RAPE and The Use of Language

Right now I'm fighting HARD to maintain charity, although to be honest, I've already lost it tonight, and I'm still trying to figure out how to be sorry enough to take it to Confession.  

There are few things that really get to me, and strike me right to the core of my heart and soul. There are few things that terrify me to such a degree I'd rather die a thousand horrible deaths than suffer it. 

I'm arachnophobic, very obviously so, but I'd rather allow spiders to crawl all over me than suffer what so many women and men survive every minute of every day:  RAPE 

What has set me off?  I saw that word used today in frivolous terms.  I fully believe that the person using the word "rape" has never experienced the violation of body and soul, and likely has never had anyone close to him suffer it, either.  He's likely not a person to whom it would ever happen. The reality is that to him, "rape" is just a word used in frequent news headlines, and the many euphamisms that discuss it probably make it seem like a word as normal as "terrorist" or "homicide" or "airstrike".  

Oh, wait. I see the problem. 

When, exactly, did those words become "normal"?  

We live in a violent society.  Words, especially words involving sexual connotation, are tossed around like confetti.  And all too often, what is supposed to be the most sacred, holy act a human being can do is twisted and turned into perversion, or violence...anything other than what God intended it to be.  I was raised to believe that sexual relations is a participation in God's own creative power, and even a further participation in salvation.  It is supposed to be intimate, beautiful, personal, loving...and productive.  Perhaps that product isn't always children, but more of a unitive aspect of self-giving and trust between a man and a woman who have become one flesh through the Sacrament of Marriage.  

Call me naive.  

Yet what has happened?  It goes all the way back to Eden; before the fall, Adam and Eve were naked without shame. After the fall, what was the FIRST thing they did?  They covered themselves. Why?  Because suddenly, they had ceased to be persons, but had become objects of desire. Even before they hid themselves from God, they hid themselves from EACH OTHER.  

Fast forward to today.  We can't get away from sex. It's everywhere. It's in our faces. If we want to be chaste, we are attacked.  The idea of celibacy is attacked and "experts" tell us it's unhealthy while they go on and on actively encouraging the various perversions that cause various ongoing mental illnesses and ongoing victimizations. 

I know what you're thinking.  

You're thinking that because the word "rape" used frivolously is offensive to me, it must have happened to me. You're psychoanalyzing me. 

Admit it. 

It's OK..I do it, too. Having worked a long time in mental health, it's a side effect to make such assumptions. In fact, I work really hard NOT to profile people, because, in reality, even if I'm right, it's a violation of that individual's privacy. To a degree, that kind of profiling can be helpful in aiding someone, in understanding them, and reacting to them in a professional manner. To another degree...it's an abuse of one's position and knowledge, it's an affront to the dignity of the person you've made an unwitting target, and it COULD be a detriment to the reputation of that person, whether you are right or wrong about them.  

I'm not going to answer whether it's happened to me or not, because the question is irrelevant.  To suggest I'm offended because it might have happened to me is to say that those who have not experienced such a horrible violence can't get involved because they know nothing about it. Conversely, if I were to say that it has not happened to me, you would muse that the offense comes from some other source, not the actual act of violence itself, and therefore I must be upset by something else, something very Freudian or Jungian?

Sound about right? 

You don't get that answer. It's irrelevant. And no matter what you decide about it...you're wrong. 

The reality is this:  if you use words like "Rape" frivolously to discuss what one sports team is doing to another, you've crossed a boundary.  

If you notice, even MEDIA outlets, those known to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to use words to overdramatize actions refrain from using "rape" from anything other than what it is.   They will use other euphamisms, and even non-mainstream news outlets will watch certain words.  No doubt it won't be long before that changes, but let's be thankful for that blessed respect where we can get it, ok?  

Words Implicate the Soul

When I was in law enforcement training, we had a class in interviewing. Everything I learned there has actually been bourne out, spiritually, for me.  Those things of which we are guilty we tend to talk around.  If you talk to a person about whether or not he set a house on fire, if he is guilty, he will say that he was never near the house, he will say that he never lit matches near the house...he will never use the words "set fire" or even "fire'.  If you talk to someone who has just murdered someone, they will say they never "harmed" that person. They will do everything they can to soften the terms used.  

If you talk to a rapist, that man will never use the word "rape".  If DNA evidence is present, he will use the words "sex", "intercourse", vulgar terms, and if it is suggested that he raped the woman, he will say, "she wasn't forced to do anything."    He talks around the word. A truthful person will use the word. 

Why?  Because they accept that violent word as meaning something horrible and they CONDEMN the horror of the act.  Only one who condemns the act can find the strength to say the word. 

This reality is being lessened in our world, where violent words are becoming frivolous and even pretentious slang.  

We are being desensitized, every day, to acts expressed through language. Connotations are being changed. We are being lulled.  We are being manipulated into a Pavlovian universe where bad is being made to seem good. 

And yet...if we speak out at the wrongness of this manipulation, we are villified. We are bullied. We are ridiculed. 

What disappointed me most tonight is that the person who caused the offense is supposed to be one of the "good guys."  He's supposed to be, and presents himself as being one of those who respects the role of women and the role of men.  

And yet, he didn't see a problem with his word usage. I'll not name him, it doesn't matter. Sadly, he represents too many men, and even too many women who would also not see the problem.  Even further, this person claims that because other women have not claimed to be offended, they must not be so. 

How sad.  Firstly that apparently offense against the dignity of the person comes from someone who should know better. Secondly, because he assumes that because other women have not spoken up, they must not be offended, and because that non-vote of silence was taken, perhaps I don't have a right to be offended.  

I AM offended, I have the RIGHT to be offended, and DAMN IT, as long as such abuse occurs, I am GOING to be offended, and I REFUSE to apologize for standing up for what is right!  

Language is important!  We need to stand up and refuse to be cowed, refuse to be intimidated by people who suggest we be more "tolerant", who suggest we "calm down", or that maybe we don't have the right to have an opinion to something clearly stated. 

When I worked in psych, I once had a patient who had more than enough ability to overpower me suggest, in anger that a certain waif of a staff person be raped because of the limits she set.   I've had multiple patients suggest, in all sincerity, "You should get raped, b***".    

I've been in positions, at work, where that could have happened. 

"RAPE" is NOT a frivolous word. It's an act of the worst kind of violence that can ever happen to someone, male or female.  It means something. Something more awful than anything any of us want to imagine.  Worse than many of us COULD imagine. 

We need to take care in how we use language. Are we desensitized to its true meaning?  Are we desensitizing others?  Are we offended but afraid to speak up for fear we might be attacked?

Doesn't that SAY something?  

People, speak up!  We Christians are being accused of "hate speech", but in reality, we've been experiencing it for a long time. They're just changing the definition because we've let it happen. We've let people who speak for evil desensitize us to violent words such that we don't see the violence in them anymore. We let people who speak for evil change the legal definitions such that they twist the meanings in order to silence our protests as we try to live out holiness and speak for God.  

I, for one, am not willing to stand for this.  Are YOU? 

Unceasing Desire; Unceasing Grace

This morning as I sleepily drank my morning coffee, I came across a quote from St. Augustine, compliments of Catholic Spiritual Direction:

“But there is another and interior way of praying without ceasing, and that is the way of desire. Whatever else you are doing, if you long for that Sabbath, you are not ceasing to pray. If you do not want to cease praying, do not cease longing. Your unceasing desire is your unceasing voice.”

