on and gets to be quite tiresome.

Now..I get it. There's a wounded heroine in Bella that calls to the wounded depths in many of us, which makes sense; we as humanity are wounded. Bella is young, vulnerable, and for some reason, an object of desire. She yearns for eternal love, and this is true of all of us. We were all created to love and to be loved by God for eternity.

Yet as usual, "love" is misunderstood. Too often "love" is shown to be so one-dimensional, something for self-fulfillment, perhaps something that calls for a little sacrifice...but only a little. Nothing too painful but then again, that's ok when there's a weird hero there to save the day.

And what weird heroes start to appear in fiction and even real life when "love" is so badly warped as it is in our society. A vampire as one's true love and hero? A Werewolf to carry and comfort one? How does that work?

Objective Salvation - the Truest Hero

This morning at Mass I pondered the Crucifix and the humility of Christ, who entered the world in the same way He left it: through a cave. He came humbly, born into the filth of animal dung and laid in a container marked with the saliva of camels, sheep, and oxen. He came quietly for no one wanted Him then, He came to die even for those who did not believe and did not care or know that He ever existed, and He left the world as a criminal, accursed.

And yet, Jesus entered human history "in the fullness of time", entered into our suffering in all ways except sin, for it was our sins He came to redeem. It was our suffering He dignified and called us to unite with His own, which He suffered entirely on our behalf. Jesus comes to us silently and does not "rescue" us in Hollywood Drama, but lifts us up to the supernatural level that does not render us dead or mutated, but rather, makes us fully human and fully alive - for eternity.  

The world desires heroes with great film presence and lofty lists of triumphs against dubious enemies. The world desires heroes that transform  us but - into something non-human. The world demeans humanity while it pretends to elevate it. The world wants a hero that will save the "victims" and not require the victim to lift a finger to save herself. And the victim only wants to be saved from a life of mediocrity and elevated to the mere trophy of a hero who really isn't that heroic. And in the case of Twilight, the hero is, respectively, a blood-sucking corpse living eternal death, and an apparently-stinky guy who turns into a large canine at will. The heroes in such fiction are fallen and yes, perhaps there is a draw there, as well, for we have been conditioned to believe man cannot be perfected and cannot be saved.

In so many ways, every day I look around me, observing our culture through our entertainment, world events, daily interactions, and I fear that we, as a culture, throughout the world, have lost hope. It's not just in popular fiction, but in what our culture clearly values. Our "heroes" are actors with addictions and political agendas, and athletes making obnoxious amounts of money while running dog-fighting rings on the side and maybe running over cops just because they can afford the lawyers to get them off the hook for stuff for which a normal citizen would be penalized to the extent of the law and maybe beyond.

Our cultural heroes are all fallen images of the darkest side of human nature. They have no objective morality, nothing that is consistent, nothing that can be measured and nothing anyone would really want to follow...yet they do. The moral relativism of our society reveals a lack of hope.

This morning I gazed upon the crucifix and pondered how it rose out of the wood of the manger, for as the Church Fathers observed and theologians continue to observe, the wood of the manger and wood of the cross are one and the same. They cannot be separated, and our hero has not fallen...He is risen! And when He rose, He descended to the depths of Hell and ascended to open the gates of Heaven, having restored the dignity of human nature, having, freely paid the ransom for we who choose to be victims of sin.

We do not merit so great a Redeemer! 

Jesus does not strut or preen before us, seeking our popular adulation. He simply IS, and He comes to us, truly, substantially, His very Presence, through the Sacraments. He reaches all of our senses and waits for our response. He is a gentleman who, although created us without our permission, will not save us without our cooperation.

In the eyes of Christ, we are no longer victims, but Children of the Father, brothers and sisters, and subject to His Mother who intercedes on our behalf so that we may cooperate with God's grace more completely. That is not to say Jesus did not accomplish all, but rather, that He is more greatly glorified when we reach out to Him and CHOOSE the path of righteousness and holiness. He is glorified more perfectly when we CHOOSE to turn from sin and fight our temptations, growing, deliberately, in virtue. God is glorified when we embrace the virtues He gives us instead of giving into the temptations that seek to destroy us.

God's Grace is freely given, but it's not cheap; it requires our own participation, our own sacrifices, because becoming fully human wasn't one moment in history; it is constant, for all of us. We are pilgrims on this earth, also born into filth and we will never be fully free and fully redeemed until we move from this world and into eternal glory, should we choose to love God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our strength.

A real hero doesn't leave a wake of victims but elevates and transforms them, making them ever more human and ever more divine, as God always intended.

Thank you, Jesus.

**  *** **

[AUTHOR'S NOTE:  This is not intended to be a review of Twilight or exploration of all themes within the books or movie. The use of Twilight characters is incidental and used to illustrate a far more important point.]

Annoyance and the Saints

Hold onto your hats and your pews, friends! This post is going to be half rant half meditation!

Some days I just weep for the state of our parishes and the souls within them - and the very fact that our fallen nature has created our circumstances. Which, ironically, is why we go to Mass.

This morning I attended Mass, arrived early in order to pray. Several others arrived as well, as the church was relatively quiet. Then some families arrived with their fussy children, and more people arrived, and then came a couple who sat behind me, loudly talking to each other.

Recollection gone.  I tried to "offer it up" and be patient. I failed miserably.

They continued with mindless chit-chat, almost in my ear. Or both ears, as it were. I was resigned to the fact this is what Mass was going to be like, until I heard one of them comment, "I really don't like children."

To my surprise, rather than being angry, I was overwhelmed with sadness. Dislike children!? I realized many young ones were crying at that moment, and there was a child in front of me actively playing and talking to his mother. But they didn't bother me nearly so much as the couple behind me talking loudly and stating how much they dislike children.

I'll admit I used to get distracted by children, and quite annoyed by them. Over time, though, I have come to not really notice if they are crying, but rather, if they are silent. A parish devoid of children is a dying parish. I thank God my parish is vibrant and filled with the cries of children! Glory be to God! Alleluia!

And then comes this couple desiring to quash that, while their behavior was far, far worse.

Yes, I was annoyed.

I was annoyed by many things today, and struggled to pray. The music was so theologically bad that I missed the psalm and had to page through and read it for myself.  As the Feast of the Ascension is transferred to the 7th Sunday of Easter in my diocese, today's Gospel, MT 28:16-20 proclaims:  (say it with me!)