- St Augustine

It made me sit up and pay attention. I've written before of praying without ceasing, but I've never seen this quote, or this aspect. 

Who HASN'T had that longing for God?  You leave Mass, but really would prefer to just remain, there at the foot of the Cross, having just partaken of the Sacrifice of Christ.  Who hasn't had to leave Adoration, preferring to remain there in the blessed silence of the chapel, alone with Jesus, the only one who understands you, knows you more intimately than you know yourself...and loves you anyway?

Have you ever gone about your day, wishing you could go to Mass, desiring to spend time with the Lord in prayer, longing so desperately to be with Him that you're almost ready to just fall down in the spot where you stand and BEG to be transported to Him? 

Consider Psalm 63:

O God, you are my God, for you I long; 

for you my soul is thirsting

My body pines for you

like a dry, weary land without water

So I gazed on you in the sanctuary

to see your strength and your glory. 

For your love is better than life...

On you I muse through the night

for you have been my help;

in the shadow of your wings I rejoice.

My soul clings to you;

your right hand holds me fast. 

Or

  Psalm 42: 

As a deer longs for flowing waters

so longs my soul for thee, O God. 

My soul thirsts for God

for the living God.

When shall I come and behold the face of God? 

I am constantly struck by the writings of the Saints, and the Psalms and readings in the Liturgy of the Hours.  How human are the expressions, the emotions, the reality of the blessed agony arising from a soul sincerely seeking God! 

Perhaps we can't remain in active prayer all day, but sometimes God grants us the consolation of that deep interior longing, and that longing itself is an expression of His grace.  It's not an emotion, but something far deeper. It is a sense of almost abandonment, yet...even that can't cover it. It's a sense of constantly reaching out for God, knowing He is there, and there is not a void, but a real presence. That longing isn't in vain, but in fact, as St. Augustine explains, is a very real connection to God. It is ongoing prayer, one so deep that it goes far beyond any words we can express, perhaps beyond our own physical presence?  

How often do we go to Mass, and we're not even engaged?  How often do we go to our regular Adoration hour, or pray the rosary...while our minds wander?

At times, it may be for our spiritual good that we are deprived of these devotions, but longing for something greater.  Deprivation of the Sacraments may, in a devout soul, increase fervor for God.  How pleased must God be if we leave Mass, or perhaps are deprived from attending Mass...and long so deeply for God that our longing cannot find coherent expression, but instead forges its own connection to God, leading us ever-closer to Him?  

I'm so grateful for the availability of the Sacraments where I live, for I can go to Confession any day of the week, I have multiple opportunities for Mass, and so that longing for God can be satisfied. Yet, it still remains unfulfilled in some dimension, for as long as we wander this world, we are pilgrims.  Our Lord in His mercy remains with us in the Blessed Sacrament, but until we are called to leave this world, we will have that unfulfilled longing that will only be satisfied when we are sanctified in His eternal embrace.

Our longing for God is an agonizing, joyful grace, and may it ever be present, constantly beckoning us towards greater sanctification.  Amen.

*

The Good Shepherd Lives

Last weekend we celebrated Good Shepherd Sunday, and I spent that day working on a paper on Luke-Acts for my New Testament class.

As I read again the narrative of the birth of Christ, suddenly I was struck by the fact, and the inherent symbolism of those first told of the birth of Our Lord: the Shepherds.

His very birth itself, the very location, of course, makes this call to the Shepherds obvious, for Jesus was not born into a pristine stable akin to the ones found at Churchill Downs, but rather, a cave. The caves that skirt Bethlehem, to this day, are used in the same way; to protect the flocks at night. This is where Jesus Christ was born.

Our Lord, the Good Shepherd, was born in a place used to shelter sheep, and was placed in a wooden manger, from which those sheep might be fed.

St. Leo the Great declared that the wood of the manger is that of the wood of the Cross, so we see that immediately from birth, our Good Shepherd was being prepared, as the gospels say, to lay down his life for his sheep.

Yet there is another connection; the Shepherds themselves. The Angelic messengers were sent to the Shepherds by God to call them to the side of Christ as He lay in the manger.

Are you seeing what I am seeing? Are you seeing the pattern emerging?

The Shepherds...shepherds...were CALLED by God (via the Angels), to go to the side of Christ as He lay in the manger.

The Shepherds were called to the SIDE OF CHRIST. 

33 years later, the Church would be born out of that precious side, from the very act Jesus proclaimed in the gospels in such eloquent terms; for Jesus is the Good Shepherd who laid down His life for the flock. He laid down on the Cross, and then was lifted up, drawing all men to Himself, and there, from His pierced side, the Church was born.

What did the Shepherds do when they left the side of the Infant Jesus? They proclaimed the Good News, the birth of the Messiah. They proclaimed the miracle. They were first called by God, and then sent to fulfill His will. The Shepherds...proclaiming the Good Shepherd who was born amidst a flock and laid in the wood of the manger. (Luke 1:8-20)

But there's more, isn't there? What is the Priesthood? Who are the Bishops? 

Pastors. Shepherds.

Who proclaim the good news and by laying down their own lives, they lead us through the Cross and into Eternal Salvation.  

Have you seen a Bishop's crosier lately?

Just as the Shepherds were called to the side of Christ and sent to proclaim the good news of His birth, so was the Church born out of the side of Christ, Apostles called to the scene of His Resurrection, and the Holy Spirit sent to the Apostles to continue the saving mission of Christ:  to preach the Good News, to bring Christ to the world, yet in a perfect fulfillment of the New Covenant. For the Shepherds today, too, are called to proclaim the Gospel, but with a profound authority that can be given only by God to those whom He calls, they bring Jesus Christ to His people, for it is the Good Shepherd Himself who continues to feed His flock through their hands. 

Just as the call to the Shepherds in Luke was expressed through the Angelic messengers, so today is the call and the authority passed on today through Holy Orders, for God speaks clearly through those to whom He gave the authority. (John 20:21 ff,  Luke 9: 1-2,  Acts 6:6)

It is this image, this proleptic image of the shepherds called to the side of the Infant Jesus that struck me on Sunday as I realized the eternal call of Christ to those who would Shepherd in His place, in His name, through His direct authority.  

In and through them, the Good Shepherd is brought to us, is fed to us, body, blood, soul, and divinity.  They, who have been called to the side of Christ, to enter into His wounds, to become one with Him, so that we might all have life within us.

  

If there were no Shepherds to offer the Sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, to come after us when we are lost, to call us again to the side of the Good Shepherd, we would be lost forever.  We would be taken by the wolves that roam so freely.  

We know our Good Shepherd, and we know those who stand in His place, and through them, we heed His voice and are fed, not just the Word, but the entirety of salvation. 

Our Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ the High Priest, did not lay down His life in vain, but continues to live through those He has chosen and who have answered that Call.  He comes to us through their consecrated hands, made present among us and uniting us in Holy Communion of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.  Jesus claims us as His own through Baptism, completed in Confirmation, and speaks through His Priests in the Sacrament of Confession. He passes His authority through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.  He heals and brings salvation to us through the Sacrament of the Sick. 

 

All through the hands and authority of those chosen to Shepherd and guide we, His flock.  

Thank you, Jesus, for the gift of your Priesthood, and for all those you have chosen and called to serve in your place.  

*

A Married Priesthood?

In my last job, I worked with a man who was an Evangelical Pastor - part time.

He had once had his own community, of which he was the Pastor, and was very candid with me with regard to some of the struggles he and his family endured.  At the time of these conversations, I was in the beginning of my conversion back to the Church, had fallen in love with Christ, and was happy to have a friend with whom I could speak of theological and spiritual things.  He had been raised Catholic himself, but had left the Church in favor of an Evangelical belief system, and still had a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church. Of course, he clearly disagreed with many of the teachings, especially that of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist, but supported a celibate clergy.

Why?

In the Catholic worldview, it comes down to the meaning of Vocation, and, in the Latin Church, the discipline of a celibate clergy.  There are many who take the position that ending this discipline would also end the "vocations crisis".  I've said it before and I'll say it again;  the bigger crisis is that of catechesis and, even more greatly still...logic.   

My friend described to me why he was no longer in full-time ministry.  He loved his wife. He loved his family;  he was vowed to them and dedicated to them.  Yet, as Pastor, he was also dedicated to his church.  His flock needed him, often at all hours of the night.  It put a strain on his family, it put a strain on him, and  finally he realized he had to make a choice between being a Pastor to his flock, or being a Father to his family.

He chose his family. In the Roman (Latin) Catholic world, we explain it thus:  Marriage and family is his Vocation.  Everything is secondary to that.   

He disagreed with that assessment, of course, but it's all semantics.  After all, he was Evangelical.  If he agreed, he would have returned to the Catholic Church. 

But I digress.  This afternoon, Fr. Pelletier directs us to an article written by Patricia Dixon,  now Catholic, but writing to us from her perspective of her time as a Protestant Pastor's wife.  She doesn't just address the oft-cited financial considerations, but the spiritual and emotional impact as well.  

I suspect that the issues she addresses would have my friend nodding right along, and perhaps even our Eastern Rite Catholic brothers and sisters might agree.  If I have any Eastern Catholic readers, especially clergy, I'd love their take on Mrs. Dixon's words. 

Here is an excerpt from her article: 

On top of this, a pastor's wife and children are themselves without pastoral care. No man, however talented or dedicated, can be pastor and husband or father to the same people. The objectivity required of the pastoral role is missing. But the minister's family cannot seek spiritual direction and sustenance elsewhere; loyalty and the need to avoid the appearance of a split in the family require that they remain at his church. When the father's career and the family's spiritual life are one and the same, the spiritual life suffers badly.

A priest or minister is seldom off duty. Any family activity is likely to be interrupted, often for the most trivial of reasons. A vacation at home is impossible for a clergyman's family; if he's around, he's assumed to be available to his flock. The bum-out rate among Protestant pastors is very high. If relaxing the celibacy rule increases the number of priests, it will have to increase it enough to make up for the large number who will leave the priesthood when they, like so many of their Protestant colleagues, find the toll it takes on the families impossible to accept.

Now, I will address one thing, because if I don't, guaranteed it will come up in the combox:   she takes a parish that is non-typical as her example, no doubt to be able to provide for the most obvious and most difficult situation, although under the premise that it is already an affluent parish.   I actually attend a parish that matches her scenario to some degrees, (affluency...not too sure about that. Not in my city),  and as I know that only 49-51% of ALL REGISTERED FAMILIES actually contribute to the parish...the prospects of providing for a married Priesthood gives me shivers. 

If we allow a married priesthood, we can kiss all of our beloved parish homes goodbye. 

Please read her article, ESPECIALLY if you are in the camp that thinks a married priesthood is the way to go.  Please consider the words of a woman who has been there, look beyond the political view you might hold, and see the reality of the impact upon the priest, the family, and the parish if the Church were to drop the discipline of celibacy. 

If we truly love our priests, if we truly pray for them, then we should be desiring their good, as they desire ours. It seems to me that a married priesthood as the norm would be destructive to us all.

Today is the world day of prayer for Vocations. Pray.

If we want more priests, the answer is not to change the discipline, but to pray, fast, and sacrifice for those who may have a Vocation to answer that call so that they may offer the Sacrifice of the Mass on our behalf.  

Pope John Paul II's Prayer for Vocations

Holy and provident Father, You are the Lord of the vineyard and the harvest and You give each a just reward for their work. In your design of love You call men and women to work with You for the salvation of the world. We thank You for Jesus Christ, your living word, who has redeemed us from our sins and is among us to assist us in our poverty. Guide the flock to which You have promised possession of the kingdom. Send new workers into your harvest and set in the hearts of pastors faithfulness to your plan of salvation, perseverance in their vocation and holiness of life.

Christ Jesus, who on the shores of the Sea of Galilee called the Apostles and made them the foundation of the Church and bearers of your Gospel, in our day, sustain your people on its journey. Give courage to those whom You call to follow You in the priesthood and the consecrated life, so that they may enrich God's field with wisdom of your Word. Make them docile instruments of your love in everyday service of their brothers and sisters.

Spirit of holiness, who pour out your gifts on all believers and, especially, on those called to be Christ's ministers, help young people to discover the beauty of the divine call. Teach them the true way of prayer, which is nourished by the Word of God. Help them to read the signs of the times, so as to be faithful interpreters of your Gospel and bearers of salvation.

Mary, Virgin who listened and Virgin of the Word of God made flesh in your womb, help us to be open to the Word of the Lord, so that, having been welcomed and meditated upon, it may grow in our hearts. Help us to live like You the beatitudes of believers and to dedicate ourselves with unceasing charity to evangelizing all those who seek your Son. Grant that we may serve every person, becoming servants of the Word we have heard, so that remaining faithful to it we may find our happiness in living it.

Amen.

Keeping Watch

Our Lord asks, "Can't you keep watch with me for even one hour?"

A couple years ago, in reading Salvifici doloros and Dives in miseriacordia in my John Paul II class, I was brought to my knees in contemplation of the fact that the mercy of God elicits mercy in ourselves. We cannot behold the suffering visage of Christ without ignoring the fact that His condition elicits mercy. 

We cannot offer mercy without becoming entangled within the suffering itself.  

I've written of this a few times, with no comment, for apparently the image that means the most to me leaves others indifferent, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But know that this is an image that I am going to come back to again and again, because theologically, it's important for us all to understand, and it is a point of conversion.  I didn't invent it;  I'm only experiencing the truth of it, and understanding it because of the writings of our dear Pope John Paul II.  

The Passion of Our Lord

When I ponder offering mercy to Our Lord in His Passion, I envision reaching out to the crown of thorns, seeing how they dig and tear into the tender flesh of His head, how heavily the wounds bleed, how hard the enormous thorns pull at His hair which further pulls them into His scalp.  His torturers had POUNDED those thorns beyond His flesh and into his skull.

What terrible agony, what piercing pain, and how the blood must have covered Him, blinding him as it cascaded into His eyes!  

Yet, in that awful suffering, He spoke not a word of rebuke. It was all suffered in perfect silence. 