 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,

baptizing them in the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

So, did you catch that? Jesus told us to GO FORTH AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM AND TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THAT JESUS HAS COMMANDED US.

Then our communion hymn sang about bread, and our closing hymn was "As A Fire is Meant for Burning", containing the words:

Not to preach our creeds or customs,

but to build a bridge of care,

UM, WHAT!? How in the world does that line up with the Gospel COMMAND to preach our creeds and customs?

How do we celebrate the Ascension, hear the command of Christ to go forth and evangelize, and then leave church having just sung that we just have to be nice to everybody, but for the love of God, don't, under any circumstances, preach our faith or baptize anyone!??????

Folks, it's no wonder Catholics aren't out there evangelizing and living out today's Gospel command: we undermine ourselves before we even leave the building.

Here's the danger in singing such bad music:  the Arian heresy spread by music. The Arians were great marketers and spread their bad theology through a catchy tune. That overcame the True teachings of the Faith, thus confusing people and leading them into heresy. The brain remembers and repeats music (ever got a bad earworm? Yeah, exactly).  So thousands of people are going to leave today singing all about how we should be nice but never evangelize.

Yes, that annoys me. And it SHOULD. It should annoy YOU, too. It explains a lot about the state of  many Catholics today, doesn't it?

Meditation on what it means to be annoyed

Today, as I fought those annoyances, as always, I tried to think about the Saints. People are people in every age, and Saints were  people, too.

It is a temptation in our age to glorify the Saints so much so that we forget their humanity. We read their writings and we are in awe of their holiness, seeking to learn from them how to follow Christ. If they can do it, WE can do it, right?

Unfortunately, we fall into this weird trap of thinking the Saints were somehow robotic and didn't get annoyed, or angry. We seem to think the Saints were nice to people all the time, and that's why they became Saints: that they learned not to "feel" anything.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Saints were all human beings and you know what? They got ANNOYED with people and situations! And I'm really glad I don't have to hear what St. Padre Pio would be saying about the music we sing at Mass in our age! I'm glad I don't have to watch St. Thomas Aquinas roll in his grave. I'm glad I don't have to withstand the fiery preaching of St. Paul or the ranting of St. Jerome.

Did you know that St. Francis de Sales had such a massive temper that after his death, they found GROOVES under his writing desk, where he took out his frustrations by scratching the underside repeatedly in effort to control his anger?

And yet, we read his writings, all of which are so gentle and wise. We are led to believe that he was always calm, recollected, and no, not ever angry.

No, St. Francis de Sales was a human being like the rest of us, and he got annoyed.  Without looking at who he was as a human being, we divorce his writings from him as though they could stand alone and be enough. The truth is that St. Francis de Sales, as well as other Saints, wrote from experience, they wrote through their temptations, and they wrote in such a way so as to preach holiness to themselves as well as to others. They were not separate from their spiritual direction; they lived it, too.

It was actually a consolation to me today to reflect upon the humanity of the Saints.

Is Being Annoyed a Sin?

Often I read about liturgical abuses or other things that set people off, and there are always a few jokers in the various com-boxes who suggest there is something wrong with the person who is annoyed. Maybe that's true; we are all sinners, and we do often let our annoyances turn into some kind of personal sin.

I think more often, though, the opposite of that criticism is true:  there's something missing in a human who refuses to be annoyed, for they are repressing their own humanity in a false understanding of what it means to be holy.

It is not a sin to be annoyed or irritated. It would qualify as a passion, I think. It's not anger, but can lead to anger, and anger alone is not a sin. The emotion of annoyance or irritation is simply that: something that tells us something is wrong. Compare it to a bug bite: when we are bitten, we are tempted to scratch at it because it itches! It can be really awful, and so we think about that bite and ponder it and feel that itch and then scratch and scratch until it finally bleeds, and maybe we keep scratching even THEN. And then it might get infected.

Or... we could just feel the annoyance, realize it's there and there's nothing we can do about it, or maybe spray a little Benadryl on it to control the histamine reaction. The bug bite is still there, but we've chosen a different way to handle it.

See the difference? Annoyance is nothing more than a spiritual bug bite. We can zap it by embracing it with virtue or we can scratch at it and let it get infected. The latter is a sin. The former turns it into a path to holiness.

At Mass today,  I hold that I was right to be annoyed: by people talking loudly when they should have been observing silence out of respect to others, annoyed by people claiming they hate children (loudly), annoyed by bad theology. If we aren't annoyed by those things, then we are completely unaware of what Mass is about. That's a problem. Annoyance is actually a gift from God. It is what we DO with annoyance that makes a difference.

We will all struggle with that for our entire lives. Mass equips us through the Sacraments and through the experience of other people who are fallen just like us.

How did the Saints react?  

It is important to learn from the Saints: how did THEY handle things that bothered them, rightly or not?

When we take a look at their writings and biographies, we witness that they sought to overcome their annoyances through practicing the Virtues. They practiced patience by not turning around and slapping offenders who mouthed off in church. They practiced fortitude by being patient throughout the Mass. They considered how much God loves even the most annoying among us. They resolved to love children and their haters more in order to overcome hatred in themselves. When confronted with bad theology, they sought to educate others so that they would know the Truth about God.

 The Saints, when annoyed,  looked to God and said, "Dear God I am so annoyed right now I could spit! Most Adorable Jesus, please grant me peace so that I might love others as you love me in spite of my own faults!"   

The Saints struggled just as we do. That doesn't mean they weren't holy: it means they learned how to handle annoyance and not allow it to degenerate into sin.  They didn't entertain it, but tried to let it change their hearts, not to a position of denial, but as a revelation of Truth and Divine Charity.

St. Catherine of Siena wrote in her "Dialogue" that we obtain every virtue through other people. She knew this well: she was annoyed sometimes, too. She was highly annoyed by the Pope during the Avignon captivity and called him to conversion, and back to Rome in no uncertain terms.

Let us all learn to handle annoyance by following the example of the Saints. We should not fear annoyance, but embrace it and allow it to change our hearts so that we might grow in faith, hope, and charity.

May God grant us all the grace to become Saints through the annoyances in our lives.

St. Joseph and the Liturgy

I've long had a deep devotion to St. Joseph, but I've never considered him in the context of Sacred Liturgy. Reginaldus at The New Theological Movement has posted a brilliant reflection on St. Joseph as a model for priests, especially with regard to the Mass.