In the Garden of Gethsemane, in His worst Agony, Jesus knew what was to come, and sweated blood, an actual biological condition.  He felt every blow. He was primed for every scourge. He knew every inch of suffering that awaited, and then befell him.  He knew the sort of suffering and death that was His to bear, for He had first sentenced us to it and then underwent this punishment Himself for we could not have withstood it.  

His moment of abandonment on the Cross, when He surrendered to all, and willfully gave up His spirit...this is the moment to which we all seek to ascend.  Not in morbidity, but in triumph. Not at our own hands, but at the hands of God who knows the proper moment, who calls us to abandonment. 

Knowing this, seeing this, how can we NOT seek to offer mercy?  How can we NOT desire to follow Him to the culmination of His Passion?  

Yet, if we seek to relieve Him, what happens?  In the Garden, if we reach out, does not the blood that He sweats also cover us?  If we seek to offer mercy when He is scourged, how can we unless we stand between the executioners and Our Lord, and allow ourselves to be beaten as well?  Can we offer Him mercy in that moment without taking on that same scourge as that which tears His own flesh from His bones?  

If we seek to relieve Him of the pain from His crown of thorns, is it possible to remove it without being punctured by those same bloody flesh-ripping points?  

Isn't it likely, that if we reach out to Our Lord in mercy, it means we MUST allow ourselves to be entangled within His own suffering, which He undertook for us?  

If we want to offer mercy as we follow Jesus to Calvary, does it not mean that we'll fall a few times?  And just as He was not alone when He fell, if we are in His steps, doesn't it stand to reason another might be conscripted to attend to us?  Perhaps we are the ones sent, but maybe we also need assistance to continue on the way. 

Finally, if we desire to offer mercy to Christ as He is nailed to the cross, perhaps we are not all called to suffer such a death, but are we not called to be PRESENT?  To remain with Him, identified with Him, villified with Him, spat upon with Him, and completely dismissed...with HIM?  

When Jesus asked His disciples to keep watch with Him, He was asking for mercy, but only a little.  In his humility, He did not ask for more, for He knew that real love REQUIRES far more than simply keeping watch.  

Yet, keeping watch is a step, and one that means a great deal. We see in scripture the consolation of the angel in His agony, and some Saints have suggested that the angel represents those souls who desire to be present with Christ, offering Him strength for what He is to do.  Simple human presence, empathy, sympathy.  Caring. 

I got a new perspective on this recently. 

For so long now, I've been so lost in wandering.  Seeing a star but not knowing how to get there to bask in the light.  Last weekend I felt totally abandoned, so lost I thought I could not find my way out.  I was headed to join Judas in the field of blood.  

Upon sharing my defeat with my spiritual director, suddenly I realized the value of having someone else present in the midst of a trial. I realized the other side of suffering alone, and then having someone there who is willing to take on some of that suffering.  To know that each and every scourge to come belongs to me alone, but someone else would be there who knows what it is about and won't leave me to bear it alone. 

Someone who can help me be Peter and not Judas, Mary and not Martha.  

Jeus asks us to keep watch with Him; He asks for our presence, He asks us in the utmost simplicity the easiest thing we have to offer:   ourselves, our presence.  

And if we offer that, He draws us to Him, inviting our mercy. It is that very mercy that draws us further into the depths of Salvation. 

Are any of us keeping watch with Christ tonight, or are we fleeing to the field of blood to be lost forever?

Jesus asks us to keep watch with Him.  He knows, and we know, that ultimately, this is not what He asks.  Keeping watch is the first step, and if we truly love Him, we won't just keep watch, but enter into the full experience of His Passion and death, ultimately reaching for the Resurrection. 

I am so grateful to finally understand the gift of not being alone in the Garden; I'll never read the Passion accounts in the same way again.  I'll never ponder the Agony in the Garden in the same way again, for I think I have finally experienced the simple consolation asked by Our Lord to His Apostles. 

Thank you, Jesus. Give me the grace to follow You through the Cross into the Resurrection. 

Grateful

This afternoon I had a meeting with my spiritual director, and I'll admit, I wasn't looking forward to the meeting. I wasn't sure how I was going to approach what I had to say, or how he would react, what he would say, etc.

While still at home, I mused that I had looked and prayed so hard for an SD, finally found one...and didn't want to go. I also knew that I would never cancel such an appointment, because sometimes the most difficult things can be the most rewarding.

I spent some time in the adoration chapel beforehand, praying. I realized that a few things were converging today: As the first of May, it is the month of Mary. It is the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, and as a First Friday, it is a day dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Even further, my meeting was at 3 pm, the Hour of Mercy. Having long known our Blessed Mother, having long had St. Joseph as a special patron, having forever had the Sacred Heart of Jesus as a primary devotion in my life...well, let's just say I could not ignore the fact that God is and remains present in my life and orchestrated both the day and the time of this meeting.

So I prayed, not just for me, but for my SD, for us, for our meeting, and for trust in God.

My friends, God is good. God is faithful. God is loyal.

Our meeting went well, and as always, I find Father to be very easy to talk to. He is understanding, sympathetic, and objective. And in the course of our meeting, he managed to point out two major issues I need to deal with: control and trust.

They seem so opposed to each other, yet, each has a balance.

I'm not a "controlling" person per se, as I tend to actually let a lot of things go. But that doesn't mean I trust. In fact, I have a very difficult time trusting God and trusting others. I have a hard time letting God take over, and I know WHY this is, but the knowing doesn't help me give God the reins.

It comes down to such simplicity; finding trust in God such that I can let Him take control.  

As my SD pointed out, what's going on right now is learning that trust.  God is doing something major in my life. 

I won't give a rehash of our conversation, but I will say this:  I feel like my life is falling apart. I can watch the threads that hold it all together fading, fraying, and separating.  I'm terrified. I know I'm going to lose everything, and not on my timing and in my way.  I'm still trying to be in control, tie knots to hold things together that maybe NEED to fall to pieces, for they are not useful anymore.  

I told Father of my crisis of last weekend, of wanting to give up, of being so tired.  I also explained that I realize I've lost my focus on God, and need to spend more time with Him, letting HIM decide where I should go and when. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the Holy Spirit guided our conversation, for he used phrases and words that have been in my mind all week.  And he refuses to give up on me. 

There are many in my life who have given up on me, and maybe they were right to do so. But Father won't.  I realize this is part of learning to trust in God, and to let God work as He desires.  

Perhaps it's appropriate that I found, as a spiritual director, one of Christ's own chosen sons;  for I must learn to trust God in conjunction with one who represents Him very directly.  And just as it is the Holy Spirit who acts to bring Christ to His people through the hands of the priests, so it is, in spiritual direction, that the Holy Spirit will bring the voice of My Lord into the depths of my soul through one vowed to serve in His place. 

The mercy of God is endless. 

I hope my depth of gratitude will rise as a font to meet the pefect depths of mercy of Jesus so that there I may be drowned in true life and real sacrificial love as I continue to seek to give myself, without reserve, to Our Lord for eternity.  

More Wisdom from St. Catherine of Siena

Every quote is taken from Dialogue:


"I wish also that thou shouldest know that every virtue is obtained by means of thy neighbour, and likewise, every defect..."

*

"I have told thee how all sins are accomplished by means of thy neighbour...Self-love, which destroys charity and affection towards the neighbour, is the principle and foundation of every evil. All scandals, hatred, cruelty, and every sort of trouble proceed from this perverse root of self-love, which has poisoned the entire world..."

*

"Now I wish to tell thee further, that a man proves his patience on his neighbor, when he receives injuries from him. Similarly, he proves his humility on a proud man, his faith on an infidel, his true hope on one who despairs, his justice on the unjust, his kidness on the cruel, his gentleness and benignity on the irascible."

*
"Wherefore, learn, that, in many cases I give one virtue, to be as it were the chief of the others...to one I will give principally love, to another justice, to another humility, to one a lively faith, to another prudence or temperance, or patience, to another fortitude. These, and many other virtues, I place, indifferently, in the souls...it happens, therefore, that the particular one so placed in the soul becomes the principal object of its virtue; the soul disposing herself, for her chief conversation, to this rather than to the other virtues, and by the effect of this virtue, the soul draws to herself all the other virtues, which...are all bound together in the affection of love.

I have not placed them all in one soul, in order that man should, perforce, have material for love of his fellow."

*
"Therefore I give My servants hunger and desire for My honour, and the salvation of souls, so that, constrained by their tears, I may mitigate the fury of My Divine Justice. Take, therefore, thy tears and thy sweat, drawn from the fountain of My divine love, and, with them, wash the face of My spouse.

I promise thee, that, by this means, her beauty will be restored to her, not by the knife nor by cruelty, but peacefully, by humble and continued prayer, by the sweat and the tears shed by the fiery desire of My servants, and thus will I fulfill thy desire if thou, on thy part, endure much, casting the light of thy patience into the darkness of perverse man, not fearing the world's persecutions, for I will protect thee, and My Providence shall never fail thee in the slightest need."

*

St. Catherine of Siena.... PRAY FOR US!  

St. Catherine of Siena on the Priesthood

I'm not going to give you a bio of St. Catherine of Siena, because today, you can find that bio on almost every other blog, and they all link to the sources from which they are posting. There is no shortage of information on this dear Saint!  

Last Ocbober, I read The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena for a class, and found this to be a life-changing book. It's one that needs to be read over and over again, much like St. Francis de Sales' Introduction to the Devout Life or Thomas a' Kempis' Imitation of Christ.   That said, it's not one I would recommend to someone not familiar with Catholic Doctrine, for while it is a mystical book, it is very doctrinal and manifests a theological depth that is astonishing, especially considering that the one who wrote it could not possibly have known any of these things.  

For those who are not familiar with the book, it is what it claims to be: a dialogue.  In this case, it is a dialogue between God the Father and the Saint, and as such, there's no real systematic format.  She alternately praises God and poses questions, which the Father answers.  One question asked had to do with the dignity of priests; and in fact, there are a series of questions pertaining to the Priesthood. I will only cite this passage, in the hopes it will inspire you to take up this work and read it for yourself in its entirety:
 

I have told thee all this, dearest daughter, that thou mayest the better recognise the dignity to which I have called My ministers, so that thy grief at their miseries may be more intense.  If they themselves considered their own dignity they would not be in the darkness of mortal sin, or defile the face of their soul.  They would not only see their offences against Me, but also, that, if they gave their bodies to be burned, they would not repay the tremendous grace and favour which they have received, inasmuch as no greater dignity exists in this life.  They are My anointed ones, and I call them My Christs, because I have given them the office of administering Me to you, and have placed them like fragrant flowers in the mystical body of the holy Church.  The angel himself has no such dignity, for I have given it to those men whom I have chosen for My ministers, and whom I have appointed as earthly angels in this life.  In all souls I demand purity and charity, that they should love Me and their neighbour, helping him by the ministration of prayer, as I said to thee in another place. But far more do I demand purity in My ministers, and love towards Me, and towards their fellow-creatures, administering to them the Body and Blood of My only-begotten Son, with the fire of charity, and a hunger for the salvation of souls, for the glory and honour of My Name. 

~  Dialogue,  p. 239-240

Who Wants to be a Trollbuster?

Thanks to my dear friend Sr. Mary, I now have a badge to display, and maybe having it will force me to actually write a commenting policy.  

Admittedly, I don't typically have a troll problem because most of what I write isn't polemical, and if it is, I often take it down because it just isn't worth it it keep up. 

HOWEVER, sometimes we all have problems with these little beasts, and so, now we have an image to use to provide fair warning to those who like to attack and run.  

(BTW:  can anyone name that movie?) 

Goin' on a Troll Hunt!

I'm not afraid!

I deleted a troll this morning.  I gotta tellya, I LOVE the smell of trolls in the morning!  It really gets the blood moving!

What's a troll?  A person (I'm assuming personhood here for the sake of charity) who crawls around the internet looking for bloggers or writers with whom to disagree. And then they spout off fun accusations without signing their name so that the author can't respond. 

Now, the one this morning wasn't too bad, and ironically, I would have maybe let it stand if there had been a name attached.  That troll accused me of having an attitude of superiority, closed-midedness, and pride.  

Those, you understand, are the default attacks of a typical liberal. (Not the nice Liberals I addressed a couple posts ago. I'm talking about the raging liberals who are trying to stifle free speech.)  

So, let's break this apart a little:   I have an attitude of superiority.   OK, that's probably true, because of course, this is my blog. And as I write, I'm taking a certain position and creating an "argument" for that position.  But is that superiority, or simply choosing a side and sticking to it?   Hmm.....I'm sure to anyone who disagrees with me, it must look like an attitude of superiority. 

Closed-midedness:  Oh, that one is easy.  Yes. I'm closed-mided. Why?  Because I'm faithful to what the Church teaches and I'm not open to suffering fools who can't be bothered to do anything other than attack.  Buh-bye. 

Pride:  Sure.  But I'm no more prideful than a spineless troll who can't be bothered to actually say something intelligent.  Accusations are just fine, but those who fire away and run are nothing but cowards, and the root of cowardice is pride.  

We've all run into trolls. My favorite troll comment is actually still in existence on my blog;  that person (again, assuming personhood) said that they hoped I would die in a car wreck as punishment for advocating an archaic and closed-minded religion.  Oooh!  There's that word again! 

Here's the thing;  I allow anonymous comments because MOST people who visit my blog, even if they disagree with something I've said, either sign a name at the bottom of their comment or are kind enough to provide some kind of rational discourse.   A troll, however, doesn't have an argument. They simply disagree and instead of actually using the intellect God gave them, they make accusations, and because they know they're being fools, they don't sign their names. 

The reality is that the internet medium invites this kind of thing, whether we like it or not.  I actually EXPECT people to disagree with me from time to time.  However, the fact is that some people (some liberals) don't like it when someone takes a position and holds on to it.  It offends their sensibilities. No doubt these people go around forcing people to "tolerate" all sorts of things, but when someone doesn't cater to their pet ideas, they go into attack snark mode and morph into a troll in hopes someone will be chastized enough to completely reverse their position.  

The idea they could actually enter into a discussion and try to rationally make their own case apparently doesn't occur to them. Nor do they care.  It is not in the nature of a troll to understand what being "open-minded" means, for their minds are so open all the grey matter has leaked out.   It is not in the nature of a troll to be rational.  It is not in the nature of a troll to have a spine.  They must be amoebas. 