The following is an excerpt from the post which struck me as especially astute (emphasis mine):

The need for manly devotion in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy


The feminization of the Holy Mass is a serious problem in the modern Church. It is not that the Liturgy must be utterly masculine, especially if this be understood in such a way as to exclude women from participating (remembering, of course, that the truest and most active participation is spiritual and internal). Nevertheless, there is a growing recognition of the fact that the sanctuary is becoming a place where men (and boys) are losing their manhood and becoming more like women – this may then have the odd counter-effect of making some women act like men, but that is a problem for another article.


What are some indications of this feminization of the Liturgy and, together with it, of the men (and boys) who serve at the Sacred Rites? Consider, for instance, the hyper-relational emphasis of the modern Liturgy (rather, of the Liturgy as it is often celebrated in modern times). The focus is all too often turned from sacrifice to salutation, from worship to welcome. Obviously, greeting and welcome have their proper place in the Liturgy, but adoration and sacrifice must not be ignored. This movement from offering adoration through sacrifice to greeting and welcome is certainly an indication of a movement from a masculine to a feminine perspective – not that all men want to offer sacrifice, nor that all women want to build community; but these are certainly underlying drives in each gender, respectively. Nor do we say that one is bad and the other good – it only need be emphasized that the male priest (and the altar boys) are very often pressured to deny the masculine sacrificial focus in order to accentuate a more feminine form of community-building. Indications of this would be the use of modern hymns and modern musical instruments, increased “commentary” and ad lib speaking, the placement of the altar closer to the nave, and (above all else) facing the people throughout the Liturgy.

I couldn't agree more! Please go on and read the rest so as to get the full context.

This section was especially striking to me because I've touched on this topic before and of course with my own growing understanding of sacred liturgy, it is one of the modern problems that absolutely makes me crazy when it comes up at deanery meetings and the like. All too often, it seems like the (generally female) laity "in charge" of various parishes are in favor of stripping beauty, making us "more like other faith traditions" and push female "participation" in various liturgical roles.

Sadly, instead of highlighting the proper gifts of women, it seems to turn well-meaning and faithful women in to puppets for those with an agenda of power and the result, which we witness every day, is the "feminization" Reginaldus describes.

The reality is that the Mass NEVER needed to be "feminized".

Certainly some abuses needed to be curtailed and some development needed to occur, as it has, organically throughout the centuries, but the average person never foresaw the destruction and the "wrath of woman" that has done so much damage to our sanctuaries, our architecture, our patrimony...and therefore our sacred liturgy.

The Church as Bride

The Liturgy is, quite literally, the face of the Church. When we speak to non-Catholics, they know us by the Mass we attend every Sunday, and maybe every day. I've known many people who have attended Catholic weddings, funerals, and that was their only real contact with Catholicism. When they look at a Catholic, they are less likely to see our beliefs, but recall vividly our liturgy.

(Never mind there shouldn't be that kind of disconnect - but there it is.)

The Church is already feminine - deeply, deeply feminine. The Church as a whole is the Bride of Christ, and Holy Communion, the consummation of that Holy and Eternal Marriage. In the Mass, the Bridegroom offers Himself as an immolation for His Bride, and the Bride approaches, open to receive Him and offer fully of herself in sacred union.

This is why many Cathedrals and other churches built in the traditional style have a canopy (Baldacchino) over the high altar; it represents this spousal relationship between God and His people.

Look around you in a beautiful parish:  there is stained glass full of symbolism pointing to the purity of the Saints, the sacrifices they made, colors representing universal understanding of things like martyrdom, betrayal, royalty, purity, chivalry...the list goes on. The light of the sun falling through the glass is an adornment upon the Bride, reflected through the jewels created by human hands for the Glory of God. The statues of Mary, Jesus and the Saints are breathtaking, often adorned with floral arrangements, and established within a parish to give proper significance to them in relation to the people, the parish, and the Church as a whole. These things point to eternity and speak volumes of the sensuality and intuitiveness proper to the nature of women.

The clothing worn by the priests and altar servers are made often by women - nuns who have given their lives to their Lord -Brides in the individual sense, with Him, laying their lives down in sacrifice proper to a spouse. The chausables from any time in history therefore have a woman's touch, a sense of beauty that both pleases the eye and guides one to meditate upon eternity.

Consider the architecture of a great Cathedral or beautiful Church, and compare it to the beauty of a woman, perhaps as described in the Song of Songs. People of many faiths, and none at all, visit Catholic Cathedrals, Basilicas, and Churches as tourists, in awe of the magnificence.  One cannot help, when entering these buildings, but to recognize the feminine nature of our ancient decor.

And then contrast it with the more "feminized" buildings, vestments, and "art" of the modern culture - and wonder if someone drank too much kool-aid and decided to take up the hobby of the destruction of beauty.

The Masculinity of the Priesthood

As Reginaldus discusses, St. Joseph is the epitome of masculine worship. He is a protector, he knows about sacrifice, suffering, and in all that, was a compliment to his spouse and a father to Our Lord.

The nature of the priesthood is both one of service and sacrifice. There is a hard practicality to that sacred Vocation which is informed by the feminine nature of the Church as a whole, yet reinforced with a solid foundation so as to stand as a bulwark against the winds that try to buffet her about.

The Church needs BOTH of these natures, the masculine and feminine, in order to bear fruit, and do so abundantly.

The disorder we've been both witness to and suffered from in the last 50 years or so has confused the nature of the liturgy and has caused great divisions among the faithful. I truly believe that this is one of the reasons John Paul II wrote the Theology of the Body, and that this series of Wednesday Audiences was the harbringer of Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical reforms.

I have no solutions to offer, but post this only as an observation. I don't speak for any particular faction within the Church, but only as a faithful Catholic woman who has found freedom in the privilege of being a woman through understanding the true nature of the Church and her relationship to her head, the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ.

St. Joseph...pray for us! 

To Amend My Life, Amen!

Have you ever pondered the wording of the Act of Contrition, we pray in Confession, “I firmly resolve, with the help of your grace, to confess my sins, do penance, and amend my life. Amen.”

I have, time and time again, especially if I’ve just confessed the same laundry list of sins for the 100th time. I’ve even confessed THIS problem to the priest with a fiery statement, “I am NEVER going to commit that sin again! I do not want to have to confess it again!”

Of course, at the time, I meant it with all my soul (or so I hoped), and I further hoped that by stating it within the context of the Sacrament, it would be all the more true, and take on more weight in my own memory and intention to “amend my life. Amen!"

I recall, though, that when I stated those vehement words, the gentle rebuke of the priest who expressed hope that certainly I could do better in the future, to take care not to lose hope should I fall again…and again…and again. He reminded me that’s why we had the Sacrament of Confession; because we are weak and in need of God’s grace.

Recently, as part of my Lenten practices, I have been trying to spend more time in Lectio Divina and I am focusing, of course, on Our Lord’s Passion. Although I started with Luke 22:39 (Jesus’ Agony in the garden), in comparing that account with that of the other gospels, I also found myself meditating on the event previous to His Agony: Peter’s vehement, passionate declaration that even though others would fall away, he never would.

Matthew 26:31-35:

Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night for it is written: I will strike the shepherd....


“Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. But after I am raised up I will go before you to Galilee. Peter declared to him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away. Jesus said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you I will not deny you.” And so said all the disciples.

Read the passage again, paying attention to the bold: Peter, in his zeal, in his deep love for Jesus, in his heart converted and dedicated to the Son of God, spoke truthfully when he claimed he would never fall away. The idea was absolutely repulsive to him, and clearly, his intent was absolute loyalty. Absolute faith. Absolute trust.

Jesus knew better, though, didn't He? He knew what Peter would do, and in revealing that Peter would deny him, Jesus was not chastizing, but spoke gently and with great love. He knew that this, too must be.

We know that Jesus' prediction came to pass, for indeed, Peter denied Jesus three times, stating that he did not know Him.

Luke 22:60-63 :

But Peter said, Man, I do not know what you are saying. And immediately while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

It had to happen this way; Peter had to learn the depth of his weakness.

So must we all.

When we go to Confession, or even in private prayer swear we will never committ a certain sin again, or if we are on fire for our Faith, vow that we will "never fall away, even if others do", we are forgetting who we are. Indeed, such zeal is laudable and even necessary, for we should all be so fired up with love for God!

Yet, as Jesus knows, fall we will, not once, not even just three times, but many.

I love the passage from Luke. Peter hears the cock crow just as he's stated his third, most adamant denial of Christ, and this sound brings him back to Himself. He looks up to see Jesus gazing at him, and recalls the words of Our Savior, and realizes...Jesus knew. And He still went to the Cross...for him.

Jesus didn't have to say anything; Peter was able to recognize the depths of his own weakness and in his grief, "he went out and wept bitterly."

Have we not done the same thing ourselves, in recognition of our weakness? In recognition that without His grace, we cannot overcome our sins?

We promise Him we will stand by Him, but eventually, we all fall and must get back up.

The other lesson I like to take from Peter's denials is this:  if Peter had not been following Jesus so closely, and trying to hard to live up to the promise he had made, to not fall away like the others, he would not have been in a position to deny Jesus.

In other words, Peter entered the battle. He braved the darkness, the hostility of the crowds, risking recognition even as he faltered. Yes, he fell, but had he not fallen, he would not have been able to recognize the depth of his own need, and he therefore would not have been so quick to respond when he sighted Jesus on the shore after His Resurection.

He knew Christ because he risked everything to follow Him, including failure! In fact, it was in his very darkest failure that he found such a deep encounter with Divine Mercy, culminating for Peter personally in his three confessions of love upon the the shore.

Each time we go to Confession, we should remember that we are entering into Love, and in so doing, by admitting our own faults, our sins, our moral failures, we are at the same time confessing a far greater love for God than for our sins.

St. Peter...pray for us!

"Do You Know Me?"

When I was in college, it was a tumultuous time, as I sought to both learn practical knowledge and, as the cliche says, who I was.

Well, one out of two ain't bad: I gained a great deal of knowledge designed to further a career, but it didn't teach me squat about what I was (or am) as a human being.

That is not to say I was abandoned, however, although it seemed that way at times especially the Christmas I spent alone after my Dad's death.

In fact, I had a friend who faced down death in the form of cancer. For a time he'd been in the seminary, and that time had bolstered his own faith. I remember one evening at a party, quite a secular one, where among a few of us, spirituality had become a topic and in particular, the call to Holiness and the reality of Death.

I can still remember my friend looking me in the eye, speaking of Particular Judgment and in his gentle voice, hand against his own chest, looking me straight in the eye and asking in the words of Jesus: "Do you know me?"

Jesus will ask us all, in that moment, "Do you KNOW Me?"

I'll never forget the agony in his eyes, unspoken, hopeful, even as he repeated the words.

"Do you know me?"

I resolved on the spot that if I didn't know Him...I wanted to.

And it took several years and I admit, quite shamefully now, that I wanted to know Him then because of what  He could "get" me, for you see, it took a long time to experience the true beginning of conversion.

Now I hear those words differently and reach out for Him in a different kind of agony. for as I see His pain, I can only offer my own, recognizing in that eternal question all of my years of rejection, of "doing it my way", and a deeply hidden fear that perhaps, maybe...by my choice...maybe I still don't really know Him.

Not for lack of His effort.

In His question I see the Cross as the Tree of Life and I kneel, weeping at the stone at its base, remembering the fruit of my downfall even as I reach for the fruit of salvation.

The other day while working on my Icon I was listening to Miriam Marston's song, "The Gardener", and as the song continued to penetrate my soul, I couldn't help but recall the words of my friend, those ancient words, the ancient question Our Lord asks of each of us, individually: "Do You Know Me?"

In Marston's song, she juxtaposes the theological reality of the Creator; the Gardener as St. Mary Magdalene meets Our Lord on the day of His Resurrection.

As she weeps in her grief he confronts her and she queries, "What do you care?  You're just the Gardener's Son". 

I can imagine His loving gaze as He replies so patiently to Mary Magdalene and to all of us, waiting for us to make the connection, and when He knows that we do or only wants to prompt that leap, He queries,  "Do you recognize me now?"

We are taken back to the Garden of Eden, the parable of the Master of the vineyard and his son murdered by the workers,  the Garden of Gethsemane, and ultimately the Garden where Jesus is laid to rest...and Rise.

We cannot help but recognize Jesus as the beloved Son, our eyes opened in wonder, in love, as we really see  the One sent by The Gardener to open the gates and restore us to original Beatitude..and beyond.

"Do you recognize me now?"