Here we don't suffer amoebas, trolls, or fools.  Those who can't disagree without going on the attack don't get to stay.  Even people who agree with me, if they attack others, also don't get to stay.  As a budding Thomist, rationality needs to rule.  

It seems that I will have to formulate my own commenting policy, although I don't know that it will really make a difference.  Trolls, what do you think?

Oh, right. You don't. You just attack.  Go ahead. I'm ready to delete you.  

*

UPDATE!  I just had a COMPLETELY BRILLIANT IDEA!   However, I need someone who can photoshop to create the image.   It's a new group, not limited to Catholic bloggers, but any blogger:    TROLLBUSTERS!   Our motto?  "We're ready to delete you!"    Do I have any talented readers who would like to create the image?  

Liberals and Vocations

Last year, I went to a training function through the Archdiocese, and found myself seated at the same table of a very nice woman who happened to be a DRE responsible for the formation of young souls. 

The topic of Vocations arose, as at the same table was a man from a parish which had been left by a friend of mine who had gone from DRE to cloistered nun.  

Naturally, the connection caused us to discuss Vocations in the Church, and the DRE, the nice lady from the early baby-boomer era asked, "Do women actually DO that these days?"

She was completely flummoxed.  Her only experience with Vocations were the declining statistics and dying communities that happened to share the same hair color.  Boys weren't becoming Priests, girls were too "empowered" to bother entering religious communities. 

She'd never heard of the Nashville Dominicans, the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, or the LA Carmelites. She didn't know about the Sisters of Life or the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles. The idea that women were not only entering into religious life in DROVES, but were doing so in favor of faithfulness to the Magisterium, in favor of the Holy Habit, and, in fact..in favor of the cloister in some cases was a moment of complete amazement.  

She didn't know it was happening. Her entire perception of the Church was that it was dying.  In her experience, there WAS no life.  

I guess that's not too surprising.  

Recently I had a conversation with a "Liberal Catholic" regarding the topic of Vocations.  This person is faithful to the teachings of the Church, but as the other "Liberals" I described in the previous post, she maintains a foot in the secular/political world, and views the Church through this perspective. 

She was familiar with the current process of discernment, in that women (and men) who enter religious life or seminary are not making a permanent decision from the beginning. She knew it took years to take permanent vows. 

Her position is the one that flummoxed ME, for I couldn't really fathom it. 

She said that the Church should change with the culture that doesn't understand permanency, and instead, should make Vocations according to contract.  Five years, maybe. 

She said that she'd be willing to be a nun for 5 years and give that time to the Church, just as she'd be willing to give that time to the Peace Corps.  

I admit, I was so amazed the rest of my conversation was nearly incoherent.  Not in anger, but confusion.  I mean...WHAT?!

She continued in this tack. 

When I had time to settle down and think about it and how to respond, I realized that at her core, she didn't understand what the Church is and remains. She didn't understand the meaning of Vocation.  Which makes sense;  for, as a person who defines herself as a "Liberal Catholic", she would be looking at Vocation through the same cloudy goggles through which she views the rest of the Church, and the rest of the world. 

She has a default position of sympathy for those who don't understand (or even desire) permanency.

And this is so troubling, for our very nature, our very souls, draw us into permanency with our Creator.  Everything we do on earth is ordered towards this end, but we have to cooperate with it.  To do or believe otherwise is disordered.  We are ordered to perfection;  not dischord.  

A lack of permanency is by definition dischord.  

The fact is that the process within a religious community is ordered towards permanency; if it was not, there would be NO Vocations.  We'd see in religious life what we see in marriage. 

As courtship is ordered towards marriage, so is the postulancy and novitiate ordered towards permanent vows. 

Oh, wait. That's the problem.  (Please note that what follows is NOT the position of the person with whom I was speaking.  It is my own musing.)

Look at this through political eyes;  Marriage is no longer seen as a permanent sacramental union. It is seen as a governmental contract for the mutual benefit of better taxes. Oh, and if the couple chooses to stop using dangerous chemicals and environmentally-unfriendly plastic rubbers to prevent them, then it might be beneficial for the raising of children. Who can, actually, be born of a Dish named Petrie and dessimanated and disposed of for embryonic research purposes and re-named "Dolly".  The Matrix come to life.  

I guess I can understand the attitude, given that perspective.  

For if your view of the world is one of hedonism and impermanence, then why WOULDN'T you look at religious life in the same way you view marriage?  

I think most couples these days sign prenuptual agreements, for they tend to assume from the beginning that their marriage won't last. They live together before marriage, for why buy the cow when the milk can be sampled for free?  Why not sample the milk of a TON of cows?  Why does it need to involve love, or sacrifice?  Who needs children? 

Speaking as a woman who has been treated as a cow...why bother to pay for a ring and take a risk on someone who might not be "sexually compatible"?   Give her chemicals!  Try out her paces!  Who cares if the chemicals might kill her, or the paces aren't to HIS liking?  It's all in discernment, isn't it?  

And if you don't like the cow, kill the calf so that there will be none like her...or you.  

So much for permanence. 

Why can't religious life be the same? 

Why?

Because, like marriage  is supposed to be, it is ordered towards permanence.  A religious vocation isn't about building bridges over the River Kwai. 

It isn't about heading down to Guatemala for a few years to give Avian Flu shots to orphans. 

It isn't about going to Africa to fight AIDS.  Or to China to fight illiteracy.  

Those are all very important things, but they can be done with a limited committment. They are acts of mercy that belong to this world, and remain in this world, all of which honor the dignity of the human person both body and soul, for all are children of God. 

But it's not a Vocation to give 5 years of one's life to a charitable act, or even to prayer.  To trivialize a vocation as such is to ignore the import of the sacrifice of one's life. Such an idea is a trivialization of Christ. 

Are we not to be like Christ in all that we do?  And did He NOT experience a complete immolation on the altar of the Cross?  Are we not to do the same?  

The process of discernment alone should rule out those who are looking for temporary gratification.  If that's what you desire...then find a program that gratifies that desire.  It's a worthy cause, and a needed sacrifice especially in a world such as ours that doesn't tend to care for one's neighbor. 

But don't call it a Vocation, and don't try to make a Vocation match a temporary volunteer experience. 

It's not the same thing.  

For those not familiar with the process of Vocational discernment to a religious community:

Step 1:  Aspirancy  - 3 months living with the given community (this may not be a step of all commuinities)

Step 2:  Postulancy:   6 months to a year.  Some wear a veil during this time, some don't.  

Step 3:   Novitiate:   6 months to a year, or more.  This is where they take the habit, white veil but don't take vows.  

Step 4.  Canonical Novitiate - from observation, some cont. to wear a white veil, some change to black.  2nd year novitiate

Step 5.  Temporary vows - 1-3 years

Step 6:  after very careful discernment, permanent vows. 

Please note... the timing changes according to community, but it's NEVER permanent from the beginning. Thus someone can enter with reservations and leave, or enter with reservations...and realize it's home.  The systems is designed for EVERYONE who MIGHT be experiencing a call to that community. 

Ridiculous

I find it completely astonishing that someone who is familiar with this process would suggest that it be changed, and allow for people to enter under a contract; for five years, for example.  