"The Gardener"** 

by Miriam Marston

A faint sign of gladness makes her pause in all her sadness

Fair and so faithful she throws aside careful

Hardly knowing what to expect

She makes her way over

Maybe it’s safe now it’s been a few days now

CHORUS:

And she started weeping as though she’d never cried before

She thought she’d lost the only one she’d loved

And three of the longest days of her life had come to this

Waiting by a stone

And then she saw the Gardener

He asked her how she’d been

“I’m sad and I’m scared but why do you care? You’re just a gardener’s son”

“Do you recognize me now?” (x3)

“Go tell all the others that you’ve met me

They might think that you’ve been drinking through the night

But don’t let all their doubts keep you away from me

The world will likely tell you it’s all in your mind

She comes to the home she’d left

Anxious and alone

But it’s more like a mansion now

Though she can’t yet mention how

Everything around her

seems infused with glory

Her hope expands as the world just stands still

CHORUS

And she started weeping as though she’d never cried before

She thought she’d lost the only one she’d loved

And three of the longest days of her life had come to this

Waiting by a stone

And then she saw the Gardener

He asked her how she’d been

“I’m sad and I’m scared but why do you care? You’re just a gardener’s son”

“Do you recognize me now?” (x 3)

“I’m here…I’m here...I’m here….”

None of us ever needs to ask Our Lord "Why do you care?"

Still, deep in our souls, we DO ask, and we NEED that answer, individually, and we need to eventually lift our eyes and hearts and souls to Jesus, who stands before us, simply waiting for us to recognize Him.

Wherever we are...He is HERE.

But....we still have to respond to that question, "Do you know Me?  DO YOU RECOGNIZE ME?"

** Go to the link, scroll down and find the song title to listen

Canon Law and Catholic Publications

Last week there was a huge fiasco regarding the iphone app for Roman Catholics, leading major media outlets to conclude, erroneously, that the Church had just approved the Sacrament of Confession outside of the Confessional. Why? Because "A Catholic Bishop gave the application an Imprimatur". Unfortunately, too many people don't know what that means and indeed, the terms and what they imply can be confusing if one is not familiar with them.

What does it mean for a publication to have Church approval?

As usual, definitions are important here; both of the subject matter and what "approval" entails.

I'm going to focus on, specifically, publications. This can include scripture translations, books, prayers, or as we're seeing recently, applications.  What does it take, then, for the Church to approve a publication? And if it is approved, what does that really mean? Does it change theology?

Let's look at the process involved, step by step,  in the publication of a document, the applicable Code of Canon Law, and what is revealed within that.

1.  First, the author of a publication submits it to the Local Ordinary (The Bishop).

2.  The Local Ordinary assigns a Censor to review the work. [The Bishop does not review the work himself]

Canon 830.1 states:

"The conference of bishops can compile a list of censors outstanding in knowledge, correct doctrine, and prudence to be available to diocesan curias or can also establish a commission of censors which local ordinaries can consult; the right of each local ordinary to entrust judgment regarding books to persons he approves, however, remains intact. "   (The Latin is far more precise that what can be translated in the vernacular). 

Note what the Canon states about the Censor:

1. Outstanding in knowledge
2. Outstanding in correct doctrine
3. Outstanding in prudence

Note that either the Conference of Bishops compiles this list for the sake of the diocesan curias or establishes a commission for the Local Ordinaries to consult.

Note further that the Local Bishop's authority over to whom he is willing to entrust a publication remains intact; of the pool of censors, that means the Local Ordinary still gets to choose who will review the work.

What about the obligations of the Censor?

 The Censor has an important role, and there's a great deal to it which also involves the obligations of the Bishop to both the Censor and the Author.

Canon 830.2 states:

In fulfilling this office, laying aside any favoritism, the censor is to consider only the doctrine of the Church concerning faith and morals as it is proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium.  

Nota Bene:

* The Censor cannot show favoritism 

* The Censor must consider ONLY the doctrine of the Church concerning faith/morals 

* That, as proposed by the magisterium [as opposed to popular fly-by-night ideas, etc.]

Canon 830.3 states:

A censor must give his or her opinion in writing: if is favorable, the ordinary, according to his own prudent judgment, is to grant permission for publication to take place, with his name and the time and place of the permission granted expressed. If he does not grant permission, the ordinary is to communicate the reasons for the denial to the author of the work.  

Let's take a look at that canon, because it reveals a great deal about the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

* A Censor must give his or her opinion in writing 

* If it is favorable,  [Nihil Obstat - "nothing obstructing"] the Bishop (according to his own prudent judgment, ie: does he trust the Censor?) MUST grant permission for the work to be published. 

* And, if this is the case, the Bishop must let it be published with his name, time, and place of the permission granted. [Imprimatur:  "It may be published"] 

* If the Bishop does not grant permission, he must communicate the reason for the denial to the author.

Let's use a simple example of this process. 

Let's just say I use my Master's degree to write a book about Catholic doctrine and its relevance to our culture today. It would be thousands of pages long, of course. It's also very likely every other student in my graduating class compiled the same kind of book with varying areas of specialization.

 Because of the subject matter of my book and the submissions of my friends, and the fact that we want to be taken seriously as legitimate theologians in contributing something to the Church, we submit our works to our local Bishop.

The Bishop doesn't look at the work himself; he's far too busy. Even if I knew him personally as a good friend, he probably still wouldn't read the book himself both to avoid the temptation of favoritism (explicitly prohibited by the Law) and because he's actually got better things to do - like preach and provide for the Sacraments.

Thus, as Canon Law established, the good Bishop takes my work and the work of all my fellow graduates and assigns each of these tomes to a Censor who has been appointed either by the Conference of Bishops or from a designated pool of Censors. In other words, he entrusts this work to, typically, a lay person with good  knowledge of doctrine and a sense of prudence.

Now, that appointed Censor might not like what I'm saying in my book, or may actually love it completely and want to make me a Saint because of it. However, the Censor cannot offer a visceral reaction. On the contrary, that Censor is obligated to objectively evaluate my book on the basis of Catholic faith and morals. Does anything I say in the book contradict the Faith outright?  Does it state something contrary to the moral teachings of the Church?

Mind you..there's a lot of leeway there...the Censor must use prudent judgment; perhaps some of my wording is imprecise and perhaps I don't work from definitions, and perhaps my work can be a bit wishy-washy in that regard. However, in the fair judgment of the Censor, does my work actually contradict, outright, the Faith and Morals of  Catholicism?

There are many factors there such as:  how well has this Censor been formed?  All theological degrees are not equal; the fact is, some universities are more faithful than others, some provide a more complete theology, others are...uh...lacking, to put it charitably. The fact is, the Censor is using his or her own judgment given their specific knowledge, no matter where it falls on the very broad spectrum. The Censor might actually be completely mis-informed about some areas of Catholic faith/morals, yet the Bishop may still trust his or her judgement with regard to my work.

So let's just say that the Censor read my thousand-page book and acted in accordance to Canon Law.  If he thought my work did not contradict Church teaching on faith and morals, he must give that approval in writing to the Bishop (Nihil Obstat - nothing obstructing), and the Bishop, unless he has reason to believe the Censor is way off, will accept that judgment and put his stamp (Imprimatur) on the publication...because he has to.

Now, to the contrary, if the Censor thought I was off my rocker, he must also tell the Bishop that, and even if the Censor gave his approval and the Bishop got an inkling maybe said Censor was wrong and looked further, discovering that I'm a total heretic, the Bishop must inform me that my work cannot be published and what I did wrong.  That would give me a chance to correct my book and then re-submit it. Or choose apostasy.

Does that make sense?

Further, does that help to reveal the fact that the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on various questionable publications does not serve as "Church approval" by any means?  There are some Bishops who are more prudent than others in those they allow to censor work in their name, as we all know.  There are also a large number of people, Catholics included, who take these "stamps" to mean that the Bishop himself read and approved certain things. I assure you he did not, but for perhaps a few rare cases.

As a friend of mine suggested, why doesn't the work get assigned to a Canon Lawyer?  Answer:  Canon Lawyers are overworked and underpaid as it is. They have even less time than the Bishop to read the myriad of works submitted!

That still leaves one question:

What kinds of publications must be submitted to the Local Ordinary?

According to Canon 824, Any writings intended for publication and distribution should be submitted.

More specifically:

* Can 826.3  Prayer books for public or private use - required submission.

* Can. 827  Catechisms and catechetical materials require approval of the local ordinary.

* Can 827.2 Textbooks of scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, or religious / moral disciplines require approval of "competent authority" in order to be used. (The authority referred to here may go beyond the local ordinary or require more than just the local Bishop's approval)

* Can 827.3 Books about about scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, religious / moral disciplines not used as textbooks are recommended to be submitted to the local ordinary  [the type of thing I'm most likely to write]

Where does that leave bloggers?

Good question, isn't it?

Well, this is where Canon Law has not caught up with social media, which itself is in a constant state of flux. All we bloggers can do is take what we have and see how the law applies. We are encouraged to use social media to share our faith, to evangelize, to teach. However, we ARE subject to canon law; virtue and prudence should be our guides in what we publish.

Certainly, we are not asked or required to submit our blogs to the Bishop for approval. However, if I decided to publish my blog as a Catholic book, intended for distribution, it would be recommended that I submit it to my Ordinary. If I wrote a more formal work on the theology of the Church, or compiled prayers, I would be required to submit it, which, naturally, makes sense. After all, in the latter case I would be doing so as an act formal to the role of theologian; I would be trying to contribute to the theology of the Church in some formal way.

Disclaimer: With all that said, and with all I have written here, although I have tried to do this faithfully and with reference to the materials I received in graduate school, and with reference to the specific Canons, I have to offer this disclaimer:  my blog is not approved by the Bishop. It has not been submitted to a Censor and it's quite possible I am wrong on some point or have stated something improperly. Blogs should NEVER be used for formal study, although they can be useful to point to further information.

It disturbs me, though, that so many people put their faith in the stamps "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" when really, those approvals mean very little. They are only as good as the understanding, faithfulness, and integrity of the person reading the work.

Keep that in mind the next time you look at a work, and judge it not by those designations but rather by the actual content of the publication.

Your soul is worth far more than a faulty Imprimatur or mistaken Nihil Obstat.

And your intellect is worth far more than the media's interpretation of Catholic terms they don't even try to understand.

Faith and reason go together, my friends. Know the terms, know what they mean, and if you don't understand them don't ever be afraid to ask!  :-)

Truth and Beauty

I would be remiss if I did not direct you to one of the most truthful posts about beauty you could ever read in the modern blogosphere:

Beauty makes the soul soar and it's as essential to the spirit as food and water is to the body. Yet it's mocked as sentimentality. Foolishness. It's wiped out of churches and removed from school curriculums. Even art school's favor is with modern art and beauty is turned into profanity.

On any given day I am not overly exposed to beauty. I sit in traffic each morning staring at grey asphalt, then I ride through treeless streets lined with ugly buildings and spend the remainder of my day in a cube. I imagine most people go through these typical mundanities daily and my day is not unlike the majority.

It used to be churches were where regular people could experience that overwhelming awe inspiring spiritual soaring. Churches used to make the soul sing for God. Beauty in the Church is essential. I don't want God brought down from the Heavens and made "relatable" to me. I want to carried up to Christ so I can meet Him there and be in awe surrounded by beauty.

People often justify their ugly little parishes by saying they don't believe in wasting money for garnishments, money that could serve the poor. Little do they realize that their bleak and barren churches are spiritually depriving the poor, starving their very souls. Denying them the one place where their senses should be swimming in beauty, the refuge from the ugly harsh world. The Church.

Beauty picks up where words leave off. It breaks my hurt every time I step into a white washed church devoid of beauty and love. I am reminded of an interaction between two small children I met in a library several years ago. They hungered for beauty like a baby hungers for milk. This is our instinct. God intended us to enjoy beauty, that is why He gave us the ability to create. To deny beauty is to deny God.

Read this short treatise on Beauty and Truth from the beginning, for it is only 2-3 short paragraphs longer than that which I have written here. And I omitted some of it to ensure that if I quiz you, you'll be able to identify it.

Read it and nod, and then...and then.....

PRAY

Engaging the World

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, my blog patron, so I had initially intended to write this post in his honor.

A few weeks ago I was doing an internet search for a project at work, and came across a book written by one of my college professors, Dr. Benjamin Wiker.  The book in question, 10 Books that Screwed Up the World: and 5 Others that Didn't Help, which takes on the work of Nietzsche, Marx, Hitler and others, invited me by the title alone to click on the link to Amazon.com. My curiosity piqued by the numerous reviews, both good and bad, I decided to read a few to see what they contained and why this book seemed to be getting such extreme reactions (from many 5-stars to many 1-stars).