As it is, that's already happening.  That's what the aspirancy, postulancy, and novitiate are for. Never mind temporary vows.  

Further, the way it happens isn't ordered to the WORLD as would be a contract, but to GOD, which is a permanent committment.   

Maybe I'm Old Fashioned. Maybe I'm one of the few who believes in purity and permanency. It wouldn't be the last time I've been ridiculed for such a romantic idea. 

When I dated my last boyfriend, I held out that I was  hoping for marriage.  A longtime friend of his, another woman, also single, said, "It's nice that you can believe in those things, but it's unrealistic."

She laughed at me.  To be looking for a husband...permanently.  (As an aside...she's the same person who told me my "intended" didn't want to break up with me because he thought I'd have a hard time finding someone else.  No wonder she didn't belive in permanence. And why I gave up on it and him. And haven't dated since.)  

And even now, the world laughs, when we as Catholics look for permanency in Vocation, whether through Marriage, the Priesthood or Religious Life. No matter what we've suffered.  

There are those who think the Sacrament of Marriage should be a temporary contract. 

To follow that logic, maybe there would be more married couples if we let them marry only for a contract of five years. At least that way, we'd have fewer divorces.  

Maybe we'd have more priests if we could just ask for a committment of five years; and then, if they sucked at it, at least his people would only have to suffer temporarily. 

Maybe if we have Religious enter for only 5 years, we can get rid of discernment and more people would do it.  

Maybe if the Church was more like political organizations of the world an operated according to democracy and changed according to the philosophy of John Locke, we'd be in a better place. 

Right.  

OR!  

...Maybe if we actually followed the eternal teachings of the Church we'd reap more souls and have more workers for the harvest.   Maybe if parishes stayed faithful to the GIRM and read the SCRIPTURES instead of 60's era poetry there would be more who would find a faith wiling to die for. 

Maybe if ecclesiastical communities that claim to be Catholic would avoid the heretical works of idiotic authors who write easily refuted works such as "Misqoting Jesus" would choose the wisdom of the Church Fathers instead...there would be more Vocations. 

I'm not willing to die for a faith that requires only 5 years from me.  I might give that to a government, but to God...I'd rather give my life.  After all, He gave me His.  

It's not that I don't understand. I'm from a divorced, alcoholic family, and the other parent is bipolar.  Believe me...I know about committment avoidance.  I can understand anyone who wants to reserve something, because psychologically, they (we) need a safety net.  We're damaged in that way. 

But that's not what God wants. He knows our past. He knows everything. And He asks for it all. That's what Vocation  is all about.  All of us...damaged, and hopeful and reserved...all of it.   

If someone asked me for 5 years of my life, I'd refuse. I don't have 5 years to give. At this point, it's my life...or nothing.  If my life isn't called for, then YOU'RE not worth my time.  I'll look elsewhere. 

I may not have a Vocation. But I'm at the point where I'm ready to committ, right now. I'm tired of looking. Not 2 years, not 5 years.  NOW!  Permanent!  

Because if Our Lord is not worth my life...nothing is.  And if He doesn't want it...who does?  

*

Give me a Vocation or Give Me Death.  I can't survive this limbo anymore.

"Liberal" Catholics

This is one of my "musing out loud" posts, so please bear with me. I'm not really sure where it's going but I've got the itch to write and the itch to muse, so it's better to let this tiger from its cage. 

The more I learn about the Church (via Ecclesiology), the more the political terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" become like spiritual nails on a chalkboard. They're completely inappropriate, for one can only fall into two categories as a Catholic:  Faithful (Orthodox) or Unfaithful (Heterodox).  Period. One is either in line with Church teachings, or one is not.  

That's not to say that one cannot ask questions or have personal reservations arising from a lack of understanding, so long as that person, with integrity, remains obedient to the teachings and truly seeks to understand them.  

What does "Liberal" mean?  

Recently I've spoken with a few people who claim to be "Liberal Catholics", and because of some interactions and definitions I've seen by commenters online or in real life, before I leap onto the "You're a Heretic!" bandwagon that seems to be so popular among certain groups of Catholics, I think it might be important to figure out what the term "Liberal" really means. 

One person was a commenter on another blog, and took the blog author to task on his own ground. The blog's author claims to be a "Liberal" and a "Progressive", while denouncing pretty much EVERYTHING that makes up the Church.  The "Liberal Catholic" commenter took care to define his terms, explaining that he was all the things personally that the blog's author claimed to be, but the commenter said he was faithful to the Church, respected the teaching authority of the Magisterium on faith and morals, the importance of the sacraments, the respective positions of the clergy and laity, etc.  I was amazed.  In what he was saying, he was obviously very...orthodox!  I wanted to meet that man and shake his hand for what he said, which he stated firmly, in charity, and through logical definition of terms.   

I've met other people who claim to be "Liberal" but haven't been so forthcoming on their definition of what that means. Some people define themselves as "Liberal" not in relation to the teachings of the Church, but in relation to the Liturgy.  These people would take the place of a child about to be aborted, they are supportive of their clergy, they live and breathe Catholicism and can pray circles around people who claim to be holy and devoted but are actually just mean and spiteful in their otherwise solid knowledge of the Church.  These "Liturgical Liberals" are "liberal" in only one area, in that they have an allergy to anything remotely Latin, although they'll fall all over themselves to attend and support Masses in every other language under the sun, even Klingon.  

The liturgical liberals  have no problem, for example,  with the Mass at the LA Educational Conference (the videos of which send the rest of us into paroxysms of a thousand brutal deaths), for they don't see a problem with songs that glorify the people while ignoring God. They don't see a problem with liturgical dancers in a culture in which this is not the norm (and is actually not permitted).  They've never actually READ the Vatican II documents, especially the one on the Liturgy, preferring to allow themselves to be deceived by people who gleefully tell them what the documents said. 

Never mind that the Novus Ordo as it is celebrated today doesn't even REMOTELY look like the Mass called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium.  But I digress.  Other documents have come along that have permitted most of what we see, and thus, Rome has spoken. But the, those changes should not be blamed on Vatican II, if we are to be truthful. 

And above all, we need to be truthful.  

Liberal is as liberal does

These examples have revealed to me a certain dichotomy in those to whom the label is often applied.  It seems that many who consider themselves to be "liberal" are actually faithful Catholics with questionable taste.  The last time I checked, bad taste isn't a sin.  And in fact, bad taste can be corrected, albeit in charity.

How does a wine snob help a redneck to appreciate anything other than Almaden White Zinfandel?  Through careful steps, one sweet wine to the next.  Perhaps to a better Rose', then to a Gwertztraminer, a Riesling, to a Chardonnay, to a Pinot Grigiot or Sauvignon Blanc. Then on to the Reds!  Start with light-bodied like a good Pinot Noir, moving through the Merlots to the Zins to the Cabs.      (Speaking through experience on this one..I was the redneck who had never had wine that didn't come from a box.)  

How does a Matador help a PETA  activist appreciate the art of bullfighting?   

Um...actually, I haven't figured that one out yet.  Yet the above is a bit more of the image of the infighting in the Church today, isn't it?    

Ahem.... 