The positive reviews engaged the work itself and the research, contained some constructive criticism, some criticism that revealed the person in question had perhaps missed the point of the book but enjoyed it nevertheless, encouraged others to read it, etc. Some reviews were more detailed than others. Some were written by other professors, others by people just like you and I, mere pewsitters seeking to engage our intellects.

The negative reviews were often a mishmash of ad hominim attacks, strawmen, slinging labels around, casting aspersions upon Catholics specifically, Christians and Christianity in general. A few blustery people identifying themselves as professors ranted that Dr. Wiker's book is what is going wrong in academia today, and very few of the negative reviews were objective, taking on only the work and not getting personal. In other words, very very few of the negative reviews (of those I read) actually had any merit whatsoever.

As a disclaimer, I have not read Dr. Wiker's book so this post is not about its merits or disqualifications. Rather, I'm using this as an example of something I see in the Catholic world, to encompass the entire Christian worldview, as being a factor in why so many people seem to be making an exodus from Christianity, and I'm doing this because one negative review in particular stood out as something diametrically opposed to what we as Catholics have always done and need to do...but aren't doing.

Is your interest piqued yet?

One of the commenters on the negative side identified himself as a Christian (I think he called himself specifically an "Evangelical Christian" but I'm not certain) and said he read the book, thought it a waste of time and quite arrogant to take on such great minds. The gist of his opinion was that if one does not like those philosophers, one should not study them and leave them instead to others who agree with them. He did not see any value in taking a critical look at their thoughts and his review outright told people not to buy the book, but instead save their money and put it in the collection basket at Sunday services.

Wow.

That one left me scratching my head. A Christian saying it is arrogance to be critical of the thoughts and writings of those who have had a huge impact on the world we live in today? A Christian stating it is a waste of intellect? Really?

Truly, that attitude was condemned long ago, for it was Tertulllian who decided that since philosophy was not divine revelation, it was useless. Instead of using philosophy at the service of theology, he threw it all out.

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS engaged the world, from the very beginning. She has used the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, has engaged philosophers both ancient and those emerging, throughout history, using what is good, refuting objectively what is contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation.

To state that we should not engage "great minds" is in fact one of the most anti-intellectual things I have ever read, and yet...it does not surprise me that a Christian would state it. I am grateful that it was not a Catholic who said such a thing, although it would not surprise me. As it is I know very few average Catholics who would even glance at such a book, much less ask why it is important or not important.

The commenter I cited above still gets some credit; he did, after all, read the book, and then simply gave his opinion based upon his own philosophy without wasting words. Fair enough. I'll not be taking his advice, however!

 Anti-Intellectualism in the Church

There seems to be an epidemic of this in some circles, although it takes different forms.

There are those who refuse to watch any television at all, for they disagree with the content, ergo it is all bad, every bit. There are those who refuse to go to movies because Hollywood produces so many immoral works, ergo, anything on the big screen is morally damaging.

There are books that contain bad theology, philosophy, or bring up moral issues in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching...ergo they must be avoided at all cost and nothing like them ever allowed into the house.

Yes, I am giving some extreme examples, and I certainly am not trying to imply that those making certain personal decisions about these things is necessarily anti-intellectual. Rather, I am simply trying to give some common examples to illustrate my point - I leave it to you, the reader, to determine what fits.

I am going to give one specific example from my own position, and it's one that may shock some or many of you.

Over Thanksgiving, my brother introduced me to a Shotime production, Dexter.

For those who are not familiar with it, Dexter is a forensic technician; a blood-splatter specialist working in the Miami PD. He also happens to be a serial killer who takes out other serial killers and notorious criminals. In the show, we hear his thoughts, his interior struggles, the psychology of his condition, his attempts at normal relationships with others, etc.

I'll admit it; I was hooked!

Looking at the show through a theologian's eyes, I'm intrigued by the moral dilemma that makes us, the viewers, root for Dexter to get away with his objectively evil crimes. I'm intrigued by the other characters in the show facing their own moral problems, which seem to be exacerbated by a total lack of religion at all. It is almost a completely secular show, with only random insertions of Catholicism or other religions by way of symbols or celebrations that reveal the background of a character. Still, religion and spirituality do not play a part other than to set a particular scene - it is merely wallpaper having no bearing on the lives of the characters we see.

Now...I'll watch the show, and as an adult with a certain moral formation and professional background, looking at it through a particular filter, I see Dexter as an opportunity to engage the world and the culture, as I'm doing now by discussing it here in a place seemingly as unlikely as a Catholic blog. Yet, this is the PERFECT place for it is exactly what the great Catholic intellectuals would have done.

DISCLAIMER!  I would not, if I had children, allow them to see it, and I would never suggest that a sensitive person see it, someone who can't handle violence or is not prepared to handle the strong moral dichotomies presented. Therefore, dear readers, do understand I am not giving this show a blanket promotion, but rather, using it to illustrate the fact that we must engage the world if we are to convert it.

What do I mean? Why am I even TALKING about this?

I mean that we must be familiar with those things that are popular, and be prepared to discuss those things. Doing so is not necessarily apologetics, but simply an acknowledgement that there's a LOT of stuff out there that IS affecting people and their moral formation, both positive and negative. We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't there, then send our children out to be traumatized. Parents are in a delicate place, trying to protect their young, yet needing to prepare them for what will bombard them when they leave their homes.

Those of us who can, should be taking note of what's going on around us, and using the intellect that we have to engage it, to think critically about it, to see what is good, what can be used as an illustration, what can be used an an example of moral degeneration.

All too often, shows such as Dexter reveal a great deal about our society as a whole, giving a snapshot, for example, of the truth that where religion is merely wallpaper, virtue cannot flourish.

It can't stop there, though; what does that tell us? How does recognizing that point drive us to action on behalf of the Kingdom of God? What does that cause us to realize about the moral condition of people everywhere, in a country where more and more faith is a mere decoration? What does that say about where we are headed, and what, as Catholics, can we do about it?

I'm no expert

However, if you want a great example of someone engaging the world on the world's terms, check out Fr. Barron's Word on Fire. He has several video commentaries addressing popular movies, shows, etc., and I admit that his way of doing this is what has inspired me to lose my own fear of confronting, head-on, things that I know up front are contrary to my own beliefs.

We can't run away from the problems in our society or what causes them, but we can confront them, criticize them, take what is good and in the light of the intellect God gave us, reveal the shadows that seek to destroy our souls.

Now, all that said...

I need to go find a copy of Dr. Wiker's book, 10 Books that Screwed Up the World: and 5 Others that Didn't Help because all the snarky, anti-intellectual, and outright nasty reviews tell me that a certain faction wants this book quashed, and the ethicist who wrote it quashed as well. Given the state of our world today, that means I should be reading this book so that I can better engage the bad philosophies that have done so much damage.  ;-)

St. Thomas Aquinas - pray for us! 

The Distinction between "Ministry" and "Apostolate" and Why it Matters

Question: On the importance of the distinction between the terms “ministry” and “apostolate”

Objection 1: It would seem that the term “apostolate” would apply to the successors of the apostles and the term “ministry” has a more universal application and understanding.

Objection 2: One who engages in ministry should be termed “minister”.

Objection 3: It seems the distinction is unnecessary because many who minister are in an apostolate and vice versa. To wit; it is unnecessary because the terms are not mutually exclusive nor are they necessarily mutually inclusive.

On the Contrary, it is important to draw the distinction in terms, for, as many theologians have noted, a lack of distinction in terms has led to larger consequences as it applies to doctrines taught by the Church with regard to ministry. In 1994 John Paul II stated, “It must be admitted that the language becomes doubtful, confused and hence not helpful for expression the doctrine of the faith whenever the difference ‘of essence and not merely of degree’ between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is in any way obscured." (LG, 10) He also stated in the same document, “We cannot increase the communion and unity of the church by ‘clericalizing’ the lay faithful or by ‘laicizing’ priests.” (1)


I answer that although the definitions of the two terms, “Apostolate” and “Ministry” have not been formally defined to complete satisfaction, in a review of several official Church documents it becomes clear that the words do have specific applications. We can note especially that the Vatican II documents (see especially Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) exclusively used the term “Apostolate” to apply to the work of the laity in carrying out the mission of the Church in the world. The word “minister” and “ministry”, in fact, has both historically and, as emphasized in Vatican II only applied to those who have received Holy Orders.

Reply to Objection 1: It would seem that the term “Apostolate” has a wider application. “Every activity of the Mystical Body with this in view goes by the name of “apostolate”; the Church exercises it through all its members, though in various ways.” (2) However, throughout history, the term “ministry” has been restricted to apply only to the activities that flow from Holy Orders in the sacred actions of word and sacrament. Vatican II, as well was very specific in its use of “ministry” as applicable to the work of the Ordained Ministers, and the term “Apostolate” to the work of the laity, especially as it applies in the world. Apostilicam Actuositatem emphasized especially the right and duty of the Catholic faithful to carry out apostolic activity in the Church’s work of sanctifying the world. “From the fact of their union with Christ the head flows the laymen’s right and duty to be apostles. Inserted as they are in the Mystical Body of Christ by baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation, it is by the Lord himself that they are assigned to the apostolate.” (3) It would seem, therefore, that the term “Ministry” applies properly to the Ministerial Priesthood which is granted specifically through Holy Orders, and the term “Apostolate” applies to the Lay Faithful which is granted and nourished by Baptism and Confirmation.

Reply to Objection 2: The use of the term “minister” has been reserved for the ministerial priesthood; that is, those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders and have taken on the character of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The work of the priest, that is, his ministry, flows from that sacramental character to minister to the people of God in exercising the offices of Priest, Prophet, and King. The 1983 Code of Canon Law extended the privilege of admitting some of the laity to participate in certain liturgical or catechetical offices. This work of the laity in those offices, however, flows not from Holy Orders itself, but out of their own foundation in Baptism and Confirmation, and granted only through the commission of a Priest or a Bishop. Those of the laity who participate in the work of the Priest in the work that does not absolutely require Clergy, such as in liturgical positions (Cantor, Lector, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) have an extraordinary character; it is a privilege, not a right and it has limited scope.

In Christifideles laici, John Paul II discussed the fact that although the 1983 Code of Canon Law allowed for lay persons to exercise certain ministries normally belonging to clergy, “…the exercise of such tasks does not make the lay faithful pastors: in fact a person is not a minister simply in performing a task, but through sacramental ordination. Only the Sacrament of Orders gives the ordained minister a particular participation in the office of Christ…” (4)

It would be totally inappropriate for one who serves as a Lector, for example to refer to himself as a “Minister”. It is proper in that case, however, for him to understand that he participates in ministry. Likewise, the teaching office of the Church which flows through Holy Orders may be carried out, through commission, by the laity. In this case, it would be proper for the lay people who do the work of catechesis, that is, handing on the Faith, to recognize that their work is a ministry which is a participation in the ministry of the Priesthood. However, a catechist is not a minister; but rather, enjoys a participation in the ministry.

Reply to Objection 3: Certainly it can be observed that the Clergy participates also in Apostolate, and in some cases, the Lay Faithful are granted the privilege of participating in the Ministry of the Priesthood. However, this does not make the terms mutually exclusive or inclusive, which is why the distinction in terms is clearly necessary. Christifideles laici revealed that in the Synod Assembly, there was a critical judgment voiced regarding a too-indiscriminate use of the word “ministry”. This over-use caused “…the confusion and equating of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the lack of observance of ecclesiastical laws and norms…the tendency towards a ‘clericalization’ of the lay faithful and risk of creating…an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the Sacrament of Holy Orders.” (5) As stated above, in the replies to the first and second objections, the use of terms in Objection 3 are founded upon a lack of definition of terms and thus a misunderstanding of the character belonging to each term and inherent mission indicated by it. To properly distinguish “ministry” and “apostolate” is truly revelatory of the mission of the Church and the complimentary roles and charisms that belong to both clergy and laity from within their specific areas of responsibility. The Church cannot exist without the Lay Apostolate; nor can the Lay Apostolate exist without the Ministry of the Priesthood.

----------------


ENDNOTES:

1. Address of John Paul II, April 22, 1994
2. Apostolicam Actuositatem, 2
3. ibid, 3
4. Christifideles laici, 23
5. ibid.


Note:  This was a paper written for Pastoral Theology in May, 2010.