A lot of these liturgical liberals aren't aware of the GIRM or the fact that the GIRM is, in fact, Canon Law, and MUST be obeyed.  If they KNEW something objectively defined was wrong, they'd be first in line to come into obedience, even if they disliked the facts.  

There is a downright nasty idea out there that anyone who claims to be a "Liberal Catholic" is willfully disobedient, willfully ignorant, mean, and out to wreck the Church.   That idea is completely unfair, completely uncharitable, and fully out of bounds for anyone claiming to be seeking holiness.  

As I've discovered, and cited above, many who claim to be "Liberal Catholics" are actually fully faithful to what the Church is and what she teaches, and perhaps is actually a bit more open than the rest of us about their favorite sins.  And about their confusion on what the Church is, and what she teaches.  

A Foot in Both Worlds

It is the general faithfulness of many of these "Liberal Catholics" that is a bit of a mystery to me, for on one hand, they profess what I profess and believe what I believe, bowing and kneeling to the same Jesus Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament.  They agree that contraception is wrong, they agree abortion is evil, they agree that the Church has no authority to ordain women, they agree that obedience to the Magisterium is important and more importantly, that Christ gave that authority to the Church. We agree that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, that the Holy Spirit guides and protects us, and that our Bishops are successors to the Apostles.  

Yet invariably, through conversation, their views come into expression and I've found that although they are faithful, they've been secularized, and thus...all of their views, even with regard to Faith, have been warped such that they can ONLY see through the glasses of democratic politics.  

THAT'S how they think they could vote for Obama with a clear conscience. For in their minds, they are rendering unto Caesar while rendering unto God what is God's. To them, it's perfectly logical.   

They stand with a foot in both worlds, leaning more on the secular side. Seeing the Church not through the eyes of the Church and the eyes of objective Truth, but through the eyes of the world.  In short...they are worldly.  

This is recognized in several ways, although I'll only mention a few here:

*  They believe that abortion is the brutal murder of an unborn child and believe that it is an objective evil.  However, because there are people of other beliefs in the world, they do not see that they have the right AND duty to state across the board that it is wrong, for doing so "offends" other beliefs.  They are so ad extra that they see the immoral beliefs of others as being superior to their own.  

*  They do not believe that we have the right and duty to bring our faith into the public square, for there are those who would disagree, and to state the objective Truth which we firmly believe is a scourge to others who do not share that belief and might be "harmed" in their own positions. Thus, preaching Christ to anyone who is not Christian, to them, is not in keeping with the virtue of charity.   They have true love confused with permissiveness. 

* Vocations - this one has me scratching my head a bit, so I'll have to explain this one in more depth in another post.  Suffice to say that just as they don't understand what the Church really IS because they won't take their foot out of the world long enough to find out, so they see ALL of the Sacraments, and Vocations as well.  Their fix for more Vocations is the position they insist on holding:  a foot belonging to Caesar, defining themselves as primarily political, and a foot belonging to the Church, to whom they claim they want to be faithful. 

And in the end, they are torn to pieces because neither position makes sense to either side. 

* 

Now, this is one of those topics that can be inflammatory, and I'm not claiming to be objective about it;  this is my blog and I get to hold my own opinion, my own bias.  If you want biased objectivity, then go to MSM and let them lie to you.  I won't do that; I'm not a journalist and I think journalism as it's practiced today is soulless, cruel, and deceptive. 

That said, I'd be interested in hearing about my readers' observations on this issue, for clearly, the term "Liberal Catholic" even though it's improper, has to be understood from the perspective of the ones claiming the title.  We have to come to understand why they claim to be such, and if possible, if we can understand them, maybe we can help them shed the glasses of the world and see clearly the spikes on the fence they straddle.  

Draft of my commenting policy:  

If you comment, please keep your comments charitable. Humor is fine, no matter what your position, but I reserve the right to decide if someone is crossing a line.  You can even criticize me, for no doubt I've badly phrased something, and fully expect that even in writing this post I'm offending people.  I accept that.  That doesn't mean I'll change my position or wording because the fact is that some people are so thin-skinned a spring breeze is nearly a mortal wound to them. 

MIND YOU!  There are people who profess to be "Liberal Catholics" and are actually outright dissidents for they don't agree with ANYTHING the Church teaches, and in fact, their beliefs are outright heretical. For the purposes of this post, please ignore the Dissidents and in charity, please read what I'm actually stating about those who fit the definitions I am providing. Thank you. 

*

Light and Darkness, Bless the Lord

A week ago, a friend gave me a small tomato plant. I objected, considering that I only get sun for part of the day, and don't have a green thumb. She pointed  out that it was otherwise going to die anyway; why not see if it would bear fruit for me?  If it dies, no loss. 

So I took the plastic cup containing the plant and placed it in the window of my kitchen, planning to purchase potting soil and a much larger pot for it.  

It's been fascinating this week watching this little plant follow the sun.  As the rays land on it, it stretches upward to greet the light, soaking in as much as it can.  As the sun moves, so does the plant, straining to catch every little bit.  

A few years ago a friend who had been a florist told me that flourescent lights can be good for plants, so in a house that gets only partial sun, it may be a way to give the plants what they need.  

Due to this advice, I've been placing my dying aloe plants under the light, and the tomato plant as clos as I can get it.  (The large pot doesn't fit directly under the light).  The same phenomena has been happening as that little plant has been leaning hard over to absorb the light of the flourescent.  

At first I thought it was wilting, but when I looked more closely, I could see the movement was very much directed, very much a part of what this plant is all about.  It needs light to survive and grow.  

It's so ironic that when I got the plant, it was sunny and warm, but the rest of the week has been cold and rainy. Yesterday there was some sunlight, but not enough, and it was too cool to put the plant outside; besides, I fear the ducks and rabbits will attack it!  And so I've been doing my best to keep it alive, providing a source of light, even if that light is not ideal. 

Maybe it's providential that this plant has come into my possession.  Right now I'm in a sort of darkness, unable to see anything.  I can't even see the light that I know is there.  I have doubts about my faith, doubts about God, everything. I look around the shambles of my life and think, "Is this all there is?" 

Because if it is, this is totally not worth it. 

But I know...there has to be something. There has to be more.  And when I got to Mass, and Christ is lifted up, I can't deny that my heart burns within me, and even as I doubt, the other part of my tortured soul cries out "I believe!" 

This passing darkness doesn't mean anything.  It's just a shadow that has fallen over me, and sometimes in shadows our vision grows stronger and allows us to see even more. And sometimes it only seems like we're in darkness because the light of God is so blinding. 

I do not mean to compare this to St. John of the Cross's dark night; I have not achieved that level of holiness.  So many misunderstand the dark night; they think if they're depressed or sad or experiencing dryness in prayer, it's a dark night. They think if God is far from them, it's a dark night. 

No, it's not. 

St. John's dark night was FILLED with God. It wasn't a darkness; God was so close that he was blinded by the light. The dark night is filled with joy, not misery and depression.  

Right now, I am not experiencing joy.  It's not a dark night.   It's a passing shadow and from the depths of this shadow I am like that little plant, reaching for the light I know must be there, because if it's not, I would wither and die.  And that's not how this story ends.  

I really hope that plant doesn't die because right now I need a visible metaphor. 

And maybe stronger coffee. 

*

Night and days, bless the Lord

Light and darkness, bless the Lord

Lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord.